Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO013.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 05:00:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #013
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 19 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 013

Today's Topics:
            Antimatter (was propulsion questions) (4 msgs)
        Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED
                 Astronomy Lab Testing/Mail Problems
   How to find limiting magnitude? (was Re: Solar Power Satellites)
                      Looking gif horse in mouth
                       Manned/Unmanned (2 msgs)
                            Mir diary pt.2
        Need Testers for MS Windows Astronomy Program (2 msgs)
             Phobos-UFO-pic,what do You think about it ?
                    Propulsion questions (2 msgs)
     Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
 STS-50 postflight briefings set for July 20 [NTE 92-61] (Forwarded)
         Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]".  Please do **NOT** send (un)subscription
    requests to that address!  Instead, send a message of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses:
    listserv@uga (BITNET), RICE::BOYLE (SPAN/NSInet),
    UTADNX::UTSPAN::RICE::BOYLE (THENET), or
    [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 21:57:34 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>The rest of the output, positive and negative pions, decay to muons
>and neutrinos, and the muons decay to electrons and neutrinos...

Are these the sort of muons that are useful in muon-catalyzed fusion?

> Since
>these are charged, you can in principle persuade them to go where you
>want them to go (out the engine exhaust) with big enough magnetic
>fields, if you grab them in the few dozen nanoseconds (pions) or
>microseconds (muons) of their existence.  I do this for a living. (-:

>                  [o]
>                  [|]   ///        Bill Higgins
>   E               H   ///
>  |8D:O:          occc))))<))      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
>   E               H ///
>                  [|]//            Bitnet: [e-mail]
>                  [|]
>Bumper sticker seen on a Soyuz:    SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
>    GOT HARD CURRENCY?
> TRY OUR MICROGRAVITY LAB!        Internet: [e-mail]

We ought to have hard currency soon. I was thinking just the other
day, all we need is a war in the Persian Gulf, and the oilfield will
come back!

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone]
"There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message
"57 channels and nothing on" - Bruce Springsteen

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

Date: 17 Jul 92 22:11:55 GMT
From: "John S. Novak III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

This is all interesting, but (the engineering student says
practically) just exactly how much antimatter are we capable of
producing today, without extra tool-ups, and how much would it
cost?  How much cost to store it?

What about if we did tool-up?

What if we went insane and devoted significant amounts of time to
it?

Just curious...
--

John S. Novak, III            [e-mail]
"So this is the sword of immortality, huh?  What's it doing in a
crypt?"

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:32:06 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John S. Novak III) writes:
>... just exactly how much antimatter are we capable of
>producing today, without extra tool-ups, and how much would it
>cost?  How much cost to store it?

Today, we make enough for experimental particle physics, which I think is
in the femtograms.  Storing it for days is no problem.  Cost per gram is
far beyond cost-effectiveness for any purpose except winning Nobel prizes.
However, this is hardly a surprise:  the existing hardware isn't designed
for volume production.

>What about if we did tool-up?
>What if we went insane and devoted significant amounts of time to it?

According to Forward, there appears to be no fundamental obstacle to
making the stuff in fractional grams at a few million dollars per milligram.
That may sound expensive, but it's cheap enough to wipe out all competition
for in-space propulsion.  Not just chemical rockets, but fission and fusion
rockets stop being competitive.  The dominant cost of all of them is mass
lifted from Earth into orbit, and antimatter needs far less.  Milligrams
may not sound like much, but they can turn an awful lot of hydrogen into
incandescent gas.  This would put the solar system in our hands.

The USAF, which wouldn't mind better space propulsion, has been funding a
small long-term research program on antimatter propulsion.  It doesn't look
that far-out any more.  ("This is no longer science fiction" -- Forward.)
No fundamental breakthroughs appear necessary, just a lot of engineering
development and considerable investment.

A while ago, I read an interview with Forward on the subject.  He and some
others proposed a more aggressive program to SDI (which is also interested
in improving space propulsion).  (SDI turned it down as a bit too long-term,
incidentally.)  It had three phases.  I think each one was nominally about
five years.  The first would do the engineering needed to develop practical
hardware for large-scale antimatter handling.  The second would build a
specialized particle accelerator, about the size of Fermilab but different
in detailed design, which would spend about a year making enough antimatter
to test-fire a prototype antimatter rocket engine.  The third would build
a production facility, comparable in size to the Hanford nuclear-weapons
complex, that would have the sustained production rate to support a major
antimatter-fueled space program.

