Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Tue, 25 Jun 91 01:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 01:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #703 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 703 Today's Topics: More than 14 astronauts? Re: Crary's Quick Debunkings Re: Tethers (was Re: Laser launchers) Space Station Debate MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE - 07 JUNE SkyPix picture looks good, Sky Cable closes down Re: Death of the Space Station SPACE Digest V13 #608 Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 13:42:05 EDT Resent-From: Harold Pritchett Resent-To: Space discussion group X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 14:38 N From: "Rob A. Vingerhoeds / Ghent State University" Subject: More than 14 astronauts? X-Organization: State University of Ghent X-Organization: Automatic Control Laboratory X-Envelope-To: space@UGA.BITNET X-Vms-Cc: ROB dev8b.mdcbbs.com!rivero@uunet.uu.net wrote: > In article , A20RFR1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU (B > ob Rehak Ext. 3-9437, AIS Central Services - Swen Parson 146) writes: > > > > 14 astronauts? Last time I counted there were only 10. > > > > Apollo I: Grissom, White, and Chaffee. > > STS-61L Challenger: Scobee, Smith, Resnik, Onizuka, McNair, > > Jarvis, and McAuliffe. > > > > A couple have died flight testing aircraft that was not related to > > space exploration and a couple have did in car accidents...I think. > > If Grissom, White, and Chaffee (who died on the ground) are considered > as "Lost in the line of duty", the same should apply to the astronauts > who died in training flights. Just because they didn't make the evening news > doesn't mean that their contributions or sacrifices should go unheeded. > Aren't we counting the losses on the Russian side? The cosmonaut who died before Gagarin ever flew, the three cosmonauts who died during reentry? Rob ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 91 19:49:49 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!cunews!semifs3!testeng1!stanfiel@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Chris Stanfield) Subject: Re: Crary's Quick Debunkings In article <1991Jun5.091743.7972@agora.rain.com> trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) writes: >I would remind those discussing the "face" on Mars that there are quite a few >perfectly natural features here on Earth that coincidentally resemble human >faces (such as the famous "Old Man of the Mountains") or other parts (the "Paps >of Ainu"). I've never been able to figure out why the Martian formation should >be considered of an "occult" or "alien intelligence" origin, while the local >ones are not. > >Anybody care to list other terran formations that resemble faces, etc.? I know >they exist all over the planet... Then, of course, there are clouds. Ever lain on your back watching clouds and trying to identify the shapes? My 9-year old daughter thinks this is great fun. Of course it is only recently that I have been made aware of the fact that this is probably caused by aliens modifying the cloud shapes on the fly with their death rays or by beams of pure thought. :-) Chris Stanfield, Mitel Corporation: E-mail to:- uunet!mitel!testeng1!stanfiel (613) 592 2122 Ext.4960 We do not inherit the world from our parents - we borrow it from our children. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 91 18:41:54 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!explorer@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (James C Krok) Subject: Re: Tethers (was Re: Laser launchers) I missed the beginning of this discussion on tether technology, but I presume it is that people wish to "winch" the shuttle up to the (future) space station. Maintaining an orbit or changing one has little to do with directly lifting an object up further away from the planet. To maintain an orbit, a spacecraft must have a certain tangential velocity dependent on its altitude (radius from core of Earth). If you were to try to winch the shuttle up to a space station, you would wind up pulling the space station down, and changing the orbital velocity of both shuttle and station. Centrifugal force would no longer be able to counteract gravity, and both objects would plummet to the Earth. Likewise, if the shuttle were already at the space station, you could let go of it and it would go nowhere! It would still have its orbital velocity, just like the space station, and could maintain orbit until rarefied gas friction drag slowed it down. It would not pull any sort of tether down. Basically, change in orbital velocity through OMS or RCS firing is the only way to change orbits. J. Chris Krok RPI Explosion Dynamics Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 91 21:04:38 GMT From: prism!