Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_517.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 36KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/Qc:XFWK00WBwMAqU5k>;
          Fri, 10 May 91 01:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 01:49:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #517

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 517

Today's Topics:
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #492
               EJASA May Report

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 May 91 17:11:37 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #492

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>To be fair; no-one has actually _proven_ that there is an Oort Cloud, just
>as no one has _proven_ that there are electrons.

>The logic is something like this:

>The Age of the Solar System (from various sources, including carbon-dating,
>pecentage of H2 in the Sun, etc) is about 5 billion years

>The average lifetime of a comet in the inner solar system is a few million
>years (based on the average size, proximity to sun, etc)

>Therefore, we can conclude that there is a reservoir of comets
>SOMEWHERE, else, we would never have seen a comet, let alone big,
>flashy ones. (i.e. comets that still have lots of volatile chemicals
>that haven't burned off yet)

No. The Oort cloud was discovered by people backtracking the comets to
find a starting point. A large number of them seem to have been
perturbed into the IEEE/ANSI standard long-period comet orbit from
circular orbits with a common semimajor axis/energy, and a more or
less random distribution WRT inclination.

>>Terraforming the moons of Jupiter would probably be easier :-).

>It might be easier, but with so litte energy (sunlight), the issue is whether
>it would last, or be worth the effort.

So, use a bigger mirror. What could it take, one more small stony
asteroid worth of Al to build a mirror of the requisite size?

--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology
battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr.
Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_.

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

Date: 7 May 91 16:15:27 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!shodha.enet.dec.com![e-mail]  (Steve Timpson)
Subject: EJASA May Report

From:    ADVAX::KLAES "CUIP/ASG, MLO21-2/B5 4B, 223-3283  06-May-1991 1241"  6-MAY-1991 10:41:47.86
To:    STEVE
CC:    LARRY
Subj:    Electronic Journal of the ASA - May 1991

                        THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF
                THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                      Volume 2, Number 10 - May 1991

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

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

         * ASA Membership/Article Submission Information

         * The Great Moon Race: New Findings - Andrew J. LePage

         * Astronomy and the Family - Larry Klaes

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

                       ASA MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION

        The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the
    Atlantic (EJASA) is published monthly by the Astronomical Society
    of the Atlantic, Inc.  The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated
    to the advancement of amateur and professional astronomy and space
    exploration, and to the social and educational needs of its members.

        ASA membership application is open to all with an interest in
    astronomy and space exploration.  Members receive the Journal of the
    ASA (hardcopy sent through U.S. Mail), the Astronomical League's
    REFLECTOR magazine, and may additionally purchase discount subscrip-
    tions to ASTRONOMY, DEEP SKY, ODYSSEY, SKY & TELESCOPE, and TELESCOPE
    MAKING magazines.

        For information on membership, you may contact the Society at
    any of the following addresses:

         Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (ASA)
         c/o Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA)
         Georgia State University (GSU)
         Atlanta, Georgia  30303
         U.S.A.

         [e-mail]

         ASA BBS: [phone], 300/1200 Baud.

        or telephone the Society Recording at [phone] to leave
    your address and/or receive the latest Society news.

        ASA Officers and Council -

         President - Don Barry
         Vice President - Nils Turner
         Secretary - Ken Poshedly
         Treasurer - Alan Fleming
         Board of Advisors - Edward Albin, Bill Bagnuolo, Jim Bitsko
         Council - Jim Bitsko, Bill Crane, Toni Douglas, Eric Greene,
                   Larry Klaes, Tano Scigliano, Bob Vickers,
                   Michael Wiggs, Rob Williams


        ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS -

        Article submissions to the EJASA on astronomy and space exploration
    are most welcome.  Please send your on-line articles in ASCII format to
    Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net addresses or the above
    Society addresses:

        [e-mail]
        or - ...!decwrl!advax.enet.dec.com!klaes
        or - [e-mail]
        or - [e-mail]

        You may also use the above net addresses for EJASA backissue
    requests, letters to the editor, and ASA membership information.