Getting enough antimatter for interstellar propulsion is harder, because
then we start needing kilogram quantities at least.  That's probably going
to take large-scale facilities in space.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:06:08 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>The rest of the output, positive and negative pions, decay to muons
>>and neutrinos, and the muons decay to electrons and neutrinos...
>
>Are these the sort of muons that are useful in muon-catalyzed fusion?

Yes, although for that you'd like them at rather lower energies,
if I recall correctly.  I have seen mention of a design concept that
exploited the muons as a fusion catalyst, but I have no idea how it
was supposed to work.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 22:17:48 GMT
From: Eric Bergman-Terrell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.ibm.pc.misc,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d

*** Beta Testers Needed for Windows 3.X Astronomy Program ***

I need people to text version 1.09 of Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X.
If you are interested, please send me an e-mail message containing the
following information:

(If you've already sent me your information, see if your e-mail address
is in the list at the bottom of this posting)

Name:
US Mail Address:
E-Mail Address:
Version of MS-Windows:
Version of MS-DOS:
CPU:
Math Coprocessor (not required):
Memory:
Graphics Card:
Printer:

Beta testers must agree to not distribute the test version of the software.
Beta testers will be sent the final version of the software when testing
is complete.  Astronomy Lab is shareware.

Beta software will be sent via e-mail as uuencoded .zip files.  You
will need to uudecode the files, and then unzip them on your PC.
UNIX users:  do a "man uudecode" for further information.

Testers will send feedback via e-mail to [e-mail].

Eric Bergman-Terrell
[e-mail]

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

Astronomy Lab is one of the most versatile and comprehensive astronomy
programs available for Microsoft Windows 3.X.  Astronomy Lab produces 7
movies that simulate a host of astronomical phenomena, 15 graphs that
illustrate many fundamental concepts of astronomy, and 14 printed reports
that predict the most important astronomical events.  All movies, graphs,
and reports are customized for the user's time zone and location.

Astronomy Lab requires Microsoft Windows 3.X or later running in standard
or enhanced mode, 1 megabyte of available memory, and a mouse.  Reports,
graphs, and movie frames can be printed on any Windows compatible printer.
Astronomy Lab will use an 8X87 compatible math coprocessor if one is
installed.

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

The following people are already on my list:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Jul 92 01:40:58 GMT
From: Eric Bergman-Terrell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Astronomy Lab Testing/Mail Problems
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.edu,comp.ibm.pc.misc

After posting my call for beta testers for Astronomy Lab for Windows,
the system I am using developed mail problems, and many of the letters
bounced.

If your e-mail didn't make it to me, please try again.

*** BUT PLEASE don't post to this newsgroup ***

Eric Bergman-Terrell
[e-mail]


I have received mail from the following:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Jul 92 17:16:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How to find limiting magnitude? (was Re: Solar Power Satellites)
Newsgroups: sci.space

> When the Moon is down, our sky is still not perfectly black.  There
> is still a sky glow due to other, much dimmer sources.  It would be
> fun to investigate the more obscure ones, but the obvious ones include
> starlight, planet light, and the glow scattered from sources on the
> ground (as Tom Nugent mentions above).

> So. Suppose we add another object to the sky, say, as bright as
> Jupiter.  How much will this increase the background glow?  How will
> it change the limiting magnitude of the dimmest object one can observe
> with a telescope?  (I'll bet this is a homework problem in some class
> on observational astronomy somewhere.)  How does it vary with angular
> distance from the bright object?

> If we can learn how to do this calculation, we can compare the alleged
> damage that any proposed configuration of powersats will do to
> ground-based astronomy. As Phil Fraering suggests, the effect is
> probably meaningless for people close to any illuminated town.  But it
> may be significant for deep-sky professional observers.

> I've checked at least one handbook but it's a tougher problem than
> applying one simple formula.  Perhaps someone else will *ahem* shed a
> little light on the problem.

