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 ; Mon, 1 Jul 91 03:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 03:09:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #758 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 758 Today's Topics: GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE - STORM HAS ENDED Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age Re: Dark matter Re: Fred's Operatic Death Re: Access to Space Re: Fred's Operatic Death 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 12:11:06 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE - STORM HAS ENDED X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE ALERT CANCELLATION /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 17:00 UT, 18 June ------------- STORM UPDATE INFORMATION: The minor geomagnetic storm ended early in the UT day of 18 June. Conditions have now become generally active to unsettled. Conditions will remain generally unsettled until 20 or 21 June, when recurrent effects should begin to increase geomagnetic activity once again. The peak of the activity may approach minor storm levels, but is not expected to be significant at this time. Region 6659 passed beyond the west limb on 16 June and is now out of influential range. It continued to produce major M-class flares as it passed beyond the west limb. Although this region has not been the only region so far this solar cycle to produce very powerful X-class flares which have saturated the GOES sensors, it is the only region observed so far this solar cycle to have produced at least three of these events. It maintained a complex configuration as it departed from view on 16 June. There is a chance it may return in a configuration capable of supporting isolated major flares, although there is a stronger chance that it will decay further behind the sun and will return in a configuration capable of supporting only the lower-level minor M-class flares. It will be interesting to observe the return of this region near 01 July. The barrage of major flares which occurred over the last two weeks has ended. The regions presently visible are not capable of supporting major flares. Isolated low-level M-class events may be observed, but major events are not expected from the regions visible at the present time. Proton levels are still above event thresholds at approximately 15 pfu at greater than 10 MeV. The satellite proton event should end later this UT day. The Polar Cap Absorption (PCA) event ended fairly early in the UT day of 18 June. Sporadic localized absorption has been observed since then over the polar regions, although overall PCA has ended. Conditions are more favorable for polar path signal propagation. Further improvements will occur over the next several days. Solar indices are dropping at the present time, and will continue to drop towards a rotational minimum between 135 and 150 (for the 10.7 cm solar radio flux). The following alerts and/or warnings have been CANCELLED: - LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WATCH - POTENTIAL GEOMAGNETIC STORM WARNING - POLAR CAP ABSORPTION EVENT ALERT - POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING The following alert remains IN PROGRESS: - SATELLITE PROTON EVENT ALERT (will end shortly) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 91 19:21:20 GMT From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: IGY and the dawn of the Space Age In article <1991Jun18.171337.4347@convex.com> dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson) writes: >There is a major error in this article. Explorer was von Braun's satellite, Explorer was a JPL satellite with James Van Allen's instruments. It was launched on Von Braun's Jupiter C. At that time both Huntsville and JPL were part of the U.S. Army. Huntsville's mission was building IRBM's and ICBM's. There is a famous photo of Von Braun, Van Allen, and William Pickering of JPL holding aloft a model of the first U.S. satellite in triumph. The teamwork between explorers and rocket builders has gone downhill since then.... -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 07:35:21 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!ugun2b!ugun2a!pfennige@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Subject: Re: Dark matter In article <10705@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes: ... > And I was wondering, why cant "dark matter" be planets, rocks, comets, etc etc? Heavy atomic elements heavier than He are thought to have been synthesized mainly by massive stars, because first these stars evolve in a short time (~10^7 y), and second they eject most of their processed mass back into the interstellar medium (such as supernovae). So the possibility of rocky planets such as the earth depends on the previous evolution of massive stars. Now, when stars form from a gas cloud, most of the mass is going into low mass stars, which evolve very slowly (>10^9 y). In conclusion it seems very difficult to make dark matter by mainly heavy elements, because their processing needs to lock even more mass in low mass stars, for a time as long or longer than the age of the Galaxy. Daniel Pfenniger ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 13:35:45 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death In article <1991Jun17.055344.8332@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <1991Jun14.083756.