Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_266.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for [e-mail]
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/andrew.cmu.edu.448.1.0>;
          Sun, 10 Jul 88 06:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00444> for ota+space.digests; Sun, 10 Jul 88 06:49:09 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08525; Sun, 10 Jul 88 03:23:27 PDT
    id AA08525; Sun, 10 Jul 88 03:23:27 PDT
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 88 03:23:27 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #266

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 266

Today's Topics:
             Re: Recycling Pershing-II's
              space station name
              Re: Shooting the Moon....
                 Space Digest
              Re: satellite oceanography
                Getting Nuked
                 Mir docking
              Book Review wanted
              Re: Getting Nuked
             RE: Nuclear Fantasma
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 88 22:15:04 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Recycling Pershing-II's

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred Baube) writes:
}[The Soviets will also reclaim precious metals] from missile
}guidance systems, and extract plutonium from warheads for use in
}civilian reactors.


I find this hard to believe.....


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
[e-mail] 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

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

Date: 2 Jun 88 17:44:29 GMT
From: pacbell!att!alberta!ubc-cs!fornax![e-mail]  (Zeke Hoskin)
Subject: space station name

Inasmuch as one of the constraints on space
station name is "Not subject to ambiguous
puns in any relevant language", there is no
chance that "High 'n' Lyin'" could be used.
(pun courtesy Spider Robinson)
--
What makes one step a giant leap|Zeke Hoskin/SFU VLSI group,Burnaby,BC,Canada
Is all the steps before         | ...!ubc-cs!sfu_fornax!zeke

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

Date:         Fri, 3 Jun 1988 16:45:46 CDT
From: "Jonathan C. Sadow" <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: Shooting the Moon....

killer!tness7!tness1!sugar![e-mail]  (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>> Nuking Mars would be a crudity akin to spray-painting directions to
>> your party in 100-ft letters on the Grand Canyon. A cosmic act of
>> inconsideration by a F-T-Universe species. It'd make us look bad.
>
>Why? What good is Mars? It doesn't even have an ecosystem. There's a lot
>to be said for just busting the thing wide open and making a bunch of
>useful asteroids. Venus, too... in fact you could make a better case for
>Venus.
>
>But there's really no hurry. There are plenty of asteroids out there
>yet.  Let Mars lie fallow for a while. Hell, we haven't even gotten a
>decent start on the moon.

We've had even less of a start on Mars, and I see no reason to explode
thermonuclear warheads or the planet itself before we can take a good
look at it.  After all, it's the only Mars we'll ever have....  Seriously,
our knowledge of planetary regoliths is extremely limited at this time,
and we should keep Mars (or any other extraterrestrial body) as 'pristine'
as possible for as long as possible.  Flattening out a landing site via
the described method may be quick, but it's quick and dirty, too.  Slow
and steady wins the race (something I have to keep telling myself every
time I hear of another launch of a planetary mission being delayed...).

-J. Sadow
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Jun 88 18:29:04 GMT
From: ecsvax![e-mail]  (Guerry A. Semones)
Subject: Space Digest


Pardon my ignorance, but I've noticed mention of 'subscriptions' to
Space Digest here.  If this is an E-mail implentation of sending out
copies of the Space Digest, I'd like to know how to get signed up.
     Please, no flames if I dropped this message in the wrong place....

--
 Guerry A. Semones                 BITNET: [e-mail]
 Information Services              USENET: [e-mail]
 Duke University                   My views are despairingly mine only.
 Talent Identification Program     "We ain't gifted, we just work here."

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

Date: 4 Jun 88 05:23:28 GMT
From: pioneer![e-mail]  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: satellite oceanography

This machine (apl) is not accessible to me for some reason.  This is
otherwise should be mail since it is not of general net interest.

Sure there's lots of people, most not ARPAnet accessible.
I was just visiting a friend and climbing partner, Dudley Chelton
at OSU [author of the book CLIMB on Colorado climbing, PhD Oceanography
Boulder (always funny so far from the sea)].  He's part of the TOPEX group
seeking climbing partners in Corvalis BTW.  He's on SPAN at least.
There's Len Bryan at JPL and his crew and numerous RSAG people.  Ray Smith
at UCSB.