        When sending your article submissions, please be certain to include
    either a network or regular mail address where you can be reached, a
    telephone number, and a brief biographical sketch.

        DISCLAIMER -

        Submissions are welcome for consideration.  Articles submitted,
    unless otherwise stated, become the property of the Astronomical
    Society of the Atlantic, Inc.  Though the articles will not be used for
    profit, they are subject to editing, abridgment, and other changes.
    Copying or reprinting of the EJASA, in part or in whole, is encouraged,
    provided clear attribution is made to the Astronomical Society of the
    Atlantic, the Electronic Journal, and the author(s).  This Journal is
    Copyright (c) 1991 by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Inc.


             THE GREAT MOON RACE: NEW FINDINGS

            Copyright (c) 1991 by Andrew J. LePage

    The author gives permission to any group or individual wishing
    to distribute this article, so long as proper credit is given
    and the article is reproduced in its entirety.

        Since the appearance of my articles, "The Great Moon Race: The
    Soviet Story, Parts 1 and 2", in the December 1990 and January 1991
    issues of the EJASA, many new facts on Soviet plans to place a cos-
    monaut on Earth's Moon ahead of the United States APOLLO project have
    been released.  These revelations contradict some of the previous an-
    alysis done on the Soviet lunar program, as well as some of the previ-
    ous information released by the Soviets themselves.  Nonetheless, we
    now have a much clearer picture of the Soviets' manned lunar landing
    program of the 1960s and 1970s.

        Among the new facts revealed by the Soviets is a detailed
    description of their Moon rocket called the N-1.  This large rocket
    consisted of three stages combined into the shape of a long, tapered
    cone.  With its ninety metric ton (one hundred ton) Moon-bound pay-
    load, the N-1 was about 115 meters (370 feet) long, slightly longer
    than the United States Moon rocket, the SATURN 5.  The first stage,
    called Block A, had thirty engines at its base arranged in two
    concentric circles, the outer one with 24 engines and the inner one
    with six.  At liftoff, this cluster of engines burning kerosene and
    liquid oxygen produced a total of 4,590 metric tons (10.1 million
    pounds) of thrust.  After launch, the Block A booster could still
    complete its task with as many as two pairs of its engines not
    functioning.

        Instead of using gimballed engines to steer itself like most large
    rockets, the N-1's first stage would selectively throttle its engines.
    With this sort of steering system, there would be no way to control
    the roll of the rocket.  This may help to explain the failure of the
    third test flight of the N-1 on June 24, 1971.  An unintended roll of
    the rocket at liftoff, possibly caused by unstable and asymmetric
    burning in one of the engines, resulted in the N-1's radio guidance
    link being severed.  With no way to counteract this roll and regain
    its radio link, the N-1 crashed to the ground seconds later,
    destroying itself and the launch pad.

        The second stage, referred to as Block B, used a cluster of eight
    engines similar to those found on Block A.  These engines were modified,
    however, to give much better performance at higher altitudes.  As a
    result, Block B produced a total of 1,410 metric tons (3.1 million
    pounds) of thrust.  Like the first stage, Block B was steered by selec-
    tively throttling its engines.  This stage could still perform with as
    many as two engines shut down.

        The third stage of the basic N-1 stack, known as Block V, had a
    cluster of four engines of a design different from those found on
    Blocks A and B.  They produced a total of 164 metric tons (360,800
    pounds) of thrust and unlike the first two stages, Block V was steered
    using gimballed engines.  It now seems certain that contrary to previous
    analysis, this stage is not the same or even related to the second
    stage of the PROTON launch vehicle.

        The details released on the lunar payload of the N-1 were also a
    surprise:  Contrary to previous analysis and to some statements made by
    the Soviets, the payload not only consisted of a trans-lunar boost
    stage, lunar orbit insertion stage, and the Soviet lunar cabin (known
    by the Russian acronym LK), but also included the modified L-2/SOYUZ
    lunar orbital cabin (LOK) topped with a launch escape rocket.  The
    entire Moon-bound payload was referred to by the Soviets as the L-3,
    which was previously believed to refer to the LK alone.  It was
    previously thought that the LOK was launched separately on another
    launch vehicle like the PROTON and would link up with the rest of the
    payload in Earth orbit.  In fact, the first test flight of the N-1 on
    February 21, 1969, carried an unmanned LOK and an LK mockup.  The other
    three unsuccessful test flights probably carried similar payloads,
    where it is possible that later flights carried working LKs.  The exact
    details of these missions and their payloads have yet to be disclosed.

