Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 05:05:48 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #614 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 31 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 614 Today's Topics: *** METEOSAT weather images *** Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments) fast-track failures Government-run programs Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program (2 msgs) Justification for the Space Program Mars Observer Update - 12/30/92 Moon Dust For Sale Shuttle Performance (Was:Comparative $/lb) Solar system stability (Was: averting doom) SSTO vs 2 stage (2 msgs) two-line element info needed Two-Line Orbital Element Sets, Part 1 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: 30 Dec 92 15:32:50 GMT From: Franck Roussel Subject: *** METEOSAT weather images *** Newsgroups: sci.space Hello everybody! I am interested in METEOSAT weather images. I know there are many anonymous FTP sites, such: - cumulus.met.ed.ac.uk in directory /images - nic.funet.fi '' /pub/sci/meteosat where satellite images of World,Atlantic,Europe are displayed. Does anybody knows about other anonymous FTP sites like those ? Especially, is there a server at the Meteorological Space Center of Lannion (Brittany) ? I tried the FTP site "lannion.cnet.fr", but after typing the command 'ftp lannion.cnet.fr' it answered me: 'Connected to lannion.cnet.fr' '421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection' Thanks for all answers to my questions Roussel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:24:16 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments) Newsgroups: sci.space In henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >It's somewhat more common for the shuttle [to fly with less than maximum >payload] only because most shuttle missions are to low orbit Don't forget the Rogers Commission, and the payload-weight restrictions it imposed for safety reasons. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 16:58:03 GMT From: Pat Subject: fast-track failures Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1992Dec27.160134.20228@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>$100,000 a year is on the low side. Most companies figure it's >>closer to $250,000. > >The ones that are no longer in business. Um, gee here's a good one for me. STicking up for gary. Actually both of gary's numbers are quite reasonable. sad but true. what he isn't pointing out, is that these numbers are more for large organizations and especially defense related business. now the accounting rule of thumb for commercial business, is that each of your people better generate 2.5-3 times their salary in revenue, or you aren't making money. in defense industries, it is not unusual for overhead to exceed salary in an order of magnitude of 7. example. i have seen projects where two engineers worked, on a prototype, they were each paid about 40k/annually, but the project bills would run about 15k/week. amazing what the overhead can run. Now what gary is missing is that thin slim organizations can run for significantly less. Apple, started this way. cisco did too. Lockheed skunk works still tries to. but this is for small operations only. My dad used to run a 20 man shop on 2,000 month overhead plus salaries. > >If we spent that much on each employee, personnel costs would exceed >gross revenues. And that allows *nothing* for manfacturing, materials, >etc. > >But then, I'm not working for Gary Coffman, Inc. > Um, you wonder why the B-2 costs 1 billion per? > >But you just said you weren't going to provide any of those things, >Gary. The engineers were going to live at Motel 6 and work at home. >And it was still going to cost you over $100,000. > >Weasel, weasel. No need to call him a weasel, just accuse him of screaming :-) the motel 6 school of prject developement should keep costs to about 100% of salary. the theory is rent a warehouse next to a motel. use the warehouse and motel interchangebly. but you do need motivated staff to do this kind of work. pat ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:07:06 GMT From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" Subject: Government-run programs Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec29.145537.9264@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz, dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes: >prevented from some action. The government doesn't subsidize mountain >climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism? The fact that you can equate these two things just shows how out of touch with reality you really are. Norman Dr. Norman J. LaFave Senior Engineer Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro Hunter Thompson ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 20:39:37 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Government-run programs Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec30.200706.29744@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave writes: >>prevented from some action. The government doesn't subsidize mountain >>climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism? >The fact that you can equate these two things just shows how >out of touch with reality you really are. Oh I don't know about that. I see lots of similarities. Both climbers and astronauts are small groups of well trained people. Both spend lots of money to do what they do. Both are limited to letting very small numbers of people do something exciting. After all, I will never climb Mt. Everest, nor (the way things are going) will I ever go into space. Now you might argue that space is the future of mankind and that a spacefaring civilization is more important than rock climbing. I aggree with that but must point out that if you think current government space activity has anything to do with that then YOU are the one out of touch. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------115 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 16:06:48 GMT From: Mark Benson Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Barbara Trumpinski (trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu) writes: >i am NOT a scientist...or a researcher...or even anyone important. i >am a simple library tech. however, i deal with the real world in ways >you gentlemen probably can't imagine...my life has been directly >affected by the economy...and by the lousy education system...and by >the overwhelming lack of spirit in the u.s. >i STILL have dreams...i know that i am never going to the stars...but >someday, maybe, my children will...or maybe even the college students >i know/work with will be able to have the adventures or do the >exploring that i can only dream about in between chapters of my >latest science fiction novel... Barbara, Library techs are important. I spent my college years as a lowly student assistant (UIUC Biology Library, in fact). Between that, summer jobs, and loans I managed to put myself through school. Since then I've been through several different industries, staying one step ahead of the axe. Many of my friends have not been so lucky. The very talent we need to go to Mars and beyond is being "transitioned" into other "worthwhile" industries, like telecommunications, or PC things like electric cars. Or worse yet, joining the growing "service sector" of the economy. This is a tragedy of near biblical proportions, and the results of this lack of foresight will be felt for decades to come. The space program in America is stuck in neutral because all the classes of victims created by liberal American politics are busy fighting over their piece of the pie rather than focusing on how to bake more pies. Unless this attitude changes, we will never make significant progress in the space arena. Even the discussion in this group mimics politics as a whole - fund SSTO, dump the shuttle, screw manned space efforts in favor of more probes, etc. IT IS POINTLESS TO ARGUE OVER THE MEANS WHEN WHAT IS NEEDED IS A COHERENT VISION! So back to the initial topic - how does one justify the space program(s)? What are the basic reasons to go into space now? A deceptively simple question with decidedly complex answers: 1. Exploration (To boldly go where no man has gone before...) This has always been a legitimate function - to seek new lands, resources, facts. This part of it also requires dreams and vision, which apeals to young people, and may help motiviate the to study math, science, enigneering, and other skills which are most useful to society. The best reason to explore, however, is that you simply don't know what your going to find. 2. Applications Recon, earth observation, and comsats now, perhaps materials processing soon, and manufacturing farther out. 3. Technology development Argue over spin-offs til you're