Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_2/V10_215.TXT

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

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/wZJd2w200VcJEJfE4R>;
          Tue,  7 Nov 89 03:22:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  7 Nov 89 03:21:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #215

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 215

Today's Topics:
              Re: Antique Probes
               Re: Voyager's last photo
               scuba and zero-g
            Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?
                Antique Probes
              Re: Advice?? (asking for)
             Re: PowerSat Options
            Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?
            Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?
              RE: SPACE Digest V10 #196
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Nov 89 20:39:21 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ut-emx.UUCP![e-mail]  (Clyde W. Hoover)
Subject: Re: Antique Probes

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lance Michel) writes:
> From: [e-mail] (Lance Michel)
> Subject: Antique Probes
>
Ok, off the top of my head...

>     Viking 1,2    1975    Still sending any signals?
>                 If not, when did they stop?
    *Both Viking orbiters ran out of attitude control fuel,
     drifted out of communication alignment and keeping solar panels
     powered up.  The landers wore out, though the Viking 1 lander is
     probably still working but its computer program for tracking Earth
     got scrambled and so it hasn't been heard from for a couple of years.
>
>     Mariner 1,2    1962    Did we get any data?

    *Mariner 1 protective aeroshell failed to jettison, batteries died
     in a few days, sailed silently by Venus.
    *Mariner 2 flew by Venus, told us that it really is a HOT place.

>         3-7    1963+    Do we even know where they are?
    *Mariner 3 - lost after launch (don't recall why)
    *Mariner 4 - in solar orbit between Earth & Mars - may still be
     transmitting feebly (recall it used solar wind pressure as part of
     its stabilization system so lack of attitude control fuel would not
     matter so much).
    *Mariner 5 - Another Venus flyby I think (may have failed).
    *Mariner 6 - Another Mars flyby I think.
    *Mariner 7 - ???
>         8        Crashed in the ocean right?
    *Yep, believe so
>         9    1971    What was the mission?
    *Orbited Mars for many months and took thousands of pictures
     which were used to select Viking landing sites
>         10    1973    Venus.  Any data?
    *One Venus and three Mercury flybys. Lots of data. Ran out of
     attitude control fuel. Lost communication and power.
>         ??        That's all of them Right?
    *I think so.

>     Pioneer    1-3        Failed moon trajectories?
>         4-9        All Moon related?
    *Some in the 4-9 series are still operating (last I recall) sending
     back solar wind data.
>         10,11        Jupiter,Saturn Still operating?
    *Headed out the the solar system - still operating.
>
>     Pioneer
>     Venus    1    1978    Where are they now? How do you know?
>     Venus    2        Probes released? What about them?
    *Don't recall Pioneer Venus 2, but PV1 may still be working.  No
     probes released - the Soviets do that sort of thing.
>
>     Ranger    3-9    1965+    All Moon related?  Any data coming in?
    *The early Rangers either missed the Moon completly, or
     died enroute.  The later Rangers were sucessful, returning several
     minutes of close up pictures before smashing themselves to junk on
     the lunar surface.
>
>     Lunar Orbiter        ???? What was this for?
    *The Lunar Orbiters (5 of them I think) were used to map the Moon
     for Apollo landing sites.  These probes were unique in that they used
     photographic film, which was developed and then scanned and the images
     transmitted to Earth.   When they ran out of film they were deorbited
     and crashed into the Moon.

>     Surveyor    1968    Just for landing site research?
    *Yes.  To see if the Moon was really covered with dust that would
     swallow a spacecraft whole.  It isn't.  There were 7 of these, 5 of
     which (or maybe 6) landed sucessfully.  Pieces of Surveyor 2 were
     returned by the Apollo 12 astronauts.
>
>     SOVIET PROBES:  Any info at all would be interesting.
>                 Luna
    * Early Luna probes missed the Moon (as did early Rangers)
      Mid-age Lunas flew by the Moon and returned pictures.
      Late Lunas landed and returned soil samples to Earth.
>                 Venera
    * Early Veneras died enroute. Recent Veneras have make radar maps
      from orbit, dropped landers (which didn't survive long on the surface
      of Venus) and balloons.  Current status of recent ones unknown.
>                 Mars
    * Flybys and orbiters, though most have died enroute (sounds like a
      pattern, doesn't it?)  Of  the most recent pair, one died enroute
      the other got to Mars and started exploring, then died of a bad
      computer program upload.
>                 Others?
    * I think the most recent Mars probes were actually called Phobos.
      That's all the Soviet interplanetary probes I can recall.
>
> Voyager Nut!

