Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_161.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kZEtuoW00VcJAAX041>;
          Mon, 23 Oct 89 19:28:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 19:28:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #161

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:
          Re: International participation on Freedom
               Solar Activity info.???
             Re: TDRS vs military
         STS-34 Briefing Schedule (Forwarded)
           Re: What would we do WITHOUT 'Freedom'?
           Re: Try thinking before stinking
    CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of "rec.models.rocket"
             Catholic Anti-Technologists
           Re: Try thinking before stinking
Re: Geyser-like plume discovered on Neptune's moon Triton (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 89 01:52:01 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!shadooby!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: International participation on Freedom

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Hogg) writes:
>... The NASA releases give the American manipulator exactly the
>same tasks that the MSS is supposed to perform.
>So, in answering one question for Henry, I've brought up another one that
>perhaps he can field: how do the bureaucrats presently claim that they're
>going to deal with this redundancy? ...

I've seen nothing that even touches on the matter.  One would suspect that
it was a delicate issue or something. :-)
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Oct 89 02:13:37 GMT
From: unmvax!ariel!hydra.unm.edu![e-mail]  (David Oliver Eisman STUDEN)
Subject: Solar Activity info.???


Question:

Is there a telnet or ftp-like service available where one can
obtain current solar activity data?   I'm looking for data that
is a bit more "live" than that provided by the WWV reports.

Thanks.




-----------------------------------------
Ollie Eisman - N6LTJ  [e-mail]
3505 Lafayette Rd. NE #3, Albuq, NM 87107
[phone]       or     [phone]

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

Date: 15 Oct 89 01:17:24 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!stat!vsserv!prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: TDRS vs military

[Talking about lunar assist into retrograde Clarke orbit]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Of course, it kills your satellites too.  If you're the USSR, though,
>that just means a month or two of high launch rates to replace them all.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Soviets don't use geostationary orbit all that much;
most of their hardware of importance (communications and surveillance sats)
are either in high-inclination orbits (to cover the high latitudes of the
U.S.S.R.) or lower altitude orbits (All the better to see you with...).  So
this is a particularly useful trick for the Soviets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew DeLuca                      :   Practice creates perfection
Georgia Institute of Technology     :   Perfection creates power
ARPA: [e-mail]      :   Power conquers law
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 15 Oct 89 04:18:33 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: STS-34 Briefing Schedule (Forwarded)


  NOTE ON STS-34/GALILEO PRE-LAUNCH BRIEFINGS        Oct. 13, 1989

  ADVISORY:  A decision on an official launch date for Atlantis  on
  the  STS-34  mission is expected on Saturday,  Oct.  14.  A press
  briefing schedule follows:

  L-2 DAYS:

  10 a.m. EDT    Mission Countdown Status
         NASA/KSC Test Conductor
         USAF Weather Officer

  L-1 DAYS:

  9 a.m. EDT     Mission Countdown Status
         NASA/KKSC Test Conductor

  11:30 a.m.EDT  Pre-Launch News Conference
  (TENTATIVE)    Participants to be announced later



  Dick Young, KSC PIO

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 07:25:07 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: What would we do WITHOUT 'Freedom'?

I seem to have read that both the Japanese and ESA have back-up plans of
flying their station contributions in a free-flying mode.
in AW&ST, I think



UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 14:43:17 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Try thinking before stinking

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher John Rapier) writes:

>really haven't been answering. Admittedly the plutonium (which is the
>most poisonous substance known to man, makes dioxin look like lemonade)

Dioxin's toxicity is overrated, but plutonium is by no means the
most toxic substance known to man.  Many other compounds are more
poisonous chemically; many radioisotopes more dangerous.

>man's domination of space? What if something worse happens? Like the
>shuttle explodes at around 3 miles? Even if only 2 pound of plutonium
>escape into the atmosphere (only 5%) how many people will this kill over
>the next 20 years?

Well, a shuttle explosion at 3 miles would almost certainly not breach
the RTG (that would require a contained explosion of the SRBs on the
pad).  Even if it did, they will be launching when winds are out to
sea.  Remember that the Challenger accident did not destroy the
orbiter by explosion; rather, the orbiter was torn apart by
aerodynamic forces as it tumbled away from the disintegrating stack.
Had Galileo been in Challenger, no Pu would have been released.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 13:30:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (R. M. Jungclas)
Subject: CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of "rec.models.rocket"




                        CALL FOR VOTES

                     For the creation of
               rec.models.rocket (unmoderated).


