Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_010.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YYzWv:m00UkVAKYE5v>;
          Fri,  1 Sep 89 03:24:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  1 Sep 89 03:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #10

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
                 Face on Mars
           Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced
            Re: Voyager, etc. info sources
             Re: PHONE TREE ALERT
             Re: Voyager: Tape recorder?
             Re: PHONE TREE ALERT
               Re: Pluto fly-by
             Voyager II images available
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 89 17:48:56 GMT
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma![e-mail]  (James P. Galasyn)
Subject: Face on Mars

In article <[e-mail]>,[e-mail](Jack Schmidling) writes:

> The "face on Mars" thing came up last night on The Amateur
> Radio Forum and a real, anti-establishment type kept
> insisting that it is a cover-up.  I read enough of the
> recent postings to write it off as a "natural artifact" but
> didn't save any of the postings because I thought it was a
> dead issue.
>
> Well now I have got to convince this nut and would
> appreciate it if someone would send me something to satisfy
> him.

Call me gullible.  After all the reflex-flaming and snide commentary on
the net, I went out and bought a copy of Hoagland's _The Monuments of
Mars_.  I read about half of it last night, and it seems to me the issue
is worthy of deeper investigation.

I was not impressed by the abstract posted here awhile back.  A couple
year ago, _Omni_ printed an article about the Face, full of beautiful
computer-enhanced images of the thing, but I figured that it could be
an accident if that's all there was:  a Face in the desert.  Also, it
was _Omni_.

But Hoagland claims to have found a whole city, for Christ's sake.  And
he makes a good enough argument that he should be taken at least as
seriously as Pons and Fleishmann.  At least in the eyes of this naive
young EE.  His presentation is breathless and eager, with lots of
exclamation points, but his enthusiasm is infectious;  if he is right,
this would be the single greatest archeological find in history.  And he
details his own experiences with the "conspiracy."  *QUITE* interesting
assertions about face-to-face meetings with Carl Sagan.

He has put an enormous amount of work into this.  He and a large team
of pretty respectable (IMHO) names have built lots of cool computer
models.  I'm no planetary geologist, but there are some odd things down
there:  bilaterally symmetrical structures sitting on the lips of large
craters, a five-sided pyramid with the Golden Ratio built into it, and
the Face.  The structure he identifies as "The City" has right angles in
it, and if you stand in the "City Square" and look at the Face, the
summer solstice sunrise (500,000 years ago) occurs directly over the Face
and this other weird bilateral structure sitting on a crater lip.

This could all be coincidence, but it seems to me that we should not dismiss
this phenomenon before we have given it serious consideration.

                  .
    DEATH       .  ..
              .     . .              All that is true is inexpressible.
      .     .        .  .
    .  .. .           .   .   .
  .     . .            .    .  ..
.        .  .           .     . . .

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

Date: 27 Aug 89 02:43:20 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!teklds!mrloog![e-mail]  (Dan Tilque;6291545;92-101;OPUS_SW;)
Subject: Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced

Bernd Stramm writes:
>MacLeod writes:
>>...we may be looking at a new astrophysically- significant form of
>>energy.
>
>A new form of energy?? So how would you measure it, to know it's
>even there?

The same way Star Trek does in about every third episode:

[Enterprise comes upon a space going something-or-other]

Kirk: Analysis, Mr Spock.

Spock: It appears to be composed of pure energy, Captain.

Kirk: Energy?  What kind?

Spock: Unknown, Captain.  We have never encountered it before.


---
Dan Tilque    --    [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Aug 89 00:52:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Terry Hancock)
Subject: Re: Voyager, etc. info sources

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (XT154-E.WENDLER) writes:
>
>I'm interested in sources for technical information (navigational techniques,
>etc.) about and photos from the Voyager missions as well as Pioneer.  Is JPL
>the best place to go, and if so, is there an address/person to write?  Or
>NASA, or a third party?
>
    The Following is a summary from a "NASA Facts" publication,
including addresses for all the major NASA installations (as of 1983,
I assume they haven't started new ones), and what they specialize in:

NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546
    Ask them questions about policy, money, and things of
political nature.  I wouldn't suggest them for other questions, just
because they probably get too much mail as it is.


Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, California 91103
    They are the "heavies" in planetary research probes and other
unmanned projects (they also had a lot to do with IRAS).  They run
Voyager, Pioneer, Magellan, and will
run Galileo, Cassini, CRAF, etc. etc..  For images, probe navigation,
and other info about unmanned exploration, this is the place to go.
(Answers poster quoted above).

Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California 94035
    Some aeronautical research, atmosphere reentry, Mars and Venus
planetary atmospheres.  "Lead center" for Helicopter research, V/STOL,
etc.  (Their program may have changed since this publication,
remember).

Arc Dryden Flight Research Facility
Edwards, California 93523
    Aircraft, mostly.  Tested the shuttle orbiter landing
characteristics.  Developed X-1, D-558, X-3, X-4, X-5, XB-70,
and of course, the X-15.  They are also where the recent Pegasus
vehicle is being tested.

Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
    Earth orbiting unmanned satellites and sounding rockets.
Developed LANDSAT.

John F. Kennedy Space Center
Florida 32899
    Space launch center.  You know this one.

Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia 23365
    Original NASA site.  Specializes in theoretical and experimental
flight dynamics.  Viking.  Long Duration Exposure Facility.

Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
    Aircraft/Rocket propulsion.  Space power generation.  Materials
research.

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, Texas 77058
    JSC manages Space Shuttle, ground control of manned missions.
Astronaut training.  Manned mission simulators.

Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Alabama 35812
    Development, production, delivery of Solid Rocket Boosters,
External Tank, Orbiter main engines.  Propulsion and launchers.

Wallops Flight Center
Wallops Island, Virginia 23337
    Aeronautical research, sounding rockets, Scout launcher.

    NASA also suggests that for general questions about NASA, you
should write to the installation which is closest to you.  This is
okay, but I suggest that if you're asking about something specific,
you're better off asking the installation that's in charge of the
project.



**********************
Terry Hancock
[e-mail]
**********************

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

Date: 26 Aug 89 17:59:36 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzx![e-mail]  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: PHONE TREE ALERT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
> Call Congressman Robert Roe (D-NJ) at 202/225-5751.  Ask him, as
> chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, to hold
> hearings on HR2674, the Space Transportation Services Purchase Act of
> 1989, as soon as possible.
>
I wish to once again remind the net that although this may(or may not)
be a good idea, it is not an official phone tree alert requested by
the NSS Legislative Committee and Phone Tree Coordinator Kevin Griffen(sic).

Dale Skran

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

Date: 27 Aug 89 23:37:59 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Voyager: Tape recorder?

Perhaps NASA should switch to DECtape.  I once mislaid an O/S release tape
which was then placed on the greasy and dusty louvered surface of an A/C
unit for a YEAR until someone found it and gingerly dropped the disgusting
thing onto my desk.  (Thanks a lot pal.)  Just out of curiosity I vacuumed
it off and respooled it while running a Windex cloth over the tape as it
wound by.  Perfectly readable, no errors.  I don't think there's anything
you can DO to DECtape. :-)

Besides don't we miss random access tape?
--
"We walked on the moon --    ((    Tom Neff
    you be polite"         ))     [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Aug 89 18:01:36 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: PHONE TREE ALERT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (d.l.skran) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>> Call Congressman Robert Roe (D-NJ) at 202/225-5751.  ...

>I wish to once again remind the net that although this may(or may not)
>be a good idea, it is not an official phone tree alert requested by
>the NSS Legislative Committee and Phone Tree Coordinator Kevin Griffen(sic).

First of all,

 #    #  #    #   ####            ####     ##    #####   ######   ####
 #    #  #    #  #    #          #    #   #  #   #    #  #       #
 #    #  ######  #    #          #       #    #  #    #  #####    ####
 # ## #  #    #  #    #          #       ######  #####   #            #
 ##  ##  #    #  #    #          #    #  #    #  #   #   #       #    #
 #    #  #    #   ####            ####   #    #  #    #  ######   ####

and second of all, what does it imply about the collective IQ of NSS members
to suggest that they can't tell the difference themselves at this point?