There's tons of references:

%A J. P. Ford
%A R. G. Blom
%A M. L. Bryan
%A M. I. Daily
%A T. H. Dixon
%A C. Elachi
%A E. C. Xenos
%T Seasat Views North America, the Caribbean, and Western Europe with Imaging
Radar
%R TR 80-67
%I JPL, Caltech
%C Pasadena, CA
%D Nov. 1980

Xerographic copying of this report isn't recommended, detail will be lost.
Consequently it will be harder to find, my stack of six has dwindled
to one just sitting at my Ames office.

This TR reads:
    "It is expected that the material will be of interest to a wide
    audience, including university students who wish to explore the
    potential value of this new remote sensing tool.  In turn, this
    should foster analysis of the remaining 99% of Seasat's SAR
    land images."
What this means is "we only have so much money to process (auto-correlate)
raw image data, send money."

Added note to the comment of the person who noted my sarcastic comment:
NO, these types of radar systems are vastly different.  Go learn about radar.

There are numerous other technical reports which I do not recommend
requesting that the net bug researchers unless they are grad students (or profs)
interested in projects (like this fellow?).  It's really expensive to
make copies of these

%Q JPL
%T Seasat Gulf of Alaska Workshop [I,II] Report
%R TR 622-107
%C Pasadena, CA
%D January 1980

There are other useful instruments like the altimeter (or "How
I know orbits are bumpy (not smooth) things."):

%Q JPL
%T Accuracy Assessent of the Seasat Orbit and Height Measurement
%R IASOM TR 79-5
%I Institute for Advanced Study in Orbital Mechanics, U Texas
%C Austin, TX
%D Oct. 1979

Finally when you get raw data, you get reports like:

%Q JPL
%T Seasat-A Sensor Data Record Tape Specification Interface Control
Document and Telemetry Dictionary
%R TR 622-57, Rev. A
%I JPL, Caltech
%C Pasadena, CA
%D May 1979

"Can't I just tar the data?"  "No, silly, what makes you think this
is a 9 track tape?  It isn't."

Blue sky:

%A Gregg Vane
%T Opportunities on Earth-Orbiting Missions through 1990 and Beyond
%R TR
%I JPL, Caltech
%C Pasadena, CA
%D March 1980
%X This TR is now obsolete with the introduction of R. Reagan who cancelled
most of these missions.

I have tons more, but it gives you the flavor what a space mission is about.
There are far too many notes for me to read on the net.  I will start
hitting the 'c' command on news more often.  If I miss you posting,
query what ever, sorry, but tough beans.  News is unreliable as it is.
Just think who will miss this.

I don't know all the reasons why Jim is trying to defend his not revealing
sources.  I guess others are asking him for sources, too.  Good for YOU guys!
I asked him for sources early on, he said no, and I left it at that.
Note: at the time I had a direct audience with the Inspector General of
NASA and can drop a very heavy hammer at the word GO.  I will still
leave it at that.  If the man doesn't want to give specifics for fear of
reprisal, then he does not have to tell us.  I have more important
work to do.

Let me come to Eric's defense about his comment about Henry whom posts more
that which should be mail. Right on, sort of, but Henry
does make a few good comments on occasion.  I just hit 'n' otherwise.

I honestly wish a few of you guys would use a library.
This guy (remember oceanography? like Alice) had a legit question.

If you want a copy of the above reports, and think you really deserve one,
before you mail to JPL (don't bother mailing me), what significance
is the year 1964 to space radar oceanography, what happened?  If you can answer
this pass GO, and collect $200.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

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

Date: Sat, 4 Jun 88 10:49:28 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Paul F. Dietz)
Subject: Getting Nuked

All this talk about nuking Mars to make a landing pad is entertaining,
although not terribly practical.  I wonder, though, if nature might
not have done it already. If you go back 4.6 billion years to the
beginning of the solar system you find natural uranium would be about
30% U-235.  I wonder what effect this highly enriched stuff would have
had on the early solar system.  Could heat from chain reactions have
caused some asteroids to differentiate?  What effect would large
amounts of radioactivity have had on the prebiotic Earth?  Could
natural nuclear explosions have occured in the early solar system?

I suppose one could try to answer these questions by looking at
isotope ratios on various planets.  Noble gases like xenon might be
useful.

Tangentially: does xenon freeze at the lunar poles?  If so, would
there be a terrestrial market for lunar xenon?

