Date: Sun,  8 Nov 92 05:00:04    
From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Space Digest V15 #394
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun,  8 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 394

Today's Topics:
           French Republical Calendar (Was: Comet calendar)
                           Hubble's mirror
                      Interesting text on UFO's.
                        NASA Coverup (5 msgs)
                       Need Specific NASA Image
                        the Happyface on Mars

	Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
	"space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form
	"Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
	(BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
	(THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 92 19:24:33 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>
Subject: French Republical Calendar (Was: Comet calendar)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <Bwv83y.Jp9.1@cs.cmu.edu| roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
|
|-From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554")
|-Subject: Comet =| Millennial Madness ?
|-Date: 27 Oct 92 12:16:49 GMT
|
|-Let's not be too Euro-centric here.
|
|-Does anyone know whether Wednesday 14 August 2126 
|-corresponds to any nice, round number in any *other* 
|-calendar systems ?
|
|-I'm thinking, something like 31 Urgtember 4999.
|
|If I recall my 10th-grade history class correctly, sometime around the time
|of the French Revolution, France was experimenting with a weird "metric"
|calendar (probably ten months per year). The only month I ever heard the
|name of was "Thermidor"(sp?), around July or August. Apparently it didn't
|catch on.
|
|Perhaps some of the French readers of sci.space could comment.
|
|John Roberts
|roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

There is someone over at soc.history who knows more about the French
Republical Calendar than I do, but it looks like he doesn't read this
newsgroup..

The calendar was introduced in 1793, during the revolution, as a 
substitute for the Gregorian. Among reasons for adoption was to
substitute a rational, scientific calendar for one less so.

There were twelve months each containing 3 decades of ten days each.
with 5 supplementary days in ordinary years and 6 days in leap years.
(not metric, still 365/366 days)

Autumn months:
Vendemiaire = vintage
Brumaire    = mist
Frimaire    = frost

Winter months:
Nivose      = snow
Pluviose    = rain
Ventose     = wind

Spring months:
Germinal    = seed-time
Floreal     = blossom
Prairial    = meadow

Summer months:
Messidor    = harvest
Thermidor   = heat
Fructidor   = fruits

It an attractive idea--getting rid of the Roman Emperors and the 
numerals that have lost their meaning.

The names fit only the northern hemisphere (and really only Europe--
Here in Colorado, it rarely rains in the winter and there is no
mist in autumn and we don't have wind, we have *wind*.)

1 Vendemaire, "Year 1 of Liberty", started on Sept 22, 1793. The 
calendar was used, almost exclusively by administrative bodies,
usually with the Gregorian date along side until 1805 when France
went back to the Gregorian. While the calendar didn't take,
the metric system of weights and measures did.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  

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

Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:59:23 GMT
From: aalpern@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <PXiye-Go3@lopez.marquette.MI.US>, stick@lopez.marquette.MI.US (Stick,CommoSigop) writes:

> 
>    According to Dr. Steve Maran, who works on the HST project at the
> Goddard Flight Center, and who was recently a guest lecturer at my college,
> none of the above is true.  The company that ground the mirror did it
> exactly to the specs they were given.
> 
>    The specs were wrong.
> 
> 
     According to what I have heard from my optics professor, this is the
proper account. The Hubble mirror is the most precise mirror ever made wrong.




-- 
Adam Alpern			* "All that is gold does not glitter, not all  *AAlpern@hamp.hampshire.edu	* those who wander are lost." - JRR Tolkien    *				* "When I look in the mirror I see the days to *				* come, and my face is just a trace of where   *				* I'm coming from." - Ani DiFranco	       *

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

Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 12:55:38 -0600
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Interesting text on UFO's.

That's it. The last straw. I will no longer refrain from posting
interesting multimedia/graphics files to sci.space. If it
can hold megabytes upon megabytes of bullshit from William
Cooper, it can put up with smaller files that are more
pertinent and truthful.