Spaceflight Nut - weaned on Mercury and Mariner.

Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas
    [e-mail]; ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!clyde

Tip #268: Don't feel insecure or inferior! Remember, you're ORGANIC!!
      You could win an argument with almost any rock!

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

Date: 6 Nov 89 21:58:45 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Voyager's last photo

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John H. Kim) writes:
>I liked the Voyager picture of the Earth-Moon pair (from back
>when it was first launched) but found the resolution of that
>picture disappointing.

Galileo will be taking picture of the Earth-Moon on its 1st Earth flyby
which will then be combined together to create an animation.


 Ron Baalke                       |    [phone] x260
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

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

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 10:21:22 CST
From: [e-mail] (When in fear, or in doubt, run around, scream and shout)
Subject: scuba and zero-g

This is a question that came up this weekend.

One of the important aspects of adapting to a zero-g (okay, microgravity)
environment is to be able to do without a vertical reference, or to changes
ones reference to suit new conditions.  Or so it seems to me.  The question is,
how do you test for this.

The answer that came up related to some people who had just come back from
Cozumel.  If you're not a diver, or never been there, one incredible dive is on
the Santa Rosa Wall.  The current just moves you along.  What interesting to
see is how different people deal with the wall.  Most people tend to remain
vertical in a head up position.  I usually go horizontal, although it changes
if there is something worth looking at.  And I have one friend who goes head
down, because "it's different".

Anyways, does anybody know of any research into this (vertical frame of
reference) or I am hitting some sort of moot point.

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts
TI/DSEG VAX Systems Support          | probably belong to the company.
[e-mail]                  |
[phone]                        | Professional assasination
                                     | The highest form of public service

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

Date: 6 Nov 89 12:24:45 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!edcastle![e-mail]  (Ian Turton)
Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Lynn Egelston Ii) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] questions
>>>How deep would you have to dig to get 1/6th earth gravity?  :-)



>    That assumes we have two point masses.  Once you dig underground,
>there is some mass of the earth pulling upward on you, and some still pulling
>downward, resulting in a smaller net force.

Infact the shell of material outside the radius you have dug down to can be
ignored as the gravity of the bit above you cancels out with the section of
the shell on the otherside of the earth. I think it was Newton that first
showed how this worked.

BTW it would be quite warm by the time you had dug down deep enough to get
1/6th earth gravity, and don't forget that the centre of the Earth is much
denser than the outer crust.



>          Tom Egelston      Internet: [e-mail]


--
Ian Turton                                Dept of Geophysics and geology
I Turton @uk.ac.edinburgh                      JCMB, Kings Buildings
[e-mail]                   Mayfield Rd, Edinburgh
     ***If you don't like my views sue my boss, he'll love it.***

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

Date: 6 Nov 89 14:53:38 GMT
From: rochester!rit!cci632![e-mail]  (Lance Michel)
Subject: Antique Probes

Being somewhat new to the Net, I was impressed with the resources available
to anyone who is looking for information.  I was especially impressed over the
detail of the Status Reports From NASA.  However, the subject that I didn't
see covered thus far was the CURRENT status of some of the old probes which
have long since been forgotten by the media.  I was wondering if anyone could
provide any information regarding the following projects:

    Viking 1,2    1975    Still sending any signals?
                If not, when did they stop?

    Mariner 1,2    1962    Did we get any data?
        3-7    1963+    Do we even know where they are?
        8        Crashed in the ocean right?
        9    1971    What was the mission?
        10    1973    Venus.  Any data?
        ??        That's all of them Right?

    Pioneer    1-3        Failed moon trajectories?
        4-9        All Moon related?
        10,11        Jupiter,Saturn Still operating?

    Pioneer
    Venus    1    1978    Where are they now? How do you know?
    Venus    2        Probes released? What about them?