Hmmm. First of all I think it should be said that the greatest risk to
professional astronomy from large, bright satellites is not the fact that
they contribute ever so slightly to sky glow. Much more of a risk is one of
these satellites accidentally drifting into the field of view of a telescope
fitted with a highly sensitive detector. The William Herschel telescope is
kitted out with software to stop astronomers accidentally pointing the
telescope at the moon and thus wrecking the detectors, but imagine a scenario
where scores of bright satellites were swimming about the sky with much faster
and unpredictable orbits than the moon. The oppurtunity for a calamity would
be quite great.

Going back to the sky glow problem, well to work out the amount of glow caused
by an object rigourously would be quite difficult, but a simple back of the
envelope calculation indicates that this is not really likely to be *too* much
of a problem. Say we have a fullish moon at magnitude -12 or so. The brightest
satellites about these days are no brighter than about -2, hence their luminous
flux will only be one ten thousandth that of the moon, and even a super bright
satellite at -7 one one hundredth. I think it is fair to assume that the
level of skyglow caused by a satellite or other object is in proportion to
its brightness. Hence, it seems to be there is unlikely to be any significant
brightening of the sky background unless there are an awful lot of these
powersats about.

Martin.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |  ___       ___   ___    ________  | Martin Cook, Dept. Computer Studies,   |
 | /_ /|     /__/| /_ /|  /_______/| | Loughborough University of Technology, |
 | | | |     | | | | | | |__    __|/ | Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU,|
 | | | |__   | | |_| | |    |  | |   | United Kingdom.                        |
 | | |/__ /| | |/__| | |    |  | |   |                                        |
 | |_____|/  |_______|/     |__|/    | e-mail: [e-mail] (UK)       |
 |                                   |         [e-mail] (Elsewhere)|
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 18 Jul 92 16:47:49 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking gif horse in mouth
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edmund Hack) writes:

>
> All of the CD-ROMs that have been mounted at ames are available from the
> National Space Science Data Center at cheap prices.  The disks are $20
> for the first in an order, $6 each after that.  For more info, send
> email to: [e-mail] and they will send you a catalog
> by email in a week or so.
>
> Included are Viking, Viking Orbiter, Voyager and Pioneer data.  Note
> that most of what is send is RAW DATA, not the pretty pictures you see
> on TV and in magazines.  Some software tools for PCs and Macs for
> looking at the images and limited processing is available too.
>
>
>
> --
> | Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
> | [e-mail]    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
> |   **** Papoon for President! You Know He's Not Insane!! ****

I should have written diskette as in 5 1/2.  I am still chipping my
own hand axes. Sorry.
Thomas Freebairn   [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Jul 92 14:05:49 GMT
From: ryan korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Manned/Unmanned
Newsgroups: sci.space

The Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) has been cut from the NASA
budget. Megellan will be turned off while in Venus orbit and still fully
funtional next year. Cassini, mission to Saturn, is in great danger of
meeting the same fate as CRAF. And intruments have been stripped from The
Mars Observer Orbiter to further conserve funds.
All this is happening while space station Freedom is being issued all the
funds it is requested. Yet an army of advisers to Congress from many space
interest groups insist that Freedom if poorly designed and not up to par
on the capabilities it is intended to fulfill. Congress has ignored all of
the contrary statements conserning Freedom and approved of the budget that
is crippling unmanned planetary science.
Don't get me wrong, I am very much for our manned space program. I, myself
intend to be walking an Mars in the next 15-20 years, but we can't
continue to push forward the manned program at the expence of all other
mothods of getting knowledge about he universe around us. And where does
congress get the idea that they know what makes a space station useful or
not? What do YOU think.



         -- Ryan Korniloff    NYX BBS
         -- Internet:          [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:54:14 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Manned/Unmanned
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ryan korniloff) writes:
>The Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) has been cut from the NASA
>budget. Megellan will be turned off while in Venus orbit and still fully
>funtional next year. Cassini, mission to Saturn, is in great danger of
>meeting the same fate as CRAF. And intruments have been stripped from The
>Mars Observer Orbiter to further conserve funds.
>All this is happening while space station Freedom is being issued all the
>funds it is requested...

Not this again...

CRAF was cut from the NASA budget because CRAF/Cassini appeared to be
firmly on track to overrun its budget cap, and Congress had already
warned NASA that CRAF was the more expendable of the two.  Cassini is
still in danger, despite semi-protected status as an international
program, precisely because its funding requirements continue to skyrocket.

Turning off Magellan *is* a pretty dumb idea.