Phil

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

Date: 6 Nov 92 01:18:00 GMT
From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

     I've been getting a lot of E-mail flak about my NASA coverup  postings.
   My  own time schedule does not allow me to answer all these individually,
   so I'll try to deal with the more typical objections herein.

     Generally the objections fall into seven categories:

   1. I'm confusing the Neutral point with Lagrange points or  other  points
     along a spacecraft's trajectory.

   2. The figures given by Time or Von Braun are typos or mistakes.

   3. The figures given by Time or Von Braun confuse miles with kilometers.

   4. The  explanation  for  the  apparent  lack  of jumping ability of the
     astronauts is that the suits were as heavy  as  claimed  ,  and  simple
     judicious caution on their part prevented more spectacular leaping.

  {I  am willing to concede this point due to lack of DIRECT evidence to the
   contrary, while  I  still  would  like  to  give  further  circumstantial
   evidence that indicates that the issue is ,at least , unresolved.}


   5. Known positions of the earth-moon barycenter preclude the mass of the
     moon from being higher than claimed therefore it's presumed gravity  is
     fixed at 1/6.

   6.  NASA  could  not  fake  the  moon  landings  and  get  away  with it.
       (Actually, I do not claim that  the  Moon  Landings  were  faked-just
       that the technology used to accomplish them is  different  than  that
       alleged publicly)

   7.   I ,snarfy , have an impolite, beligerent,  obnoxious  and  generally
     bad attitude, and my error in transposing terms in the equation 180/6 =
     30 indicates that I am also stupid  and  unqualified  to  address  this
     newsgroup.

    I  am  willing to cop to my attitude problems ,point # 7. I'm working on
   my character defects , and will try to tone it down in  future  postings.
   But  please  don't push me with taunts or ridicule. On my part then there
   will be no need to "bite back". As I said earlier ,I'm a sensitive guy. I
   make mistakes , like everybody else. But I'm not stupid .  I pay  for  my
   own  access  to  this newsgroup ,and therefore constitutionally I can say
   whatever I want . Invoke your Kill file if you want to tune me out.

                  Ok, back to work:

   Let me here define "Neutral Point" :

   The  neutral  point  is  that  point  in a lunar spacecraft's trajectory,
   measured by the straight line distance from the moon's center  in  miles,
   where the force of gravitational influence in the direction of the moon ,
   measured  in  pounds of "pull" on the spacecraft,is equal to the force of
   influence toward the direction of the earth, also measured in  pounds  of
   "pull".

   I believe that the direct quotation from the July 25,1969  Time  magazine
   article would be helpful here:

   "At  a  point 43,495 from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force [on the
   spacecraft] equal to the gravity of the Earth , then some  200,000  miles
   distant."

   I would conclude from the inclusion of the distance remaining  to  go  to
   the  moon (200,000 miles) that the author knew exactly which units he was
   talking about .

   I did a search for other sources which would help us analyse just what is
   meant by " neutral point" , and where  it  might  be  located  along  the
   flight path of the Apollo .

   In "Project Apollo: Man to the Moon" by Thomas J. Alexander  (Harper  and
   Row , 1964 ) ,the author states:

   "At  a  point  some  40,000 miles from the Moon ,when the craft is poking
   along at about 2000 mph, it crosses THE LINE  where  the  moon's  gravity
   exceeds  that  of  the  earth . That's the second part of the trjectory."
   (caps mine).

   In  Buzz  Aldrin's  book, "Men From Earth" (1989)  , the author states on
   page 231:

   "After two full days into the mission we were 150,000  miles  from  earth
   and   our  speed  was  less  than  3000  miles  an  hour.  The  moon  was
   approximately 30 hours and 90,000  miles distant."

   Here we have a "horse's mouth" space jockey's description of  his  ship's
   situation well before reaching either of two postulated neutral points.