    Ranger    3-9    1965+    All Moon related?  Any data coming in?

    Lunar Orbiter        ???? What was this for?

    Surveyor    1968    Just for landing site research?

    SOVIET PROBES:  Any info at all would be interesting.
                Luna
                Venera
                Mars
                Others?
I realize that this list is rather long, and beyond the scope of information
you wish to cover.  But I have looked in a few libraries and found not much
more than what I've listed.  If you feel that these questions require too much
work to answer, perhaps you could suggest some resources which are available to
the public and cover these projects in detail.  Also, I'm interested in knowing
if any of these probes are still sending signals of any kind.  At first I
thought a probe from 1965 would be long dead.  Then I realized that it wouldn't
take much to operate a simple "beacon" for decades.

P.S.  Please dont flame me,  I'm just another curious individual.

Thanx in advance for your attention!

Voyager Nut!

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

Date: 6 Nov 89 17:42:04 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Advice?? (asking for)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Amy Antonucci) writes:
>I was wondering if anyone out there could give me advice on how
>to get on the right track so that I may be involved in the space
>program as a career.  I'm not sure what I want to do, but I don't
>expect to make it in the astronaut program.

Mostly, you need to decide what side of the program you want to be involved
in.  There are people who build hardware.  There are people who operate
hardware once it's built.  There are people who look at the results from
the hardware.  These categories overlap somewhat.

For building, you want engineering.  For operating, you probably want
engineering or computers.  For results, you want space science, which
tends to be classed as physics and astronomy.  Building goes on in various
places, notably contractors and JPL.  Operating mostly means working for
NASA.  Space science means universities, and not just any universities --
there are few flight opportunities, and most of them will go to the best
groups.

Getting involved with the military does not look like a particularly good
way to get into the space business, at present.  When you ride a gorilla,
you go where the gorilla wants to go, not where you want to go.

Work hard and be conspicuously good.  There are lots of other people who
want the same jobs, and there aren't all that many openings.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Nov 89 04:47:57 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo!censor![e-mail]  (Jeff Hunter)
Subject: Re: PowerSat Options


 [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
= [e-mail] (bill davidsen) writes:
= >  As I have mentioned before, the twit on the street doesn't care about
= >the laws of physics, he doesn't want to have anything which sounds like
= >atomic, nuclear, or radiation.
=
= Actually, the NMR/MRI example suggests a solution.  Don't call it a
= microwave beam, call it Reduced Frequency Sunlight. :-)
=
    Sunlight-lite. I like it :-)

--
    -- my opinions --    [e-mail]

If energy use alone produced longevity, then we could live forever
by standing at ground zero under megaton-yield air bursts. ... D. Mocsny

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

Date: 6 Nov 89 14:44:08 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uwm.edu![e-mail]  (Russ Brown)
Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?

>
> The force is inversely porportional to the distances and directly
> porportional to the enclosed mass... anything beyond the distance
> of the smaller object has no effect.  You decrease off towards zero-g
> within an object, with max. at the surface.
> ----------------------------------------


So lets come up with an answer...
The surface gravity of a planet is directly proportional to radius X density,
so assuming a constantant density and using the fact that the gravity of
an enclosing 'shell' cancels (really), you would have to dig down 5/6ths
of the way to the earth's center to get 1/6 G.  Good luck.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus space intentionally left blank.

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

Date: 6 Nov 89 19:48:11 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com![e-mail]  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] questions
>>How deep would you have to dig to get 1/6th earth gravity?  :-)
>From what I learnt from school, I recall that the gravitational force
>is inversely proportional to the distance between the center of masses. Hence
>the gravitational force will increase as you go towards the center of the earth.
Uh, that's true for point masses, not an extended mass like the Earth.  If you
were at the center of the real Earth, you'd be weightless.  All that mass
overhead (in all directions) would be pulling on you in all directions, and
all these pulls would cancel.  Of course, the temperature and pressure there
would make things a bit uncomfortable, though.

73 de WA2ISE
-------------------------------
better dead than red!

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

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 12:24 U
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V10 #196

Hi :

Please remove my name from this list, my accound will be cancelled in the near
future.

- Lee Chain-Wu
  [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #215
*******************