        Once the N-1 placed the L-3 and crew in Earth orbit, the
    trans-lunar boost stage, known as Block G, with a single engine
    similar to that on the N-1 Block V, would ignite.  Its 41 metric tons
    (90,200 pounds) of thrust would send the lunar orbit insertion stage,
    LK, and LOK towards the Moon.  During the journey, the lunar orbit
    insertion stage, referred to as Block D, would be used for a course
    correction burn.  Once at the Moon, the stage would place itself as
    well as the LK and LOK into lunar orbit.  Interestingly, this stage,
    with a single engine producing 8.7 metric tons (19,200 pounds) of
    thrust, is identical to escape stage used on the PROTON, which was
    also known by the name Block D.  This would explain why this stage of
    the PROTON received the designation "D" (the fifth letter in the
    Cyrillic alphabet), despite the fact it is only the fourth stage on
    the PROTON.  Based on its terrible early record in that role, many of
    the early unmanned and manned test flights would have failed even if
    the first three stages of the N-1 did not malfunction.

        Once in lunar orbit, one of the two cosmonauts in the LOK would
    perform a spacewalk and transfer to the LK still in its launch shroud
    underneath the LOK.  The spacewalk performed during the SOYUZ 4/5
    flight in January of 1969 was most likely a rehearsal of this procedure.
    Once the LK was checked out, it, along with the Block D, would separate
    from the LOK.  The Block D would (hopefully) then ignite one last time
    to start the LK on its descent to the lunar surface, where it would
    afterwards be jettisoned.  The LK's single engine would ignite just
    moments before landing to bring the LK in for a soft landing.  Reliance
    on the proper ignition of this engine to affect a safe landing or abort
    in case of danger would have been a troublesome safety issue.  If the
    craft reached the lunar soil successfully, the cosmonaut would then
    disembark the vehicle to briefly explore the Moon.

        After performing his experiments on the lunar surface, the
    cosmonaut would re-enter the LK and reignite its engine.  On liftoff,
    the descent "stage", which consisted of only several fuel tanks and
    landing support legs, would be left behind.  Upon reaching orbit, the
    LK and LOK would dock.  The cosmonaut would then transfer to the LOK,
    along with his soil samples, via a spacewalk.  After transfer, the LK
    would be cast off and the LOK would ignite its own engine to leave
    lunar orbit and head back to Earth.

        After the success of the American manned lunar program from 1968
    to 1972, the Soviet manned lunar program continued as a purely techno-
    logical demonstration effort.  The N-1 would have to be flown success-
    fully four or five times before a manned launch was attempted.  Politi-
    cally, however, this effort was doomed, since it would be only second-
    rate compared to the United States missions.

        It has recently been revealed that in the early 1970s, an even
    more ambitious manned lunar landing project was studied.  In an
    attempt to outdo the American APOLLO program, the Soviets wanted to
    land *three* cosmonauts on the Moon.  The plan called for the launch
    of two N-1 rockets.  One would carry a modified SOYUZ spacecraft with
    a crew of three, with a special ascent stage attached (as well as the
    Blocks G and D to get the spacecraft to lunar orbit).  The second N-1
    would carry a large descent stage.  Once in lunar orbit, the two
    components would be joined.  The spacecraft would then land on the
    surface of the Moon and the three cosmonauts would explore the lunar
    surface for up to one month.  After that time, the ascent stage and
    its modified SOYUZ would liftoff and return to Earth.  This mission
    would have been attempted after about eight successful launches of
    the N-1.  If the N-1 project had not been canceled, this mission
    would probably have occurred sometime in the late 1970s.