    If  we  rule out the possibility that Apollo 11 was undergoing some kind
   of  continuous  thrusting  which  would  keep  this  3000  mph   velocity
   constant,we  are then left with the conclusion that the neutral point was
   approximately 1/2 way between his position at  that  time  and  the  moon
   which  was  90,000  miles  away.  Here again we arrive at a Neutral point
   figure close to the 43,595 miles AS SPECIFIED BY TIME , VON BRAUN  ,  and
   ALEXANDER.

    I  repeat  again  this  is  data  from direct experimental evidence (the
   actual moon flights) that  the  moon's  gravity  cannot  be  1/6  if  one
   calculates the relative pulls of the earth and moon based on the proven
   accurate  inverse square law . In pre - Apollo Astronomy , it is admitted
   that the exact determination of the moon's mass , therefore the  position
   of  the  neutral  point  could  not  be determined unless one was able to
   observe the actual trajectories of lunar spacecraft.

        to be continued..............

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

Date: 6 Nov 92 23:37:31 GMT
From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

   As promised ,here come the ...

                    TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON

   1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did  it  attain  it's  present
       orbit?

     Scientists have generally offered three major theories to  account  for
   the  moon  in  orbit around our planet. All three are in serious trouble.
   Amazingly, the least likely theory prior to the Apollo  missions  emerges
   as  the  "favorite"  theory.   Evidence  gathered  by  the Apollo program
   indicate that the moon and  the  earth  differ  greatly  in  composition,
   thereby degrading the two theories that prevailed prior to these flights.
   The  first and most popular idea among these scientists was that the moon
   had been born alongside the earth out of the same cloud of gas  and  dust
   about  4.6  billion  years  ago. Another theory was that the moon was the
   earth's "child", ripped out of the Pacific basin ,possibly.

     However,evidence gathered by the Apollo  missions  indicates  that  the
   moon  and  earth  differ  greatly in composition.  Scientists now tend to
   lean toward the third theory -  that  the  moon  was  "captured"  by  the
   Earth's  gravitational  field  and  locked into orbit ages ago. There are
   incredibly   difficult   celestial   mechanics   involved   in   such   a
   capture,however.  If  the moon just "happened" to wander into the earth's
   vicinity ,Newton's  Laws  of  gravitation  would  almost  certainly  have
   assured  an  acceleration  great enough to send it out into the depths of
   space  again.   The  logically  consistent,  but  socially   unacceptable
   alternative  to  this conclusion is that a steering or braking "manuever"
   had been performed by some mechanism "aboard" the  moon.  NASA  Scientist
   Dr.  Robin  Brett  sums  it up best: "It seems much easier to explain the
   nonexistence of the moon than it's existence".

   2.   Is  the  "  apparent " size similarity (as viewed from earth) of the
     sun and moon a mere coincidence?

    Yes. The fact that the moon subtends an angle of arc, as viewed from the
   earth  ,  equal  to that of the sun ,is a " coincidence" which causes the
   occasional solar eclipse spectacle . Only the Earth , alone  of  all  the
   planets  in  the  solar  system , is known to harbor life and a satellite
   with this peculiar quality . The theory that the moon was placed here  by
   intelligent  being(s) as a sort of "planet marker " , is only a  theory .
   As we all  know  ,  theories  are  not  necessarily  the  same  thing  as
   "Science."

    3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks?

     99 percent of moon rocks brought back turned out upon  analysis  to  be
   older than 90 percent of the oldest rocks that can be found on earth . If
   we  assume  that the moon came from a different area of the solar system,
   where the component material might have been different  ,this  assumption
   would  still  not  account  for  the  disparity in the average age of the
   matter composing the two bodies.

     The first rock picked up by Neil Armstrong after landing on the Sea  of
     Tranquility  turned  out  to be more than 3.6 billion years old . Other
     rocks turned out to be even older; 4.3 , 4.5 ,4.6 and one alleged to be
     5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth  are  about  3.7
     billion  years  old.  Based  on  such  evidence  ,some  scientists have
     concluded that the moon was formed among the stars long before our  sun
     was born.