 This is the first call for votes for the creation of
 "rec.models.rockets" newsgroup.  This newsgroup will discuss
 the issues for MODEL ROCKETS and HIGH POWER ROCKETS as
 described in the proposal below.

 The voting period will be from midnight October 16th (CDT)
 until midnight November 15th (EST).  Only votes that arrive
 on the vote-taker's machine during this interval will be
 counted.

 To vote send email to "att!ihlpb!rjungcla" or
 "[e-mail]", explicitly indicating your VOTE in
 the subject line.  I will attempt to individually
 acknowledge all votes and will post a "mass acknowledgement"
 after tallying the final vote.

 Remember ONLY votes MAILED to me will count and that votes
 MUST be explicit.


                  rec.models.rocket PROPOSAL

 It is proposed that a newsgroup "rec.models.rocket" be
 created for the discussion of any aspect relating to model
 rockets OR high power rockets. The purpose of the this
 newsgroup would be for exchange of information to anyone
 wanting TO BUILD, FLY OR USE model rockets or high power
 rockets. It is envisioned that most of the discussions
 within this newsgroup would be of a technical or legal
 nature unique to these "hobbies."

 The remainder of this proposal is broken into three parts:
 MODEL ROCKETRY, HIGH POWER ROCKETRY and AMATEUR ROCKETRY.

 MODEL ROCKETRY:  The term "model rocket" is defined based on
 non-metallic structural components, weight, propellant and
 total impulse restrictions, electrical ignition, recovery
 devices and FACTORY-MADE, solid propellant engines. This
 form of rocketry use the well-known "Safety Code" which
 permits their LEGAL use in all the states although some
 forms of these rockets currently require FAA notification.
 (The FAA is the only regulatory yet to approved the new
 safety code that went into effect on January 1st, 1987.) The
 National Association of Rocketry (NAR) is  national
 "consumer" organization or this hobby in the United States.
 Model rocketry is also available in Canada, Great Britain,
 the Soviet Union and other countries.

 Model rockets have been around for 31 years. Many of you may
 be aware of Estes and MRC model rockets currently available
 in most hobby and toy stores or of manufacturers that are
 now out of business:  Centuri, Cox, MPC, etc..

 HIGH POWER ROCKETRY:  The term "High Power rocket" refers to
 any rocket using model rocket technology (as described
 above) except without the weight, propellant and total
 impulse restrictions of model rocketry.  High power rockets
 have been around for 10 years, but only popular within the
 past few years. All forms of high power rocketry require
 FAA notification and waivers.  This is something the the
 high power enthusiast would like to change. Tripoli is the
 national association for high power rockets.

 Manufacturers of High Power kits/engines include Lots of
 Crafts/Precision, North Coast Rocketry, U.S. Rockets,
 AeroTech and Vulcan.

 The first commercial launch vehicle launched from Cape
 Canaveral was the LOFT-1. This was a "high power rocket" as
 defined above. In addition, off-the-shelf video recorders
 and custom built video cameras/transmitters have been
 successfully flown. One such flight resulted in a video
 transmission that was broadcast on live television.
 Significant payloads are realizable to the average person.

 AMATEUR ROCKETRY The term "amateur rocketry" refers to all
 other non-professional rocket activities.  Included in the
 last class, are "basement bombers," any attempts to make
 homemade engines, and anything using metallic structural
 parts. These activities are ILLEGAL without the proper
 formalities. Although this newsgroup WILL NOT ADVOCATE
 "amateur rocketry," technical discussion on these activities
 will be permitted.  For example, discussion on how engines
 are made would be permitted, but COOKBOOK procedures for
 making them would not.

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 00:19:13 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!srhqla!quad1!ttidca![e-mail]  ( Avatar)
Subject: Catholic Anti-Technologists

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher John Rapier) writes:
 {stuff deleted, claims he's in favor of space exploration..uhuh.}
+
+okay thats a couple of things. My involvement with the Christic
+Institute started with the reading of a graphic-docunovel entitled
+Brought to Light. It dealt with questionable American activity in
+central america and the role of the CIA in subversive and covert
+operations thoughout the world. Really good peice of work. Read it if

 No offense old man, but just exactly how is such a group so damned expert
in such matters? More to the point: What does this have to do with SPACE??