Baxter's postings reflect concrete advocacy.  Skran's are irrelevant
intramural politics.
--
"We walked on the moon --    ((    Tom Neff
    you be polite"         ))     [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Aug 89 19:13:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Terry Hancock)
Subject: Re: Pluto fly-by

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Infinite -- we cannot reach Pluto with current technology without a Jupiter
>flyby.  I'd guess a Jupiter-Pluto mission at perhaps 7-8 years, but I don't
>have real numbers handy.  Remember, also, that Jupiter will be in the right
>place only about once every 8 years (its orbital period).
>
    1> Depends on what you mean by "current technology" -- Ion
drives capable of doing this (with the appropriate power source),
do exist and have undergone vacuum chamber testing.  That they have
not been used for main thrust on a spaceprobe has more to do with
senseless conservativism than with any real technical challenge.
(Some people are distrustful of letting a probe use such "new and
unproven technology" -- of course it wouldn't be such a big risk if we
had a larger exploratory program than we do, but as it is, losing one
probe would be catastrophic to the program).

    2> Minor correction, Jupiter's orbital period is 11.862 years
(closer to 12), not 8 years!

>
>Unfortunately this doesn't work, because the whole basis of gravity assist
>is that the gravity-assist planet is moving with respect to your target.
>You can't do it with the Sun.  (Although there are some related tricks.)
>--
>V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

    It's probably true that the Sun can't be used for the
traditional "gravity assist" maneuver, but there are three advantages
I can think of to doing the Sun flyby maneuver:

    1> Solar Power (note aforementioned Ion drives -- power is
the problem for outer solar-system work, so do your accelerating
in the inner solar system -- both accelerating toward the Sun and
away from it).  Admittedly this makes for some nasty orbital
computations (continuous boost, particularly over such a non-linear
path), but we're up to that.

    2> Change of direction -- suppose you just made a Jupiter
flyby to improve your orbital energy --you can widen the windows
to Pluto (or anywhere else for that matter) by flying past the
Sun in the appropriate orbit (your final trajectory is very
sensitively dependent on your trajectory toward and away from the
Sun.  Essentially this eliminates the need for Jupiter to be
in the "right place" -- occasionally it will be in the "wrong
place," but you clearly have more options this way.

    3> Science -- shouldn't forget this one, somebody will
have instruments they'd like to have close to the Sun.  Note
that there is detriment to outer solar-system payloads, because
they will have to be extensively shielded from solar radiation
(particularly optics, which may be warped by overheating, if
your not careful).  Basically you need some sort of highly-
efficient reflective sun-shade, and possibly an active cooling
system.  This would probably be ejected after leaving the inner
solar system (to allow freedom of motion and view for the
protected instruments).

************************
Terry Hancock
[e-mail]
*************************
*************************

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

Date: 27 Aug 89 21:16:38 GMT
From: agate!shelby!portia!hanauma.stanford.edu![e-mail]  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Voyager II images available

Hanauma.stanford.edu (IP number 36.51.0.16) has available a sampling
of voyager images of Neptune. (Anonymous ftp, go into "pub", go into
"neptune", grab "README" first.)

These images were digitized off the NASA-JPL feed on Stanford cable TV.

        They are copyright by NASA-JPL.
        -------------------------------

So it is all right to grab them to pin up on the wall, show your family
and friends, whip up public support for unmanned space exploration, etc,
but it is not all right to use them in the paper you are sending to Nature
explaining your theory about the surface of Triton (unless JPL says it's
OK, of course).

Each of the files consists of 1 or more 8-bit grayscale images,
640 by 480 pixels. Do not send me mail asking whether I have them
available in your favorite format. I don't.

The images were digitized using "ProViz" on a Mac II, and saved on
a UNIX AUF partition as Encapsulated Postscript. The postscript text
was deleted; only the binary data is in the file. Note that this data
does not contain anywhere near as much information as the original
Voyager data; it is only as good as what you could see on TV. It is,
however, better than what you are likely to have seen in the newspapers.

Finally, please don't ask me to post these images; they're too big.
Please also don't ask me to e-mail them to you; I just don't have time (sorry!).
(Exceptions can, of course, be made if you have a useful public-domain
graphics subroutine to donate to the cause of a public-domain program
for displaying Postscript^TM (ghostscript, actually) on any kind of device!)

Share and Enjoy.
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger [e-mail]  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #10
*******************