  4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side
     of the moon?

    The dark areas on the moon are known as "maria" ,some of which form  the
   familiar  "man  in  the  moon". Maria are significantly absent on the far
   side of the moon. The ones on the near side area consist mainly of  lunar
   soil and smaller rocks.  Astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill
   into  the  surface  of  these dark, plain - like areas. Soil samples weer
   loaded with rare metals and elements like titanium,  zirconium,  yttruim,
   and  berylium. How the moon could have been formed by some random process
   with  such  high  concentrations  of  rare  elements   has   never   been
   satisfactorily explained.


  5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ?

    Samples  brought  back to earth by both Soviet and American Space Probes
   contain particles of pure iron. The  Soviets  announced  that  pure  iron
   particles  brought back by the remote controlled lunar probe Zond 20 have
   not oxidized even after several years on earth. Pure iron particles  that
   do  not  rust  are  unheard  of in the strange world of science, although
   there is a solid pillar of iron of unknown age  near  New  Delhi  ,India,
   that has never rusted ,and no one knows why .

  6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ?

    When  the  Apollo  15  astronauts  used  thermal  equipment  to  measure
   temperatures  below the surface , they got unusually high readings, which
   indicated high subsurface temperatures near the  Apennine  mountains.  It
   was  speculated  that  ,  since  the  presumed  density of the moon would
   preclude the possibility of lava flows, magma and the like (volcanism has
   never been observed  on  the  moon)  that  the  high  readings  could  be
   explained   by  highly  radioactive  elements  just  under  the  surface.
   Actually, the amount of radioactive materials on the SURFACE of the  moon
   is  "embarrassingly  high"  .   Where  did  all  of this hot ,radioactive
   material ( uranium and thorium ) come from ? And  if  it  came  from  the
   interior  of  the  moon  (very  unlikely)  ,how  did it get to the moon's
   surface?

  7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon?

     The few lunar excursions indicate that the moon is a  very  dry  world.
   One  Lunar  expert  said that the moon was "a million times as dry as the
   Gobi Desert" .  The early Apollo missions did not even find the slightest
   trace of water. But after Apollo 15, NASA experts  were  stunned  when  a
   cloud  of  water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on
   the  moon's  surface.  NASA  officials  suggested  that  two  tiny tanks,
   abandoned  on the moon by U.S. Astronauts, had somehow ruptured. But  the
   contents of  these  tanks  could  not  have  produced  a  cloud  of  such
   magnitude. The water vapor appears to have come from the moon's interior.
   Mists, clouds and surface changes have been allegedly seen over the years
   by  astronomers  .   For  instance  , six astronomers in the last century
   claimed to have seen a mist which obscured the details on  the  floor  of
   the  crater Plato. Clouds of any kind would be an extremely odd phenomena
   on the moon, because of the supposed low gravity, which presumably  could
   not  hold an atmosphere.  Water trapped beneath the surface, then venting
   by some unknown process , is one possible explanation - but then what (or
   WHO) is "letting off steam"?

  8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface?

     Lunar  explorations  have  revealed  that  much of the lunar surface is
   covered with a glassy glaze , which indicates that the moon's surface has
   been scorched by an unknown source of intense heat .   Expert's  analysis
   shows  that  this  did not result from massive meteorite impactings . One
   explanation forwarded  was  that  an  intense  solar  flare,  of  awesome
   proportions  ,  scorched  the moon some 30,000 years ago. Scientists have
   remarked that the glaze is similar to the glaze created by atomic weapons
   on earth soil.

  9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there?