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!geomag!cain@gatech.edu (Joe Cain) Subject: Space Station Debate Would you believe my congressman actually and personally called me back? Pete Peterson is agonizing over the Chapman/Lowery amendment, which itself is now being amended. He recommended we tune in on C-SPAN to watch the action which has been going on all day and likely to continue at least another 2 hours before any vote. Someone recently argued on sci.space that we should have worried about the present crisis before the U. S. brought in partners. Well, this morning's New York Time lead editorial "Space Yes, Space Station No" succinctly notes that "The United States cajoled and pressured ESA, Canada and Japan into building modules and equipment for the station. These international partners have already spent more than $1 billion over three years. Stiffing them now would unquestionabley make other international agreements more difficult. But that does not justify throwing tens of billions into a dubious project." They go on to point out that the notion that a space station will eventually be needed as a launching pad for exploring the planets..is a misconception. "..the White House and NASA has proposed several possible missions to the Moon or Mars. Not one would use a space station. The reason..is that a station will seldom be in the right place at the right time. Small wonder the Administration has suppressed this report, from the Sythesis Group, until after today's space station vote." I recommend you find this editorial, as well as the one that is in this week's Time. They make the point that the SSF is not adequate for "Life Sciences Research" nor for microgravity research. The point about the latter is that it is "Far better to do microgravity research on smaller platforms visited by astronauts only rarely." Whatever your opinions, it is an opportunity to contact your personal representative and make those opinions known. Of course Peterson said that maybe all this flail will not have any eventual effect as the real resolution will likely be in a House-Senate conference where indeed no one will know who did what. Call your own representative's staff and maybe you too will become part of the problem,...or the solution if you can think of one. I tried to see if there were some way DOD would be interested in pulling some of their big bucks in this direction, but apparently not only has the budget agreement disallowed funneling DOD money into the civilian area, but also there does not seem to be much NASA-DOD cooperation. For example, I have heard that the United States is spending about $9 billion a year to keep 50,000 troops and their dependents in Japan to protect them from the Russians, and the Japanese are paying nothing for this service. With money like this going down the tube, I find it hard to argue against anything space like and agonize over being backed into such a corner. Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 19:16:32 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: MAJOR GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE - 07 JUNE X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 01:00 UT, 07 June ------------- STORM UPDATE INFORMATION: Geomagnetic storming has presently ended. Generally unsettled to active conditions have been observed since approximately 06:00 UT on 06 June. However, geomagnetic storming is expected to redevelope sometime in the UT day of 07 June. Activity is expected to become major to severe once again as yesterdays major class X12+/3B flare begins to have an impact. The most disturbed day of the period should be 08 June. Geomagnetic activity on that day is expected to be at major to severe storm levels throughout much of the day. Planetary A-indices are expected to range between 60 and 150. Planetary K-indices of between 5 and 8 are also possible. K-indices of 9 will be possible over the northerly middle and high latitude regions. Geomagnetic activity should become more dormant by 10 June, barring further energetic flaring. Major flaring is expected to continue from Region 6659 over the next 3 to 7 days at least. It is maintaining a very potent optical and magnetic configuration and has maintained its overall size. White-light flares from this region may be possible. HF propagation conditions are still well below normal, although improvements have been observed lately. Conditions are expected to become strongly degraded on 07 and 08 June as geomagnetic storming redevelops. Polar latitude PCA activity has blacked out radio signals over many high latitude and polar latitude regions. Absorption levels are currently running at values near 2.8 dB (above event thresholds). PCA and proton activity are expected to continue over the next several days. Protons are currently hovering near 240 pfu at greater than 10 MeV. A significant enhancement in protons could occur if another major solar flare erupts from Region 6659. This region is continuing to move toward the central solar meridian and will therefore become increasingly capable of producing stronger proton impacts. VHF propagation conditions have returned to semi-normal over the past 24 hours, although instabilities and some unusual conditions have been reported. VHF backscatter communications are expected to recur as geomagnetic storming redevelops on 07 and 08 June. Significant and widespread VHF backscatter may exist on these dates (particularly 08 June). Low latitude auroral activity is expected to become possible again late in the evening hours on 07 and possibly 08 June (local time). The Low Latitude Auroral Activity Warning is being held over until 08 June. If the expected shock fails to arrive by then, the warning will be reassessed. The next update will be later this UT day. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 91 02:08:25 GMT From: fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!netnews@sei.