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jun 88 20:40:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Mir docking


Hi everyone!  As many of you know by now, there will be a launch of a
visiting crew of cosmonauts to Mir on June 7th.  I sent the following
to the people on my Mir predictions mailing list, and I thought some
of you that are not on it would find it interesting, so I'll just post
it here.

-------

Well, I've done some calculations regarding the launch of the Soyuz on
June 7th.  These are based on previous launches - it turns out the
Russians follow a fairly tight routine in launching Soyuz craft and
therefore these calculations should be pretty accurate.

Obviously, the launch is very dependent on orbital geometry.  I used
Mir's current elements to figure out when the launch will be.  I came
up with 14:02 UTC on June 7th.  If the docking manouevres proceed like
those of the past launches, the Soyuz will dock with Mir on its 33rd
revolution, or about 2.1 days after the launch.  You will therefore be
able to see the spacecraft flying in formation if there is a night
pass for your location on June 7th or 8th.  Soyuz will always be
behind Mir.  It should also be about 1-2 magnitudes fainter.  The
separation between the two (in minutes) can be derived approximately
from the formula:

                    delta T = 46 - 0.93 * t

Where t is time _in hours_ since 14:02 UTC on June 7th.  (Obviously
the formula does not apply past t=50h since by that time the craft are
docked.)  Now, this is a VERY rough equation, so don't flame me if
it's a few minutes off.  It all depends on what the Russians decide to
do anyway.

Note that for passes on the evening of the 7th, Mir will be around 30
min ahead of the Soyuz and therefore the Soyuz will likely not show up
on the same path at all.  This is because even though the two ships
are in almost identical orbits, YOU are rotating with the Earth which
shifts the whole picture.  A little intuition will tell you which way
you should look.  I would say, however, that you will probably not
succeed in seeing the Soyuz on the 7th just by 'winging it'.  If you
are SERIOUSLY interested in observing this, drop off a note and I'll
prepare a special prediction for you assuming I don't get too many
requests.  On the 8th, however, Mir will only be ~10 minutes ahead of
the Soyuz and the two should follow almost the same path.  Try to see
it then.  By the 9th, Mir and Soyuz will have docked if everything
goes according to plan, and for us observers the fun will be over
until a week later when they undock and land the Soyuz.  More on that
later.

Good luck to all of you!  I would appreciate any observations and/or
measurements you make of this event.  Have fun!

-Rich

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

Date: 3 Jun 88 08:37:23 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!csun!polyslo![e-mail]  (The Ag Major)
Subject: Book Review wanted

Has anyone read Stephen Hawking's new book?  I just saw it in our campus
store (at a price a bit above my current available funds) and I am wondering
about it's contents.  Specifically if it is written for the layman, the
intelligent layman, or the intellectual.

With the recent passing on of Feynmann(sp?), people such as Hawkings & Weinstein
seem to be the future hope for mathematical physics, and astro-physics, and
I'd like to learn as much from them and about them as is possible.

Thanks.

--
James A. Salter  --  Yes, math majors can use UNIX(tm), too...
[e-mail]             |  sin x / n = 6   (Cancel the n's!)
...{csustan,csun,sdsu}!polyslo!jsalter  |    Cal Poly Math Professor :-)

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

Date: 5 Jun 88 07:46:38 GMT
From: thumper![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Getting Nuked

Naturally formed uranium reactors *have* occurred on the earth.
Several were discovered in West Africa by the patterns of U-235
depletion in the uranium ore.  There was an article in Scientific
American on the subject.

Phil

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

Date: Sun, 5 Jun 88 12:25 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Nuclear Fantasma

    Consider this.  Using a bomb (of any type) to clear a landing site
    might create a landing site, but destroys a large amount of scientific
    data in the process.  (Every feature and rock on the surface of
    Mars can be considered scientific data).  It is difficult to think
    of any useful experiments that can be done in such an artifically
    manipulated environment.

    On the other hand finding a way to avoid obstacles seems feasible
    and would be itself a technological contribution.  Finding a way
    to generate 1m resolution images of Mars (and doing so) would actually
    be a valuable scientific investigation, in addition to supporting
    a landing.

    In summary, a brute force approach might land a space craft.  A
    more elegant approach could both land it, and generate considerable
    side benefits, without destroying anything.

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #266
*******************