Date: Thu, 4 Feb 93 05:00:28 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #121 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 4 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 121 Today's Topics: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) Challenger transcript FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft Gaspra GIFs Available Launching using Pegasus (2 msgs) Space Life Sciences programs (was Microgravity Research Today) Space Station Freedom Media Handbook - 5/18 Well.. (2 msgs) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " 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: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:26:52 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1kmr1sINNglb@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>>[...] if we only were to use cheap Soviet hardware, we could do more in >>>space than we do now for only a fraction of the cost. >>>If this is true, why didn't the Soviets do it? >>They did. >Really? Let me see...two or three times a year, they put two or three guys >in a capsule and shoot them up to a station, where they trade off with a couple >of guys there and come back down. Which is far far more than we can do. BTW, it also means they spend three to four days in space for every day we do. Not bad for a backward nation. >I'm not sure what they do there... Pretty much the same thing we do; except they can do a lot more. Oh, they do have a facility which produces commercial semiconductor materials. NASA has no plans for that for the next 20 years or so. >My point is that if Soviet equipment is so cheap and wonderful, how come the >Russians haven't gone anywhere with it? Largely because they are a poor nation I suspect. Even at their height in now{turns out that they didn't have all that much. But the point isn't what they can do, it is what WE can do with intelligent leveraging. Spending 10% on Russian hardware could save us billions. What's wrong with that? >They've been stuck at a low level of activity... I look at their launch manifests and then look at ours. I think we are the ones stuck at the low level of activity. They can do this since they don't pay 10 times what they need to for launches like we do. >>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs >>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced? >Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space >transport. Like what? >Capsules were the first generation, and the Shuttle is the second. Great! I hope we quit at the second generation. Every new generation doubles the cost of access to space. We won't be able to launch NASA's third generation system because it will be too expensive. YOur putting the cart before the horse here. Raising costs won't get us anywhere. >We're already working on the third and fourth, with things like SSTO and >NASP. NASA is spending it's SSTO efforts trying to kill the SDIO effort. As for NASP, NASP is dead. (BTW, those backward Russians are doing more scramjet testing than we are). >Listening to you, the Russians should already be all over the... All I am saying is that we can intelligently leverage our efforts using some of their hardware. Why is that such a problem? Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------133 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1993 00:11:53 GMT From: Stephen Strazdus Subject: Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1kh760INN4b@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: > >Can someone who does not insist on remaining anonymous comment on the >credibility of this? Something similar to this was posted to one of these groups a year or so ago. It was taken from the Weekly World News, one of those tabloid journals. I wouldn't bet my house that it is true. -- Steve Strazdus sstrazdu@sedona.intel.com 80960 Design (602) 554-3867 ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 93 17:04:03 -0600 From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space The Technologies described below could be used to power spacecraft, space colonies, etc.: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly. It would violate the "laws" of physics. All of the "experts" and "authorities" said so. For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901: "The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be." Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final word. Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they crash). Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy' Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science" and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics"). The physicists do not know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare that those things cannot be done. Such PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox modern theories. Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with- OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment. Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy, but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by various forms of induction. UNLIKE solar or wind devices, they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed. Solar energy has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and high latitudes. Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and often non-existent. Neither solar nor wind power are suitable to directly power cars and airplanes. Properly designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations. For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058, #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic field. The first two require a feedback network in order to be self-running. The third one, as described in detail in "Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117, and front cover), requires critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings of magnets, but NO feedback. Such a motor could drive an electric generator or reversible heatpump in one's home, YEAR ROUND, FOR FREE. [Complete descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each from the U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your local public or university library's inter-library loan dept..] A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps ELECTRO- MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12 cycles per second plus harmonics). They typically have a 'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the energy in the coils with the energy being tapped. It is important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as 'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output. This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent magnet. In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID CHOKE COIL' around the secondary coil will enhance output power. ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems", by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70, Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245.] During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an 'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical equations to explain it. As described in the book "A Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson, 1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a CRITICAL VELOCITY. The water then IMPLODES, no longer touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump, which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC GENERATOR. The device seems to be tapping energy from that of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A TORNADO. [It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY!] A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and planetary gears). It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running by driving its own air compressor. This engine also generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills. [David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.] Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a common household smoke detector. One other energy source should be mentioned here, despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free Energy. A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power a house or large enough to power a city. And UNLIKE the "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about, Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power for every watt put in. ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78, pages 32-40.] And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that have been in the news lately, originally conducted by University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Some U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of chemist Melvin Miles, finally took the trouble to collect the bubbles coming from such an apparatus, had them analyzed with mass-spectrometry techniques, and found HELIUM 4, which PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed take place, and enough of it to explain the excess heat generated. There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the two so-called "laws" of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute". For example, the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he calls the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The Universe of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by thermodynamic "laws". His Theory explains the universe MUCH BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way. Some Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow, seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality energy". Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat' and 'Eckankar' teach their Members that the physical universe is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV channels, as described in books like "The Path of the Masters", by Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key to Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969. For example, the next level up from the physical universe is commonly called the 'Astral Plane'. Long-time Members of these groups have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and report on conditions there. It seems plausible that energy could flow down from these higher levels into the physical universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given the right configuration of matter to channel it. This is supported by many successful laboratory-controlled experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the world, such as those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain". In terms of economics, the market has FAILED. Inventors do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their VE$TED INTERE$T$. The government is needed to intervene. If the government does not intervene, then the total supply of energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue to increase. The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize private production (until the producers can make it on their own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of Free Energy Hardware. The long-range effects of such government intervention would be wide-spread and profound. The quantity of energy demanded from conventional energy producer$ (coal mining companie$, oil companie$ and countries, electric utilitie$, etc.) would drop to near zero, forcing their employees to seek work elsewhere. Energy resources (coal, uranium, oil, and gas) would be left in the ground. Prices for conventional energy supplies would also drop to near zero, while the price of Free Energy Equipment would start out high but drop as supply increases (as happened with VCR's, personal computers, etc.). Costs of producing products that require large quantities of energy to produce would decrease, along with their prices to consumers. Consumers would be able to realize the "opportunity costs" of paying electric utility bills or buying home heating fuel. Tourism would benefit and increase because travelers would not have to spend their money for gasoline for their cars. Government tax revenue from gasoline and other fuels would have to be obtained in some other way. And energy could no longer be used as a MOTIVE OR EXCUSE FOR MAKING WAR. Many conventional energy producer$ would go out of business, but society as a whole, and the earth's environment and ecosystems, would benefit greatly. It is the People, that government should serve, rather than the big corporation$ and bank$. UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1993 01:53 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Gaspra GIFs Available Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary ========================== GASPRA GIF IMAGES February 2, 1993 ========================== Two more Gaspra images are now available in GIF format. Note that the images are in GIF89a format, so make sure your display software supports this format (as opposed to the older GIF87a format). The two images were scanned in from photographs, and are not the raw data. The caption files accompanying the images are appended at the end of this message, as well as being embedded in the images. The images are available using anonymous ftp to: ftp: ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) user: anonymous cd: pub/SPACE/GIF files: gaspra4.gif Gaspra approach sequence (11 images). P-41383 gaspra4.txt (Caption file) gaspra5.gif Gaspra, Deimos, and Phobos compared. P-41382 gaspra5.txt (Caption file) Photographic prints of these Gaspra images can be ordered from Newell Color Lab listed below. Refer to the P number associated with the images when ordering. Newell Color Lab 221 N. Westmoreland Avenue Los Angeles CA 90064 Telephone: (213) 380-2980 FAX: (213) 739-6984 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- gaspra4.txt PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 PHOTO CAPTION GALILEO December 1, 1992 P-41383 TOP GLL/GA6 This montage of 11 images taken by the Galileo spacecraft as it flew by the asteroid Gaspra on October 29, 1991, shows Gaspra growing progressively larger in the field of view of Galileo's solid-state imaging camera as the spacecraft approached the asteroid. Sunlight is coming from the right. Gaspra is roughly 17 kilometers (10 miles) long, 10 kilometers (6 miles) wide. The earliest view (upper left) was taken 5 3/4 hours before closest approach when the spacecraft was 164,000 kilometers (102,000 miles) from Gaspra, the last (lower right)at a range of 16,000 kilometers (10,000 miles), 30 minutes before closest approach. Gaspra spins once in roughly 7 hours, so these images capture almost one full rotation of the asteroid. Gaspra spins counterclockwise; its north pole is to the upper left, and the "nose" which points upward in the first image, is seen rotating back into shadow, emerging at lower left, and rotating to upper right. Several craters are visible on the newly seen sides of Gaspra, but none approaches the scale of the asteroid's radius. Evidently, Gaspra lacks the large craters common on the surfaces of many planetary satellites, consistent with Gaspra's comparatively recent origin from the collisional breakup of a larger body. The Galileo project, whose primary mission is the exploration of the Jupiter system in 1995-97, is managed for NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- gaspra5.txt PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 PHOTO CAPTION GALILEO December 1, 1992 P-41382 TOP GLL/GA7 This montage shows asteroid 951 Gaspra (top) compared with Deimos (lower left) and Phobos (lower right), the moons of Mars. The three bodies are shown at the same scale and nearly the same lighting conditions. Gaspra is about 17 kilometers (10 miles) long. All three bodies have irregular shapes, due to past catastrophic conditions. However their surfaces appear remarkably different, possibly because of differences in composition but most likely because of very different impact histories. The Phobos and Deimos images were obtained by the Viking Orbiter spacecraft in 1977; the Gaspra image is the best of a series obtained by the Galileo spacecraft on October 29, 1991. Galileo is scheduled to add the detailed view of another asteroid when it flies by Ida in August 1993. The Galileo project, whose primary mission is the exploration of the Jupiter system in 1995-97, is managed for NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never yell "Movie!" in a /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | crowded fire station. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 1993 23:51:05 GMT From: Claudio Egalon Subject: Launching using Pegasus Newsgroups: sci.space There are some talk in the Brazilian community that the Brazilian satellite, which is scheduled to be launched from a Pegasus rocket, does not have any insurance. I am wondering if any one here in the NET could coment on that whether it is true or not. It seems kind of dumb not insure this satellite since Pegasus was used only twice in the past and in the second mission did not work very well. In this case the insurance would have to be provided by Orbital Science Corp. (the builder of Pegasus) or it is responsability of the Brazilian Space Agency to insure the satellite? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:41:13 GMT From: "John S. Neff" Subject: Launching using Pegasus Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1kn1d9INNg45@rave.larc.nasa.gov> claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes: >From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) >Subject: Launching using Pegasus >Date: 2 Feb 1993 23:51:05 GMT >There are some talk in the Brazilian community that the Brazilian >satellite, which is scheduled to be launched from a Pegasus rocket, >does not have any insurance. I am wondering if any one here in the >NET could coment on that whether it is true or not. It seems kind of >dumb not insure this satellite since Pegasus was used only twice in >the past and in the second mission did not work very well. In this >case the insurance would have to be provided by Orbital Science Corp. >(the builder of Pegasus) or it is responsability of the Brazilian Space >Agency to insure the satellite? > > It was my understanding that the underwriters would not insure payloads on launch vehicles with less than the minimum nuber need to estimate the risk. I do not know what the minimum number is, but I bet it is more than two. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:17:02 GMT From: gawne@stsci.edu Subject: Space Life Sciences programs (was Microgravity Research Today) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1km8kmINN926@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes: > Huntsville, of course... On the other hand, if it is Life Sciences, the > real place to be is JSC, Houston. Would anybody care to comment on the Space Life Sciences program at the University of Colorado? I've heard of a group associated with the Aerospace Engineering department that does a lot of the man/machine interface sort of research that is, if I recall correctly, called BioServe Technologies. My understanding was that it was a good place to work if you wanted to do some significant things associated with the manned space flight program. Thoughts, comments? -Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 00:53:47 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Space Station Freedom Media Handbook - 5/18 Newsgroups: sci.space From NASA SPACELINK: "6_10_2_5_3.TXT" (3683 bytes) was created on 10-15-92 Program Description Work Packages In 1987, NASA let competitive procurements for the major space station contractor work called "Work Packages." Four NASA Centers were selected to manage the contractor work. The Work Package Centers are responsible for: 1) design, development, testing and evaluation; 2) operation of hardware and software systems; and 3) integration of element evolution, engineering support and user operations Work Package 1 The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, and its prime contractor, Boeing Defense & Space Group will design and manufacture the Habitation Module; the U.S. Laboratory Module; the logistics elements; the resource node structures connecting the modules; the Environmental Control and Life Support System; and the Thermal Control and audio-video systems located within the pressurized modules. In addition, MSFC is responsible for operations capability development associated with Freedom Station payload operations and planning, laboratory-support and ground-support equipment. Work Package 2 The Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas, and its prime contractor, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, will manufacture: the integrated truss assembly; the propulsion assembly; the mobile transporter system; the outfitting of the resource node structures provided by Work Package 1; the Extra- Vehicular Activity (EVA) system; the external Thermal Control system; the attachment systems for the Space Shuttle and experiments packages; the Guidance, Navigation and Control System; the Communications and Tracking System; the Data Management System; the airlocks; crew health care systems (CHeCS); and user accommodations. It is also responsible for the technical direction of the Work Package 1 contractor for the design and development of all manned systems. Mission Operations Project Office (MOPO) The MOPO, also located at JSC, is responsible for: * Operational capability development for the Space Station Control Center (SSCC) and associated operations support systems, * Operational capability development for the Space Station Training Facility (SSTF) and associated training support systems, * Flight crew and ground controller training, * Integrated planning of real-time operations and utilization activities, * Integration of SSF and Shuttle real-time operations, * Management of space systems operations, and * Overall operational command and control. Work Package 3 The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland, and its prime contractor, GE Astro-Space, originally intended to manufacture: the servicing facility, the flight telerobotic servicer, the accommodations for attached payloads, and the U.S. unmanned free- flyer platforms. However, in 1991, these elements were either terminated or transferred to other NASA organizations and this work package was dissolved. Work Package 4 The Lewis Research Center (LeRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, and its prime contractor, the Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International, will design and manufacture the Electrical Power Systems. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Although not a Work Package Center, KSC is responsible for: * Launch sites, * Launch site common ground support equipment, * Launch site facilities to support pre-launch/post-landing processing, payload processing, and logistics, * Management and operations of integrated logistics systems, and * Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF). These areas of responsibility are more thoroughly discussed in the KSC section. The above Work Package Centers will be supported by other NASA Centers in fulfilling their responsibilities. The material above is one of many files from SPACELINK A Space-Related Informational Database Provided by the NASA Educational Affairs Division Operated by the Marshall Space Flight Center On a Data General ECLIPSE MV7800 Minicomputer SPACELINK may be contacted in three ways: 1) Using a modem, by phone at 205-895-0028 2) Using Telnet, at spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov 3) Using FTP capability. Username is anonymous and Password is guest. Address is 192.149.89.61. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 23:44:35 GMT From: Kevin Scruggs Subject: Well.. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech In article bbs.maddox@gilligan.tsoft.net (Otto Maddox) writes: > How long would it take a ship traveling at Warp 1 to get to a >planet that is 60 light years away? 60 years... from the formulas I've seen... Warp 1 = c... > > I have a an answer in my head but I wanna see if I am doing this >thing >right. > > >Otto Maddox >[ bbs.maddox@tsoft.net ] [ maddox@west.darkside.com ] -- ||| ...Your future hasn't been written yet. / | \ No one's has. Your future is what =Mysh+Krysa= you make it... -Emmet L. Brown- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1993 00:23:43 GMT From: nicolas produit Subject: Well.. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech Lets get it straight and make the experiment like that: Someone (A) leave the earth at speed c (warp 1 relative to earth) and go to a planet 60 light year away from earth. When he is there he explode an atomic bomb. 1-Someone on earth has to wait 120 year to see the explosion. 2-If you are A then the time you will register between starting from earth and exploding the bomb will be zero (this is not a typo I mean 0) So it is a very dangerous experiment to do and it is why nobody made it yet. The chance is that the guy A make a vanishing small timing mistake and he blow the earth instead of the other planet. By the way for A the experiment is not dangerous at all, when the bomb explode he is already light years away.... Nicolas ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 121 ------------------------------