        The major problem with this plan was the reliance on the very
    fickle N-1.  This mission also involved the untried docking of two
    large and complex spacecraft, each weighing on the order of eighteen
    metric tons (twenty tons) in lunar orbit.  In addition, landing such a
    large and relatively tall spacecraft on the surface of the Moon would
    have been difficult and dangerous at best.  This program was obviously
    another example of the "beat the West" attitude that existed in the
    influential quarters of the Soviet leadership.  How far this proposal
    progressed is still unknown, but it likely did not develop too far,
    since the N-1 and the manned lunar landing programs were finally
    canceled in 1974.

        One issue not fully addressed in my original articles was *why*
    the Soviet manned lunar program failed.  Many, including some Soviets,
    would answer this with the fact that Soviet technology was inferior to
    that of the West and was simply not up to the task.  This may be true,
    but the successes of the Soviets' current MIR space station program,
    despite the same "inferior" technology, would argue against this.
    Part of the problem instead probably rests with the Soviets' use of
    their technology and the implementation of the project.

        One problem is the highly automated nature of Soviet manned
    spacecraft.  The SOYUZ was and still is so completely automated that
    the crew is not even necessary.  It can be argued that even in the
    case of a failure in these automated systems, the crew is of limited
    use to correct or compensate for a problem.  The early docking tests
    of the SOYUZ in the KOSMOS 184/186 and 212/213 missions clearly
    demonstrated that a man was not required.  The other elements of the
    program, such as the LK, were similarly automated.  This made for a
    very complex spacecraft that increased the chance of failure no matter
    what level of technology one is using.  Less use of automated equipment
    and more reliance on the skills of the crew, as has been done in Amer-
    ican manned spacecraft, would have made for much simpler and more
    reliable vehicles.

        Another problem was the project management.  Unlike the American
    lunar program that was under the centralized control of NASA, the
    Soviet lunar program management was very decentralized, contrary to
    what most Westerners would believe.  Twenty-six ministries and govern-
    ment departments were involved in the building of the N-1 alone.  Only
    nine of them were under the direct control of the military-industrial
    commission that was also responsible for the space program in general.
    The other seventeen had to be constantly goaded into action and no
    government resolution would help.  Sergei Korolov was technically and
    politically as close as the Soviet space program got to centralized
    control.  After his death in 1966, network alliances and political
    influence needed to keep the program moving even at a snail's pace died
    along with him.  Under these conditions, it would take years for his
    successor, Vasili Mishin, to consolidate that much power.  It can be
    argued that Mishin never did.

        Besides the constant delays that this sort of situation would
    produce, it also affected the quality of the components produced, since
    the individual "contractors" (to use a capitalist term) were not held
    responsible.  This obviously affected the reliability of the spacecraft,
    perhaps more so than the usual Soviet aerospace engineering philosophy
    where a vehicle is flown, the failures analyzed and corrected, and
    launched again.

        Finally, there was a lack of commitment from the Kremlin.  In the
    United States, President John F. Kennedy and Congress committed to a
    landing on the Moon in 1961.  The Kremlin did not follow suit until
    1964.  In addition, political infighting, culminating with the ouster
    of Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev, further delayed a firm commitment.
    One ultimate measure of commitment is money:  According to the Soviets,
    only three billion dollars were spent on the entire Soviet lunar program,
    compared to the 25 billion dollars on the American APOLLO program.  At
    its peak in 1967-1968, the Soviet lunar program was receiving only half
    the money that APOLLO did.  While it is difficult to give any absolute
    comparisons of the two programs because of the totally different natures
    of the Soviet and United States economies, the Soviet space officials
    obviously felt more pressed for funds than their American counterparts.

        In the end, it seems everything conspired against the Soviet lunar
    program, including Lady Luck.  In retrospect, many things could also
    have gone wrong with the American lunar program; but one way or the
    other, it did not, or at the very least not as badly as it could have
    been.  As an example, if the APOLLO 11 service module had experienced a
    failure similar to that which occurred in 1970 on the APOLLO 13 mission
    while astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin were exploring the
    Sea of Tranquility, those men and Michael Collins in lunar orbit would
    have been stranded.  Such an accident would not only have killed the
    crew but probably taken the APOLLO program down with it.  With more
    luck, the Soviets might have in this case landed on the Moon first,
    sometime in the early 1970s.