     In 1968 ,tracking data of lunar orbiters first indicated  that  massive
   concentrations  (mascons) existed under the surface of the circular lunar
   maria.  NASA  even reported that the gravitational pull caused by themwas
   so  pronounced  that  the  spacecraft  overhead   dipped   slightly   and
   accellerated  when  flitting  by  the  lunar  plain  , thus revealing the
   existence of these hidden structures,  whatever  they  are.  Calculations
   show that they are enormous concentrations of dense heavy matter centered
   like a bull's eye under the  lunar  maria.  NASA  has  never  offered  an
   explanation of their existence.

   10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?

     People  who seem to be overly "obsessed" about the moon will often tell
   you that the moon is indeed endowed with "strange" powers  that  have  an
   effect  on thier lives. These people are sometimes called "lunatics." The
   fact that you have  been  reading  these  "NASA  Moon  Coverup"  articles
   through  to  this  point  indicates that YOU may have undiagnosed lunatic
   "tendencies", and should ,perhaps ,see your doctor immediately (just  for
   a  check-up).  Your doctor can prescribe precise dosages of the "correct"
   drugs needed to overcome the effect of such unusual notions as  suggested
   in  this  series of postings.  These drugs will assure that your opinions
   conform comfortably to those currently accepted by  the  government,  and
   will result in many opportunities for career advancement.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:02:01 GMT
From: "John D. Boggs" <jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

From article <4603@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, by snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us:
> 
>    As promised ,here come the ...
> 
>                     TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON
> 
>    1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did  it  attain  it's  present
>        orbit?
>    2.   Is  the  "  apparent " size similarity (as viewed from earth) of the
>      sun and moon a mere coincidence?
>     3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks?
>   4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side
>      of the moon?
>   5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ?
>   6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ?
>   7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon?
>   8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface?
>   9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there?
>    10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?
> 

While interesting (and I do want to find references in something other than
a Frank Edwards book to that pillar of unrustable iron in India), what does
all this have to do with a coverup of some super propulsion system?  Please,
give some sort of references for some of your points, as it is, this post reads
very much like the aforementioned Frank Edwards book (and others in the genre).

-John D. Boggs     john-boggs@uiowa.edu

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

Date: 7 Nov 92 17:25:12 GMT
From: Seth Bradley <sbradley@scic.intel.com>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <4603@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>   there is a solid pillar of iron of unknown age  near  New  Delhi  ,India,
>   that has never rusted ,and no one knows why .

This is a popular myth promoted by Van Daniken.  The pillar does indeed
rust.  It is regularly cleaned of said rust.  End of mystery.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien

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

Date: 7 Nov 92 18:00:27 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <4600@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:


>I've been getting a lot of E-mail flak about my NASA coverup  postings.
>My  own time schedule does not allow me to answer all these individually,
>so I'll try to deal with the more typical objections herein.

If you don't have time to respond, you shouldn't be posting.

As Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen."
--
Phil Fraering

We'll not fade out too soon
Not in this finest hour
Whistle your favorite tune
We'll send a card and flower, saying "It's a mistake!"

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

Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 18:55:38 GMT
From: Craig Fifer <cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu>
Subject: Need Specific NASA Image
Newsgroups: sci.space

You might try ftping to ames.arc.nasa.gov in the SPACE
directory, or contacting NASA at:

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

Now might me a good time to upload a quite extensive file I
have on how to obtain any data or images you need from NASA.
So as not to make you read it if you don't want to, I have put
it in a separate post called HOW TO GET DATA AND IMAGES.  I
hope this helps!

Craig Fifer
cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
|   Never play leapfrog with              |   Craig Fifer                   |
|   a unicorn!   -Murphy                  |   3736 Heritage Road, S.W.      |
|                                         |   Roanoke, Virginia  24015-4518 |

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

Date: 07 Nov 92 00:17:00 MET
From: Rainer Kracht <r.kracht@abbs.hanse.de>
Subject: the Happyface on Mars
Newsgroups: sci.space

Happyface = Crater Galle = 31 deg/-51 deg = 352S26 = VO_1005


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 394
------------------------------