blue in the face, the point is that large aerospace ventures (like space programs) drive both key technologies and engineering processes. I would argue that the biggest benefit of the Apollo program was the emergence of systems engineering and integration as disciplines in their own right. A properly defined space program to adress these areas (and there may be others), focused on a series of objectives and milestones would be far better than the drift we see today. Even better would be if this could be accomplished on an international level. Finally, more resources are needed. There are two ways to do this. First, always remember that productivity drives programs - if you can do it better, faster, and cheaper, you get to do more. And I really think the good done by a properly focused space program would attract the attention and funding it deserves. We now return to the discussion of the Nirvana of SSTO vs. the hell of STS. (I like 'em both - but zealots can't admit anyone elses viewpoint has value.) ---- Mark Benson benson@med.ge.com| "Are we gonna talk about it, or GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI USA| do something about it?" HRP, 10/92 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 19:27:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Mars Observer Update - 12/30/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT December 30, 1992 11:00 AM PST Launch +96 Days The Spacecraft Team reports that spacecraft subsystems and instruments are performing nominally. The spacecraft is in Array Normal Spin; the downlink data rate is at 250 bps while the uplink data rate is 125 bps. C5 A execution began on December 19. C5 is the outer cruise transition sequence which is marked by the spacecraft attitude being changed from an off sun orientation to direct pointing at Earth. The Mission Manager reports that we are on schedule for transition to outer cruise operations on January 2 and to High Gain Antenna operations on January 4. Today the spacecraft is 38,335,379 km (23,820,500 miles) from Earth, traveling at a velocity of 9.4083 kilometers per second (21,046 miles per hour) with respect to Earth. One way light time is approximately 128 seconds. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 17:54:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Moon Dust For Sale Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Superior Galleries in Beverly Hills, California is having an auction of space memorabilia on January 11, 1993. One item of particular interest is a 2 inch piece of transparent tape which has some Moon dust on it. This is the first time that Moon dust is being offered for sale. The Moon dust was collected by a NASA technician from the spacesuit of astronaut Dave Scott after his Apollo 15 trip to the Moon in July, 1971. It is guarantteed to be genuine by Superior Galleries and is expected to be sold in the price range of $75,000 to $100,000. For more information on the Moon dust or the auction, you can contact Superior Galleries at (800) 421-0754 or (310) 203-9855. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 05:22:54 GMT From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Shuttle Performance (Was:Comparative $/lb) Newsgroups: sci.space David Anderman writes: >Using a 50,000 lb. payload for the Shuttle to calculate its cost >per pound does not take into consideration the trivial fact that >the Shuttle never carries 50,000 lbs into orbit. Maximum payload >weight for a safe abort is 40,000 lbs, and the shuttle rarely >carries that much weight. There are several other factors here, and I believe, a misstatement. The factors are that many shuttle missions do not go to 150 nmi, 28.5 deg. circular orbits. If the shuttle goes to a higher orbit such as was done for Space Telescope deploy, its performace decreases (as does every other launch vehicle). So I would not expect the shuttle to carry its max rated capacity for 150 nmi to 250 nmi or so. Similarly, if the shuttle launches to a higher inclination orbit than 28.5 deg, say to 50 deg inclination, then its performance also decreases (as does every other launch vehicle). Again, I would not expect the shuttle to carry its max rated capacity for 28.5 deg inclination 150 nmi orbits to 40 deg inclination 150 nmi orbits. On that basis, yes, the shuttle rarely carries its maximum achievable payload, if that maximum payload is measured to 150 nmi, 28.5 deg