        But history does not tend to recognize "what ifs".  Hopefully, the
    Soviets as well as the Americans will learn from their past mistakes
    and may one day return to the Moon together for good.

        References -

    Covault, Craig, "Soviet Union Reveals Moon Rocket Design that Failed
      to Beat U.S. to Lunar Landing", AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY,
      February 19, 1991

    Duggan, David (writer and series producer), "The Russian Right
          Stuff: The Dark Side of the Moon", NOVA, PBS-TV, February 1991

    "The Moon Program That Faltered", SPACEFLIGHT, January, 1991

    "Soviet Moon Rocket Revealed", SPACEFLIGHT, March, 1991

        About the Author -

        Andrew J. LePage is a member of the Boston Group for the Study
    of the Soviet Space Program, Krasnaya Orbita.  In addition to his
    interests in astronomical and space related topics, Andrew has been
    a serious observer of the Soviet space program for over one decade.

        Andrew is the author of the following EJASA articles:

        "Mars 1994" - March 1990
        "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part One" - December 1990
        "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part Two" - January 1991
        "The Mystery of ZOND 2" - April 1991


                            ASTRONOMY AND THE FAMILY

                        Copyright (c) 1991 by Larry Klaes

        When Kunta Kinte, the main character in that popular television
    miniseries ROOTS, held up his diaperless newborn son to the starry
    night sky, he was not just declaring to the Universe at large the
    arrival of this special little piece of his own work; Kunta was also
    giving the infant his first exposure to the wonderful world of
    astronomy!

        As Kunta so beautifully illustrated in that multipart blockbuster,
    teaching one's offspring about the mysteries and amazements of the
    Cosmos can almost never start early enough.  From the time when a
    young child can actually begin to understand (though not necessarily
    obey) a parent's commands for direction, one should start taking the
    tyke outside during clear nights, preferably those lacking in any
    dreaded light pollution.  Once this is established, the parent should
    then enthusiastically exclaim "Look up!" to their child, usually with
    an arm and index finger aimed in the general direction of space for
    guidance.

        Normally and fortunately, most children will look up at the night
    sky on their own initiative, becoming readily impressed with the
    myriad of bright stars and the ever changing phases of the Moon.  The
    occasional sighting of a meteor streaking through Earth's atmosphere
    from the depths of the interplanetary realm is also more than enough
    to win over a child's newly forming mind.  Should all else fail, an
    aircraft soaring overhead with its navigation lights blinking will
    probably do the trick just as well.

        Soon your child, and perhaps yourself, may be asking why one
    should be so adamant about learning the wonders of the Universe?  On
    a basic level, the contents of space are fairly neat things, being
    certainly more abundant in strange and fascinating objects than your
    typical television talk show.  Things of a neat and weird nature gen-
    erally appeal to small humans (and most bigger ones).  The average
    science fiction plot set in space usually gives only a rudimentary
    and often distorted version of what is truly going on "out there".

        The next important reason for becoming familiar with astronomy has
    to do with the fact that most Earth-bound people fail to realize from
    early on that Earth is actually just a very small part of the Universe
    as a whole (with emphasis on the word very).  To say that our planet
    takes up space in the Cosmos like a single dust mite would fill the
    Houston Astrodome is an understatement of major proportions.  It is
    only logical - and perhaps a safe thing as well - that everyone should
    have at least some education on how our humungous neighborhood is set
    up and functions on an epoch-to-epoch basis.

        There is also the remote chance that your child might one day be
    on a quiz show and have to know the rotation period of the pulsar in
    the Crab Nebula to win large sums of money and household appliances.