I haven't heard that Mars Observer has lost anything lately; this would
in fact be difficult, since the spacecraft is in final checkout at the
Cape for launch this fall.

And no, the station has *not* been issued all the funds it has requested.
It's been fighting for its life against repeated attempts to cancel it,
and so far has squeaked by with substantial cuts.

>... Congress has ignored all of
>the contrary statements conserning Freedom and approved of the budget that
>is crippling unmanned planetary science.

Unmanned planetary science has been crippled by its own inability to control
costs and regulate its program starts to survive on stable funding.  Its
budgets have *risen steadily* in recent years.  They just haven't risen
enough to go on supporting a whole bunch of simultaneous megaprojects.
Some have been warning for quite a while that this wasn't going to work.

>Don't get me wrong, I am very much for our manned space program. I, myself
>intend to be walking an Mars in the next 15-20 years...

My.  Such optimism.  *NOBODY* is going to walk on Mars in the next 15-20
years unless we can somehow break out of the mess we're currently in.
I like Cassini... but frankly, we would be a hell of a lot better off
if we killed it dead and spent the money on DC-Y instead.  The same goes
for the space station.  Our whole system for doing *both* manned and
unmanned space exploration has bloated to the point where it is incapable
of getting results on reasonable budgets.  Trying to continue "business
as usual", with or without specific projects, is not going to work; at
most it will postpone the reckoning a few more years.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Jul 92 17:53:31 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir diary pt.2
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (TIMOTHY FREER) writes:
+
+
+MIR DIARY Pt.2 (Aug89 to Jul92)
+-------------------------------
+
+    This diary continues on from my first posting, listing major events
+during manned operations with the Mir space station between August 1989 and
+July 1992. Once again the listing includes all launches to Mir, all
+dockings, port transfers, spacewalks, undockings and re-entries, that
+occured during this period. All dates are in GMT, and are reasonably
+accurate.
+    I trust that you will find this diary a usefull reference for major
+Mir space station activities. If you have any corrections, please post
+them to me.
+
....

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1992.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+20 JAN    Progress M-10 undocks and is directed into the atmosphere to
+          burn-up. Recoverable capsule re-enters.
+25 JAN    Progress M-11 launched.
+27 JAN    Progress M-11 docks with Mir's extreme forward port.

....

 23 JAN    I observed Mir as it passed almost overhead at 1:24 UTC at
           0 visual magnitude. It was preceded by 3.5 seconds of time
           by an object at +3 visual magnitude and varying in brightness
           which was probably due to tumbling.

Thanks for this list, Tim. I see now that the object I observed was
probably Progress M-10.

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 07:53:21 GMT
From: bill nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Testers for MS Windows Astronomy Program
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu,comp.ibm.pc.misc

[e-mail] (Eric Bergman-Terrell) writes:
:
: Eric Bergman-Terrell
: [e-mail]

Yep, the address doesn't work. I am going to try mnemosyne.cs.du.edu.

I will let you all know if it works.

Bill

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

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 18:12:08 GMT
From: Steve South <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Testers for MS Windows Astronomy Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

My mail bounced with "user unknown" too. Please add me to the list.

Steve (and I thought it was just my mailer) South

[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Jul 92 13:03:33 GMT
From: Thad P Floryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phobos-UFO-pic,what do You think about it ?
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.space,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Stefan Hartmann) writes:

|  I have just posted the Phobos2 Ufo-picture in JPEG format in
|  alt.binaries.pictures.misc
|
|  What do You all think about it ?

Utter waste of net bandwidth.

Well, you did ask!  :-)

I, too, thought the picture appears to be a ``Mr. Potato Head'' construction.

Sorry, I realize you meant well, but that picture contributed nothing to any
understanding of the purported subject.

I wonder if the original is available from any CIS (ex-USSR) agency in its
digital form?

Thad Floryan [ [e-mail] ]

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

Date: 18 Jul 92 04:45:18 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>You can also build an antimatter-powered Bussard ramjet, which scoops
>interstellar gas for reaction mass but is powered by antimatter.  You're
>still limited by the size of your antimatter tank, but it's better than
>an antimatter rocket and doesn't have the fusion-reactor problem.  The
>design of the scoop is still problematic.

    How does one calculate the mass ratio for such a beast?