circular orbits. Probably a better comparision is to compare the percentage of maximum payload possible (based upon vehicle performance to that altitude and inclination) to what was actually achieved. Based upon my analysis of this, incorporating the masses of the primary payloads (IUS/TDRS, Spacelabe etc), plus secondary payloads (middeck locker experiments, GAS cans, crew experiments), and compared to the expected vehicle performances into the altitudes and inclinations the shuttle was launched into, I find the shuttle manifest typically runs about .95-.97 full. I found this result rather surprizing (I was trying to justify ET propellant scavenging into unused payload performance to fuel a resuable space tug), but the simple answer I found what that secondary payloads (GAS cans, crew experiments, middeck locker experiments) are used to fill up unused primary payload performance -- yet typically only pimary payloads are listed on the manifest. And there is quite a long waiting list of secondary payloads who want opportunities to fly ... The misstatement is the 40,000 lbs safe return weight. There are actually two safe return weights, with a much higher value based upon a 1 time safe return, versus a routine return. Please read the following, which is a repeat of a November posting (which is a repeat of an earlier posting). ORBITER RETURN PAYLOD CAPABILITY Orbiter return capability is totally different from orbiter delivery capability. The orbiter return delivery capability is calculated on an individual vehicle and mission capability - based upon total return landing weight. Furthermore there is a 1-time contingency landing capability as well as a regular mission limit. The limit is driven at (from memory) about 240 Klbs routine return weight on the landing gear/tires. OV-102, since it is about 9,000 lbs heavier than any other vehicle, is certified for regular returns of about 32,000 lbs of payload. OV's-103, -104, and -105 are much lighter weight vehicles and can accommodate higher weight payloads, typically in the 40,000 lb or higher category, on a regular basis without exceeding the 240 Klb limit. However, there is also a higher certified safe limit for a 1-time contingency landing. If the shuttle is launching a 45,000 lb TDRS/IUS, it obviously can't dump the payload before landing in a RTLS or TAL abort, yet it must be able to land safely. And there might be a heavy payload that won't deploy. So the orbiter is certified to land, at least once, with a gross weight at landing of about 275Klbs, which is about a 75,000 payload on OVs -103, -104, and -105. After such a landing, it would be necessary to reinspect and recertify the landing gear, but it has been exhaustively certified that it won't crash or collapse in such an event. I called and talked to a Shuttle landing gear designer I used to work with, and he thought an inspection would be sufficient in such an event, based upon the landing data from the previous 45 [now closer to 52, I believe] or so flights. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:22:09 GMT From: Robert Frederking Subject: Solar system stability (Was: averting doom) Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment The latest issue of S&T mentions some recent work done using chaos theory and large computers to see whether the solar system is stable. Their finding (I forget who it was now) was that millimeter perturbations in the orbits of the planets do cause chaotic changes in the long run. The good news (for people who don't like chaotic orbits) is that the amount of time it takes for something ``really bad'' to become probable is on the order of a trillion years [i.e., longer than the solar system will exist in its present form anyway]. ``Really bad'' is for a planet to be ejected, a collission, etc. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 16:57:13 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage Newsgroups: sci.space In roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: >There's a very good argument for multistage rockets - it makes the mass >ratio much simpler to manage (see some of the books by Willy Ley). There's also a very good argument for multistage airplanes -- it makes the mass ratio simpler to manage. However, while multistage airplanes have been builting and tested in trans-Atlantic service, airplane manufacturers quickly realized that the key to producing a successing airliner was not minimizing mass ratio, but minimizing operating costs. In a competitive market, a launcher with a large mass ratio and low operating costs will beat a launcher with small mass ratio and high operating costs every time. Achieving this requires careful attention to sound engineering principles including, above all, KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. What's needed is a simple, reliable design, without bells, whistles, or stages. >Unfortunately, it also adds to the complexity and reliability problems of >the launcher, which is why we'd like to go to SSTO if we can. Thanks to >advances in technology, it may now be practical, and DC will be a great >breakthrough if it works. Advances in technology, perhaps, but hardly recent advances. The old Saturn S-IVB stage could've been turned into a SSTO launcher, with a payload the size of a Gemini spacecraft. The "unattainable mass ratio" is nothing more than an aerospace legend. >But that doesn't mean designers were foolish to >use multistage systems in the past - and some applications, such as direct >flight to the moon without refueling, will probably remain unattainable by >SSTO for a long time. Actually, SSTM (you can hardly call it SSTO :-) would be quite attainable given a nuclear rocket engine with a sufficiently high thrust-to-weight ratio. Unfortunately, launching nuclear rockets from Earth was politically unacceptable even before we had Captain Planet for Veep. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 18:00:58 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >> There's a very good argument for multistage rockets - it makes the mass >> ratio much simpler to manage (see some of the books by Willy Ley). > There's also a very good argument for multistage airplanes -- it makes > the mass ratio simpler to manage. The mass ratio on an airliner is much less than in a launcher with chemical rocket propulsion, for rather fundamental reasons. It is therefore not inconceivable that multistage launchers would be appropriate even though multistage aircraft are not. (Actually, effectively multistage aircraft are in routine use, through the use of midair refueling.) Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 20:32:46 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: two-line element info needed Newsgroups: sci.space Is there a FAQ detailing the fields in the two-line element sets? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 20:23:32 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Sets, Part 1 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec28.220558.4693@afit.af.mil>, tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso) writes: > The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are > carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when > possible). Documentation and tracking software are also available on this > system. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, > 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. > > Element sets (also updated daily) and some documentation and software are > available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the > directory pub/space. > > As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of these > elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.news and rec.radio.amateur.misc. > This week's elements are provided below. > > - Current Two-Line Element Sets #117a - > Alouette 1 > 1 00424U 62B-A 1 92351.31185290 .00000085 00000-0 96657-4 0 6941 > 2 00424 80.4638 105.5307 0023933 84.6169 275.7713 13.67741127507504 > ATS 3 > 1 03029U 67111 A 92356.07873080 -.00000078 00000-0 99999-4 0 9016 > 2 03029 14.2269 12.9755 0013676 251.9752 107.8695 1.00271641 91999 > Cosmos 398 > 1 04966U 71 16 A 92363.25204690 .00089720 26162-4 28657-3 0 9348 > 2 04966 51.4789 99.4247 1510481 348.4308 8.5162 12.75681918701420 > Starlette > 1 07646U 75010 A 92362.67557300 -.00000055 00000-0 41575-5 0 4882 > 2 07646 49.8216 110.4936 0205622 4.3246 355.9366 13.82180394903643 > LAGEOS > 1 08820U 76039 A 92362.15435531 .00000004 00000-0 99999-4 0 5531 > 2 08820 109.8589 311.6147 0043643 39.5522 320.8129 6.38664306132855 > ETS-2 > 1 09852U 77014 A 92334.47814434 -.00000098 00000-0 99999-4 0 7488 > 2 09852 11.1085 48.1713 0001459 200.7488 159.4019 1.00023746 4820 > GOES 2 > 1 10061U 77048 A 92361.60928397 .00000103 00000-0 99999-4 0 9183 > 2 10061 10.1533 52.3232 0003778 156.5662 330.3382 