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Subject: SkyPix picture looks good, Sky Cable closes down Sky Cable (one direct broadcast satellite TV company) has closed up before it ever really got started according to the June 4th Wall Street Journal, page B6. This was formed over a year ago by a group of big companies and they had planned to start doing DBS TV by 1994. SkyPix is still around and should be selling by thanksgiving (reading between the lines a bit). SkyPix had planned to be out this summer but this has slipped. Still, SkyPix will be out with 80 stations in 1991. Could be part of why Sky Cable folded. :-) I saw the SkyPix demo at the Consumer Electronics Show in Chicago on Monday. They were using one transponder for the demo. The picture quality is very good. Laser disk or a good satellite system may be better, but SkyPix clearly beats cable or broadcast TV. The sound quality is amazing. The sound is digital as well. To demo the box they used several different movies on a 100 inch TV with surround sound (4 speakers) the combination was fantastic. Given a choice, I would much rather see a movie like this than at a theater. The SkyPix box is very small, say 11 inches by 7 inches by 2 inches. The user interface is nice and simple. They use compressed digital signals to get 8 high resolution TV channels onto each transponder with enough redundancy and error correcting to be able to use an existing Ku satellite (SBS-6 I think it was) with 50 watt transponders. Sky Cable was going to wait till 1994 (and USSB is going to wait till 1994) for a higher power satellite (240 watts I think). SkyPix can get by with 3 foot dishes with the current 50 watt transponders. There are going to be 3 types of channels, free, super station, and pay per view. All of the SSs will be about $12/month. The pay per view will be about what you rent a video tape for. The box, dish, and cables will sell for $699. They will be sold through all sorts of retail places (Macys, Circuit City, The Good Guys, etc) so it should be coming soon to a store near you. :-) Also, SkyPix has 3 digital outputs on their box. One is RS-232 at 9600 baud. Another is high speed digital audio. The last is a 1.8 Mbits/sec very high speed digital. They have not said what this is for, but this could be very interesting. I would expect things like netnews, stock quotes, etc to start coming out that RS-232 port sometime in the first year or so. Many other things will follow, I am sure. UPI/AP wire services or the company news that you get on Prodigy or Dow Jones will probably also show up eventually. Looks to me like electronic publishing could really take off with this. Fun stuff. SkyPix's phone number is (206) 854-7596. -- Vince ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 91 18:55:55 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!sichermn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jeff Sicherman) Subject: Re: Death of the Space Station In article <11706@ncar.ucar.edu> vicki@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Vicki Holzhauer) writes: >In article <1991Jun6.063148.8363@news.iastate.edu> taaw3@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >>If you are refering to the real space station, I would hardly think it would >>become history. NASA is already gearing up for the place, experiments are >>chosen. There are models for all phases of the space station. The future >>Astronauts to live there already have their daily schedules for the 6 >>month period they will be spending there. If they threw away the space >>station idea away now, they would be throwing away years and years of hard >>work. > > >According to this week's "Time" magazine (the one with "EVIL" on the >cover), throwing it away is exactly what they are doing. It either >has been cancelled or is about to be cancelled. It had gotten too big >and expensive a project, and the impetus for it kind of diminished >after the Challenger disaster ... > It's important to understand in these matters that the impetus for these projects take on a life of their own even after the scientific and economic sense of the project have evaporated. This is due to two major factors involving interest groups. First, existing and future contracts for the large sums involved create a community of self-interest of unions, corporations, and hence inevitably politicians and other growth-intersted parties. Second, there is always an unstated military need or desire for dominance that drives not only the existence of the project but it's nature and scheduling. This was a major factor in the shuttle and some of it's problems: the Air Force demanded capabilities and missions that had limited utility for civilan use but forced NASA to make a lot of changes and compromises. The great thing for the AF was they didnt have to pay for these things in a political sense (take the heat). I'd have to say that the political-military impetus for going-it-alone has or is disappearing with the current state of the world. We should leverage the USSR's experience and presence in space with our superior technology and push on together to the moon instead of wasting scarce money (on both sides) on a silly, obsolete competition that no longer has much political meaning. This may , of course, be hard for those with ecomomic or military agendas to swallow. ObST: It's really time for some kind of International space agency dedicated to exploration. ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 20:28:32 EDT Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <18084TM@msu.edu> Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 03:30:55 EDT Reply-To: space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@msu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #608 Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Subject: Mars Info Requests >I am about to embark on an endeavour to aquire as much information as I >can about Mars, Future Mars Missions, Theories and Proposals for Colonization >and or Exploration of our sister planet. I hope it doesn't muck up your plans too much, but Mars is not our sister planet. Venus is. Tom Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #703 *******************