        Material goals aside, there is a very important reason for whole
    families to take up the art of astronomy:  It is one of the few social
    and scientific activities which the parent and child unit can do toget-
    her without becoming either overly confused or embarrassed.  It is not
    as easy for a child to become, say, an amateur nuclear physicist; the
    price of a good atomic particle accelerator alone is prohibitive.  To
    be an amateur astronomer, however, one need merely to walk outside on
    a clear, dark night and practice the technique of looking up, which
    should already have been taught at a very early age.  The sheer vast-
    ness of the Universe will ensure that every family member has an unob-
    structed view of their newfound hobby.

        It should be further noted that since astronomy is usually an out-
    door activity, the family will tend to achieve both a physical and
    social closeness, if for no other reason than to ward off the cold or
    insects, depending upon the season.

        Where to Go From Up

        Like most hobbies, how far you intend to have your child enjoy
    their new interest depends upon how much you're willing to spend for
    the equipment generally associated with astronomy.  While it is a most
    pleasant and inexpensive experience to simply be in your backyard
    looking up into the star-spangled darkness using only the eyes owned
    since birth, more often than not your child (and probably you) will
    eventually become dissatisfied with mere unaided staring into the
    night.

        You and your offspring will suddenly become overwhelmed with the
    urge to buy a very large, heavy, and costly elongated cylinder with a
    variety of knobs, lenses, mirrors, and metal tripods known since the
    early Seventeenth Century as a telescope.  You will dream of using
    this instrument to dance among the strange and mysterious surfaces of
    alien worlds and the fiery gases of countless stars whirling through
    the Cosmos, just like in a typical episode of STAR TREK.

        All I have to say to this impulse is DON'T - at least not right
    away.  Like any other discipline, astronomy requires that you learn
    to walk before you enter the Boston Marathon.  Too many times is the
    following scenario repeated during birthdays and other gift-giving
    holidays:  A child expresses an interest in seeing the stars.  The
    parent, responding like birds do to the open mouths of their chicks,
    will instinctively feed that interest.  A telescope, either of the
    large, heavy, and costly variety or the small and cheap type, will
    be purchased.  The sale of this telescope more often than not was
    made due to a combination of the parents' budget and the accompaniment
    of an advertisement containing several really awesome photos of vari-
    ous planets and stars allegedly taken through that very instrument.

        Invariably, the child will run outside on the first clear night
    with a full Moon in the sky to see these celestial wonders with the
    same hopeful clarity of those images obtained by the instruments atop
    Mount Palomar.  Unfortunately, the child will probably aim his present
    at the bright face of Earth's natural satellite - all set to observe
    the landing site remains of the APOLLO missions - and instead reality
    will settle in.  More than likely, your offspring will see only dark-
    ness, or possibly the reflection of his own eye.  He will quickly dis-
    cover that finding objects in the Universe with your average telescope
    is an exercise in frustration.  This is due both to the sensitive
    nature of the light-gathering abilities of such devices and the sad
    lack of astronomical knowledge by many would-be junior Galileos and
    their parents.

        There is usually only one remedy to the previous scenario, in
    order to keep that telescope and the child's interest from ending up
    stored away and forgotten forever within a matter of weeks:  Yes, just
    like operating a VCR, one has to read a manual before the glories of
    the Cosmos are revealed to them.  Since the intricacies of the heavens
    are far more involved than those of your typical household appliance
    (but not by much), there is a virtual plethora of manuals which one
    has available to oneself.

        It is generally recommended that unless the child and parent can
    quickly answer without assistance such questions as what are stars
    or what is the composition of the material ejected from an erupting
    volcano on Jupiter's moon Io, it is best to find a beginner's book on
    space that has been published no earlier than a few years from the
    present time.  Such items may be found at conveniently located book
    stores and libraries.  Once the proper manuals are secured, begin to
    share the wonderful opportunity of being educated with your child.