1.00293357 1728 > IUE > 1 10637U 78012 A 92362.21904610 -.00000193 00000-0 00000+0 0 6608 > 2 10637 33.7519 103.6595 1321368 19.7172 355.4665 1.00311371 7500 > GPS-0001 > 1 10684U 78020 A 92355.99127624 -.00000004 00000-0 99999-4 0 30 > 2 10684 64.3245 61.6947 0068396 163.1714 197.1065 1.98069607 94179 > GPS-0002 > 1 10893U 78 47 A 92357.66043480 -.00000014 00000-0 99999-4 0 7414 > 2 10893 63.8502 301.6993 0203884 12.9146 347.5835 2.01626997107157 > GOES 3 > 1 10953U 78062 A 92360.55187765 .00000100 00000-0 99999-4 0 6251 > 2 10953 9.0606 54.9971 0005783 105.1292 317.7889 1.00275303 6324 > SeaSat 1 > 1 10967U 78064 A 92361.68414599 .00000304 00000-0 14321-3 0 9468 > 2 10967 108.0173 69.7024 0002673 239.5484 120.5412 14.37741821759101 > GPS-0003 > 1 11054U 78093 A 92361.27782999 -.00000013 00000-0 99999-4 0 8535 > 2 11054 63.5557 297.5739 0043375 173.9532 186.0857 1.93505072104101 > Nimbus 7 > 1 11080U 78098 A 92356.71295490 .00000050 00000-0 60623-4 0 92 > 2 11080 99.1200 247.5974 0009313 142.2812 217.8998 13.83695022715058 > GPS-0004 > 1 11141U 78112 A 92358.65105742 -.00000004 00000-0 99999-4 0 5556 > 2 11141 64.3200 61.9450 0048417 23.3034 336.9759 1.92894801102578 > GPS-0005 > 1 11690U 80 11 A 92358.40404322 -.00000003 00000-0 99999-4 0 5015 > 2 11690 64.6662 63.5992 0137624 200.1893 159.3533 2.00550072108693 > GPS-0006 > 1 11783U 80 32 A 92354.40994259 -.00000012 00000-0 99999-4 0 7405 > 2 11783 62.9734 296.4672 0200332 28.7266 332.3422 2.03456474 92870 > GOES 5 > 1 12472U 81049 A 92359.11764426 -.00000236 00000-0 99999-4 0 4612 > 2 12472 5.6690 64.3110 0002964 322.1155 37.6763 1.00242181 358 > Cosmos 1383 > 1 13301U 82 66 A 92354.07963295 .00000057 00000-0 59835-4 0 148 > 2 13301 82.9303 349.4104 0027210 154.2096 206.0414 13.68026896522891 > LandSat 4 > 1 13367U 82 72 A 92362.13378847 -.00001419 00000-0 -31016-3 0 6046 > 2 13367 98.2568 56.9910 0007958 113.2609 246.9406 14.57076561555852 > IRAS > 1 13777U 83 4 A 92356.08548060 -.00000045 00000-0 -19164-4 0 3008 > 2 13777 98.9864 186.9157 0012776 16.5345 343.6233 13.99144606175285 > Cosmos 1447 > 1 13916U 83 21 A 92361.59845866 .00000059 00000-0 56115-4 0 948 > 2 13916 82.9456 49.2899 0039043 86.1367 274.4253 13.74274332489494 > TDRS 1 > 1 13969U 83 26 B 92361.18439608 .00000121 00000-0 99999-4 0 8832 > 2 13969 6.6069 56.7441 0002205 275.2577 18.4083 1.00268919 8668 > GOES 6 > 1 14050U 83 41 A 92360.57089103 -.00000076 00000-0 99999-4 0 8250 > 2 14050 4.4452 67.0839 0003079 268.2480 219.1407 1.00327076 7381 > OSCAR 10 > 1 14129U 83 58 B 92362.21185627 -.00000019 00000-0 99998-4 0 9545 > 2 14129 27.0008 47.5477 6016919 44.6562 350.5126 2.05877651 43751 > GPS-0008 > 1 14189U 83 72 A 92359.49999999 -.00000005 00000-0 99999-4 0 3795 > 2 14189 63.8951 59.0031 0137510 233.8774 68.5094 2.00563848 69245 > LandSat 5 > 1 14780U 84 21 A 92362.65516929 .00000489 00000-0 11874-3 0 4091 > 2 14780 98.2386 59.7723 0005496 114.8036 245.3718 14.57105565469343 > UoSat 2 > 1 14781U 84 21 B 92360.59548196 .00000821 00000-0 14843-3 0 3913 > 2 14781 97.8293 28.5366 0011415 186.2765 173.8299 14.68801991471231 > GPS-0009 > 1 15039U 84 59 A 92356.76015314 -.00000006 00000-0 99999-4 0 7631 > 2 15039 63.6475 58.0635 0045728 218.9038 140.8200 2.00567143 62466 > Cosmos 1574 > 1 15055U 84 62 A 92353.69713457 .00000056 00000-0 53870-4 0 3464 > 2 15055 82.9572 107.3228 0026936 297.6219 62.2218 13.73570411425741 > GPS-0010 > 1 15271U 84 97 A 92362.68610872 -.00000012 00000-0 99999-4 0 4048 > 2 15271 62.6754 295.8717 0129116 341.0922 18.4480 2.00565797 59693 > Cosmos 1602 > 1 15331U 84105 A 92360.13481630 .00001529 00000-0 18197-3 0 28 > 2 15331 82.5352 222.2059 0019673 178.9471 181.1790 14.83670261444563 > NOAA 9 > 1 15427U 84123 A 92359.44956228 .00000015 00000-0 18545-4 0 2575 > 2 15427 99.1251 30.4248 0014314 302.2612 57.7191 14.13466209414092 > GPS-0011 > 1 16129U 85 93 A 92360.41681461 -.00000005 00000-0 99999-4 0 1093 > 2 16129 64.4051 59.6937 0129548 143.7947 217.1631 2.00564424 52852 > Mir > 1 16609U 86 17 A 92362.85469299 .00019202 00000-0 26322-3 0 7864 > 2 16609 51.6218 359.5906 0001301 166.5921 193.5058 15.57386335392415 > SPOT 1 > 1 16613U 86 19 A 92362.59354133 .00000179 00000-0 10155-3 0 9538 > 2 16613 98.7441 73.1550 0005249 264.2994 95.7644 14.20256511 40409 > Cosmos 1766 > 1 16881U 86 55 A 92363.28376100 .00001661 00000-0 20218-3 0 8515 > 2 16881 82.5226 277.5293 0018631 188.3294 171.7614 14.82771988346027 > EGP > 1 