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:36:53 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>You can also build an antimatter-powered Bussard ramjet, which scoops
>>interstellar gas for reaction mass but is powered by antimatter...
>
>    How does one calculate the mass ratio for such a beast?

Mass ratios are really useful numbers only for rockets; this is a jet.
You need to make some assumptions about scoop area and efficiency, and
decide whether your priority is fuel economy or high acceleration.
Then you can start looking at optimizing mixture ratio; I'd guess that
the optimum ratio changes as you accelerate.  There have been papers
about such concepts -- one buzzword is RAIR, the Ram-Augmented Interstellar
Rocket -- in JBIS.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Jul 92 18:13:56 GMT
From: Josh Woolard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Newsgroups: sci.space

 BHBJ> In article <[e-mail]>,
 BHBJ> [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>>STNG is very interesting from the viewpoint of
>>science and engineering - they
>>*must* have a few staff members or consultants
>>checking things out and coming
>>up with ideas. I wouldn't sat they get everything
>>right, and they do take a
>>little dramatic license, but at least they
>>introduce the ideas to the public.
>
> You are correct.  I know a couple of graduate
> students at UCLA that perform
> this service for Paramount on a volunteer basis.
> (They are volunteers, but
> still get all the perks, if not pay.)

 BHBJ> Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda, the guys who handle art direction and
 BHBJ> design for *Star Trek Lite*, are technically-hip guys.  Sternbach is a
 BHBJ> Hugo-winning illustrator specializing in astronomical art and
 BHBJ> spaceships, and Okuda was a PLATO user in the Seventies.  Possibly the
 BHBJ> writing/story-editing end of the show is as technically literate.

 BHBJ> They do okay (for television SF) by astronomy, but have you noticed
 BHBJ> how bad the chemistry is?  They are constantly mentioning substances
 BHBJ> unknown to 20th-century chemistry which just happen to have the
 BHBJ> properties required by the plot.  Rarely do you hear them talking
 BHBJ> about "hydrogen" or "uranium."  It's always "dilithium" and
 BHBJ> "unobtanium..."

> ...just an aside...has anyone noticed the
> similarity between the colored
> insert-things for in the original Star Trek's
> computer and 3.5 floppy disks?

 BHBJ> Yes, this is very evident in the current *Star Trek* exhibit at the
 BHBJ> National Air and Space Museum. (Capsule review:  Somewhat interesting
 BHBJ> but not worth going out of your way to see-- unless you're a
 BHBJ> worshiper.  *Star Trek Classic* costumes are probably the best
 BHBJ> feature.  Props, models, scripts, and other documents are also on
 BHBJ> display.  Two stars.)

 BHBJ> Bill Higgins                           | In the distant future,
 BHBJ> Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | nuns will be bartenders
 BHBJ> Bitnet:      [e-mail]       | aboard starships
 BHBJ> Internet:  [e-mail]       | and Sternbach paintings
 BHBJ> SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | will hang on every wall.



 BHBJ> ---
        BH  Oribibigiallas/Ft.Worth Usenet Gateway (1:124/2206.0)
      I think that Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda do a very good job
      of the props, space vehicles, and all the computer panels.  Some
      of the ideas they have had are very realistic and some of them, I
      believe that may become part of nanotechnology.  The communicators
      are very realistic, so are the personnel phasers.  Even the
      turbolifts.
                                     Josh

 * Origin: FamilyResearch <Bedford,TX> [phone] V.32 (1:130/44)

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

Date: 17 Jul 92 14:37:59 GMT
From: Mike Schatz <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-50 postflight briefings set for July 20 [NTE 92-61] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:

>       The STS-50 U.S. Microgravity Laboratory postflight crew press
>   conference will be held Monday, July 20, from 1-3 p.m. CDT at the
>   Johnson Space Center, Houston, in building 2, room 135.  The crew
>   members will describe their record-setting 14-day flight while
>   narrating film highlights of the mission.

>       The conference will be carried on NASA Select television with
>   two-way audio for questions and answers from NASA Headquarters
>   and centers.  NASA Select programming is carried on Satcom F2R,
>   transponder 13, located at 72 degrees west longitude.

Can anyone tell me what I need or where I can go to access this program?

Thanks

Mike

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

Date: 17 Jul 92 20:47:24 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to '[e-mail]'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 013
------------------------------