        Before you read up on azimuths or focal points or film exposure
    speeds, take time to learn the general design of the Universe you
    intend to observe.  Learn that there are nine known planets - one of
    which you are standing on - orbiting our Sun, which happens to be a
    star not too unlike those seemingly smaller points of light in the
    sky.  Discover that our solar system is but one of billions of other
    star systems in a giant spiral structure known as a galaxy.  Almost
    every object you can see in the night sky with your naked eyes is
    part of this immense star island we call the Milky Way.  And know that
    the Universe does not end at our galaxy, for there are billions of
    other star islands like it spread throughout the Cosmos, all so far
    away that the normal human mind tends to take a vacation rather than
    try to imagine such vastness.  Learn just this and a few extra details
    along the way and you will already be ahead of the game over those who
    wander Earth barely aware of the treasures circling about them.

        Once you have the astronomical fundamentals down pat - and you
    and your offspring still have the desire to become more cosmological -
    there are now two major avenues for you to proceed towards, both of
    which can be participated in simultaneously for years to come.  One
    direction for you and your child is to become what is known as an
    armchair astronomer or space explorer.  This behavior generally
    involves the collecting of increasingly more sophisticated manuals
    without necessarily ever buying a telescope.  Many are those who
    prefer to enjoy this hobby from the relative safety of an easy chair
    and a book propped in a lap.  Much can be learned about the Universe
    this way, with only a fraction of the time and expense spent by those
    professional astronomers in their important observatories or the
    astronauts in their advanced spacecraft, who usually end up plopping
    their research results into such works as it is.

        The other way is to go out and purchase that instrument of stellar
    observation and a good set of star charts.  While there is certainly
    nothing wrong with buying a quality telescope, one might find it easier
    to actually start with a good pair of binoculars.  No, the average bi-
    noculars will not bring close to you the wondrous details of the Moon's
    cratered surface or the frozen polar caps of Mars, as witnessed numerous
    times in your manuals - but these pictures were very likely taken by pro-
    fessionals and space probes, so don't worry about such things for now.
    Your goal at this time is to discover the location in the night sky of
    those wandering stars and planets which you have been reading about.
    Intricate details will come later.  In most cases, binoculars will
    serve this purpose nicely, usually at a much cheaper price.

        Furthermore, it will be almost guaranteed that you and your child
    will actually see these celestial objects with your binoculars, which
    do not require such sensitive light-gathering capabilities as telescopes,
    nor are nearly as bulky in comparison.  And remember that children are
    easily impressed, so just telling them that the small, fuzzy blur they
    are looking at is the real Andromeda Galaxy will usually be enough to
    keep them (and probably you) satisfied for the present.  You will also
    be using this time to learn just how far your child wishes to pursue
    studying the heavens and to practice for the day when you do buy that
    telescope.

        A nice aspect of taking these directions in astronomy and space
    exploration - beyond the already mentioned fact that you can perform
    both at once - is that your child could eventually end up taking a
    career in the field, one whose disciplines are as varied as the Uni-
    verse itself.  Or perhaps your son or daughter could become interested
    in another scientific field in the process, which is just as good and
    beneficial.  If nothing else, you may rest in knowing that your child-
    ren will have some knowledge of what the Cosmos is like, perhaps one
    day passing it on to their sons and daughters.

        It is comforting to know that the Universe will be around long
    enough to teach quite a few future generations, at least until the era
    when the Sun swells into a giant red star and engulfs Earth (You did
    read about this in your manuals, didn't you?).  Hopefully by then, our
    distant children will be settled on the worlds of more stable star
    systems, pointing out new planets and constellations to their young
    ones in the ancient rituals of knowledge gathering, family unity, and
    looking up.

        About the Author -

        Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, wrote the above work originally as
    a gift for a co-worker expecting the birth of his first child.  Larry
    is the recipient of the ASA's 1990 Meritorious Service Award for his
    work as Editor of the EJASA since its founding in August of 1989.

        Larry is the author of the following EJASA articles:

        "The One Dream Man: Robert H. Goddard, Rocket Pioneer" - August 1989
        "Stopping Space and Light Pollution" - September 1989
        "The Rocky Soviet Road to Mars" - October 1989


     THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC

                          May 1991 - Vol. 2, No. 10

                          Copyright (c) 1991 - ASA

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #517
*******************