16908U 86 61 A 92356.31659748 -.00000025 00000-0 99999-4 0 6391 > 2 16908 50.0101 313.3895 0011424 17.8460 342.2774 12.44405939289170 > NOAA 10 > 1 16969U 86 73 A 92359.41695375 .00000091 00000-0 46994-4 0 1058 > 2 16969 98.5269 13.5489 0014319 104.9392 255.3415 14.24743749325749 > MOS-1 > 1 17527U 87 18 A 92362.73579045 .00000117 00000-0 99999-4 0 3923 > 2 17527 99.0973 69.8903 0000407 72.2228 287.8968 13.94869545298157 > GOES 7 > 1 17561U 87 22 A 92360.64177812 -.00000018 00000-0 99999-4 0 2751 > 2 17561 0.3442 84.9682 0002899 309.2126 178.9600 1.00268602 4575 > Kvant-1 > 1 17845U 87 30 A 92362.85468102 .00021425 00000-0 29285-3 0 2344 > 2 17845 51.6228 359.5914 0001431 163.0112 197.0197 15.57387316392419 > DMSP B5D2-3 > 1 18123U 87 53 A 92361.08694645 .00000172 00000-0 10798-3 0 6884 > 2 18123 98.7946 189.4052 0013602 275.9504 84.0127 14.15225160284893 > RS-10/11 > 1 18129U 87 54 A 92362.52435170 .00000097 00000-0 99999-4 0 5052 > 2 18129 82.9259 5.4940 0013370 74.8978 285.3654 13.72304193276301 > Meteor 2-16 > 1 18312U 87 68 A 92354.85133072 .00000089 00000-0 74908-4 0 9894 > 2 18312 82.5542 283.5477 0011004 199.1406 160.9341 13.83974432269763 > Meteor 2-17 > 1 18820U 88 5 A 92353.10621057 .00000075 00000-0 61699-4 0 8462 > 2 18820 82.5413 342.9471 0015645 278.8714 81.0679 13.84664706246785 > DMSP B5D2-4 > 1 18822U 88 6 A 92361.11411469 .00000398 00000-0 19369-3 0 5897 > 2 18822 98.5127 225.2642 0007380 109.3245 250.8726 14.22771070254002 > Glonass 34 > 1 19163U 88 43 A 92354.60961811 .00000017 00000-0 99999-4 0 6431 > 2 19163 64.9449 128.6664 0007505 178.1720 181.8039 2.13102517 35059 > Glonass 36 > 1 19165U 88 43 C 92350.44222314 .00000017 00000-0 99999-4 0 8408 > 2 19165 64.9397 128.7943 0003435 342.9958 16.9770 2.13102533 35582 > METEOSAT 3 > 1 19215U 88 51 A 92360.63215277 -.00000258 00000-0 99999-4 0 5556 > 2 19215 0.5308 73.5524 0001638 277.6121 281.7485 1.00267118 4517 > AO-13 > 1 19216U 88 51 B 92358.05962542 -.00000248 00000-0 99999-4 0 5496 > 2 19216 57.6197 342.9243 7279566 303.9629 6.7970 2.09726878 3165 > OKEAN 1 > 1 19274U 88 56 A 92358.09837837 .00001176 00000-0 14618-3 0 5503 > 2 19274 82.5148 21.6921 0020755 354.5668 5.5318 14.81618953240947 > Meteor 3-2 > 1 19336U 88 64 A 92353.37685565 .00000028 00000-0 59652-4 0 133 > 2 19336 82.5421 349.8976 0016229 184.8458 175.2509 13.16953549211414 > Glonass 39 > 1 19503U 88 85 C 92354.21889855 -.00000021 00000-0 99999-4 0 8976 > 2 19503 65.6826 7.6724 0006719 180.9233 179.1402 2.13101714 33154 > NOAA 11 > 1 19531U 88 89 A 92359.38964199 .00000339 00000-0 20292-3 0 106 > 2 19531 99.1086 325.9471 0011309 207.8510 152.2083 14.12799241218992 > TDRS 2 > 1 19548U 88 91 B 92361.53852566 -.00000258 00000-0 00000+0 0 5681 > 2 19548 0.0185 97.7881 0002716 176.2710 312.9725 1.00265127 2828 > Glonass 40 > 1 19749U 89 1 A 92362.70651816 .00000017 00000-0 00000+0 0 9126 > 2 19749 64.8876 128.0082 0005453 262.4957 97.4212 2.13101773 30861 > Glonass 41 > 1 19750U 89 1 B 92354.31713466 .00000017 00000-0 99999-4 0 8507 > 2 19750 64.9073 128.3302 0006333 248.0785 111.8384 2.13102015 30689 > GPS BII-01 > 1 19802U 89 13 A 92358.26890323 .00000015 00000-0 99999-4 0 5486 > 2 19802 55.0451 161.1324 0040596 169.9239 190.1468 2.00570217 28208 > Akebono > 1 19822U 89 16 A 92362.84935894 .00021192 00000-0 12032-2 0 7306 > 2 19822 75.1332 120.5889 3904965 318.7153 17.5516 7.61973302 67963 > Meteor 2-18 > 1 19851U 89 18 A 92354.68639557 .00000108 00000-0 91451-4 0 7904 > 2 19851 82.5210 218.0108 0014087 319.8565 40.1552 13.84313836192358 > MOP-1 > 1 19876U 89 20 B 92357.00000000 .00000015 00000-0 00000+0 0 4941 > 2 19876 0.2410 343.1358 0001625 22.3646 84.9190 1.00264121 1474 > TDRS 3 > 1 19883U 89 21 B 92361.39288328 -.00000241 00000-0 00000+0 0 5626 > 2 19883 0.0305 208.1361 0002845 43.2349 304.0732 1.00265451 84100 > GPS BII-02 > 1 20061U 89 44 A 92358.60933317 -.00000032 00000-0 99999-4 0 5545 > 2 20061 54.8606 338.4722 0105038 200.7788 158.7559 2.00560294 25957 > Nadezhda 1 > 1 20103U 89 50 A 92352.99830476 .00000049 00000-0 45551-4 0 6988 > 2 20103 82.9592 330.5354 0038908 12.6835 347.5290 13.73804306173319 > GPS BII-03 > 1 20185U 89 64 A 92361.44197573 .00000015 00000-0 99999-4 0 5018 > 2 20185 54.8898 161.7116 0010040 188.3799 171.6883 2.00576536 24580 > -- > Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations > tkelso@afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 614 ------------------------------