+what we've been doing. They also included a brief on The Christic
+Institute. They are a predominantly Catholic organization, they have a

 Oh great! A really pro-scientific group, as any student of history could
tell you...wake up! The Church feels threatened by Science...this is the
only reason they oppose it, in all forms. The current demonstrations are
just an annoyance..without facts, to support a Luddite outlook.

+number of priests and nuns (reminds me of a cousin of mine, was a nun
+that went to work in the Appalacias to fight the coal companies) working
+with lawyers and case specialists. They take cases on a basis like the
+ACLU but lately they've been working covert operation in Central
+America. They played an important part in uncovering much of the
+information about the Iran-Contra connection. For the most part though

 Real friends of "The People", huh?  This is awful shaky ground..
..and still, what does this have to do with the issue of on-board power
in a deep-space probe?
+
+Now from what I've been reading they have some valid questions that you
+really haven't been answering. Admittedly the plutonium (which is the
+

 None of which has a bit of relation to the facts. The tests on the canister
indicate that it's safe. Period. It's as safe as it can be made. It can really
survive a total-loss crash sceneario, like Challenger. It's been test-smashed
and redesigned to do one thing: Contain the plutonium at all times. These
tests included head-on crashes at 1100+ mph on rocket sleds!

+p.s. Um, Greg Wilkins, why don't you try talking to them. I mean your
+basing your whole opinion of them on the basis of this newsgroup or so
+it seems. I mean how many of you people actually knew about the Christis
+Institute before this? Any of you. For the most part, I think they would
+be more than willing to talk to anyone that made the effort to get in
+touch with them. Just as long as you don't act like a bunch of flaming
+assholes hell bent on proving them to be the fanatics you think they are.

 I've heard of them before. They seem quite anti-American to me..but then
the Holy Church has been Anti-American for some time now...


+
+p.p.s. I just wonder if any of this will actually get make you think.
+
 Makes me think you're a sick-puppy! WAKE UP! IT'S ALMOST 1990!

+p.p.p.s. Interesting replies are welcome and will be answered. Flames
+will be dealt with as harshly as I am able.

 Flame away, alterboy..then we can discuss the other really swell stuff your
beloved Catholic Church has inflicted on Mankind..like the Crusades!
--
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   [phone], ext. 2973 +-------------------------+
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 02:10:53 GMT
From: aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu![e-mail]  (Steve Masticola)
Subject: Re: Try thinking before stinking

Henry Spencer writes:

> It has been done before; there are RTGs in orbit that got there on their
> second try.

Please elaborate! What were the missions? IMHO, putting plutonium into
an Earth orbit which will decay is bloody irresponsible.

- Steve ([e-mail])

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 21:13:05 GMT
From: hplabsb![e-mail]  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Geyser-like plume discovered on Neptune's moon Triton (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
> I can't help but wonder about the proposed scientific merits
> of this [Voyager] extended mission. ...
>There are not enough resources to
>support both these new missions and the "extended missions" of the Voyagers,
>Pioneers, etc.  Both Voyagers, two of the Pioneers, and ICE all require the
>use of our largest and rarest (70m) antennae.  Building a new 70m dish
>would cost and estimated $2 billion: the price of a new space shuttle.
>If we support the extended missions, we could lose valuable data from the
>new planetary missions.

Hold on, the Voyagers and Pioneers do not require the use of our largest
and rarest antennas.  They did in order to send back the large amount of
data from planetary encounters at high data rates, and for that, observatory
radio telescopes were linked in with the Deep Space Network.  But for the
extended mission, they won't be tracked continuously, and they can be
serviced by fewer, smaller antennas.  AW&ST says (Oct 9, p.117):

    Voyager 1 and 2 will be tracked every day by NASA's Deep Space
    Network (DSN), but the spacecraft will be reconfigured for a
    baseline lower data rate of 160 bits/sec -- compared to 21,600
    bits/sec at Neptune -- to enable the spacecraft to use the DSN's
    smaller, 34-meter antenna systems.

--

            David R. Smith, HP Labs
            [e-mail]
            [phone]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #161
*******************