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > >>The kind of arrogant attitude you project with statements like "astronaut >>groupies" and implying that pro-manned space people call finaciers "Bean >>counters" makes me discount your arguments. > >"Astronaut groupie" is a description based on observations of people >flocking out to Edwards to watch the Shuttle land, getting astronaut's >autographs, and worshipping deceased astronauts as martyrs. This is >very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see >any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. Well, then maybe it's time you made a reality check. I've never been to Edwards to watch the shuttle land. If I were to go, it would be to watch the SHUTTLE land, and if they ever make a remotely-controlled shuttle landing, I might consider that interesting enough to compensate for the inconvenience and actually go watch it. I think far too much has been made of those who died on Challenger. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it, and were adequately compensated (they must have been; they boarded the flight of their own free will: nobody put a gun to their heads and told them to get on the ship or die) for the risks involved. Either that or they were just plain too stupid to understand what was going on, and I'm disinclined to believe that was the case. I've been to exactly one launch, and that was because the payload for which I work was being launched, and I'd just as soon have seen it launched on an unmanned vehicle. I think this sort of attitude qualifies me as not being an "astronaut groupie". HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO SEE A PERMANENT MANNED PRESENCE IN SPACE. The reasons for this are complex, and don't have anything to do with groupieism, and I resent it when you describe me, and others like me, as "astronaut groupies". >Some of these people do in fact call the politicians who fund their >programs, and people who keep track of those funds, "bean counters". >_That_ is arrogance. There have been at least 3 examples of this >perjorative in this newsgroup during the last year. I encountered it >repeatedly as a member of NSS. Many do in fact discount scientist's >opinions while claiming that their projects are for "science". That is >hypocrisy. And a lot of the people who make the decisions ARE bean counters (actually, more likely, vote counters). Not all of them, but a sizeable number (or, given a lot of decisions that have been made, it sure as hell looks that way). Hell, it was the bean-counters that managed to turn a basically useful idea (a space station) into the boondoggle that Fred became. They decided that to please enough constituents, they had to try to make Fred all things to all people. The (very predictable) outcome was a plan for something that wouldn't do ANYBODY any good. >The fact that your employer, JSC, gets its revenues via the IRS >for astronaut projects makes me discount your "pro-manned" >statements. Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the >net. Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred. Get a >real job. Quit wasting your own tax money making self-serving posts to the net that end up being read by people on the government payroll! You've wasted more bandwidth than anybody else I've seen on this group. It you'd just remove your irrelevent diatribes and polemics from your posts, you'd cut down the network traffic on this group by at least 5%. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 16:50:36 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Access to Space In article <1991Jun17.152849.11430@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >We could also have a thriving space exploration >and science program if the greedy astronaut programs were not soaking >up the bulk of the funds. In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the infrastructure. Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more to be done. Eventually we would get to the point where PhD students could send their own probes out. That will produce far more results in the long run than your short term approach. >The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, >et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned program. In fact, ALL the spacefaring nations either have or are building manned systems at great expense. Perhaps they know something? Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 16:51:50 GMT From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death >In article <1991Jun17.055344.8332@sequent.com>, szabo@sequent.com writes: >"Astronaut groupie" is a description based on observations of people >flocking out to Edwards to watch the Shuttle land, getting astronaut's >autographs, and worshipping deceased astronauts as martyrs. This is >very similar to the behavior of a rock band groupie. I don't see >any reason to make my language less descriptive of reality. Gosh Nick, what do you think of Memorial Day? Am I a "military groupie" because I go out to Andrews Air Force base, talk with the fighter pilots, and have respect for their accomplishments? >The fact that your employer, JSC, gets its revenues via the IRS >for astronaut projects makes me discount your "pro-manned" >statements. Quit wasting my tax money making self-serving posts to the >net. Quit wasting my money on engineer-welfare projects like Fred. Get a >real job. I didn't know he was sacrificing his right to free speech just because he works for the government. He pays taxes too. We all do. Don't pull that "my tax money" horse-garbage (Posts from Canada and Australia excepted :-). Personally Nick, I think if we were pouring money into Asteroid Hunting and someone tried to suggest an alternative such as Manned Exploration and a resuable space vehicle, you'd want to defend your little baby too. Quit berating him for having a job. Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #758 *******************