Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO275.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Sat,  3 Oct 92 17:04:46
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #275
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  3 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
                       ALSEP Termination Report
                   another sad anniversary (5 msgs)
                             Blue Danube
              Clinto and Space Funding(long...apologies)
                                Easter
                      Galileo Update - 10/01/92
                          Magellan (2 msgs)
                     Mars Observer orbit (4 msgs)
                              New Planet
                              Population
       PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA
                            SETI (2 msgs)
                   Space and Presidential Politics

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests 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: 2 Oct 1992 00:26:48 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALSEP Termination Report
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is the final word on ALSEP:

     ALSEP Termination Report, James R. Bates, et.al.,
     1979, NASA Ref. Pub. 1036.

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Oct 92 14:07:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>>Fifteen years ago today, for the first time, NASA deliberately switched off
>>instruments on another planet that were still returning good data and gave
>>every prospect of continuing to do so for years.  It was done to save money.
>>
>>On 30 Sept 1977, the surviving Apollo lunar surface instruments -- left by
>>Apollos 12, 15, 16, and 17 -- were turned off by ground command, because
>>money could no longer be found to receive and record their data.
>>--
>
> May 15, 1993 may mark another sad anniversary.  That's when Magellan is
> scheduled to be turned off.  It will be the first time that NASA has turned
> off a functioning spacecraft.  NASA has recently communicated to JPL that
> this will still happen.  The reason is similiar, to save money.

  With the latest in high-tech radios and computers now available, couldn't
your basic University Astronomy Department set up an Earth Station?

  If so, why not leave these spacecraft running for the students to work with?


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        [e-mail]     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:04:28 GMT
From: david michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

Re: the Apollo lunar instruments

Henry suggests that monitoring and recording the downlink from the
ALSEP transmiiters would have been barely within the capabilities
of a team of amateurs or, I suppose, university researchers.  As
opposed to a NASA/JPL/GSC type of organization.

Can anyone provide us with the downlink specifications?  Effective
Radiated Power (EIRP), frequency, type of emission...

It would then be a simple matter to set up a link budget and
determine just what would be required in terms of a receiving setup.

It would have been a bit much to expect anything worthwhile to be
done by amateurs in 1977 when the ALSEPS were shut off but today would
be a much different story, I'm sure.

--

Dave Michelson
[e-mail]


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

Date: 2 Oct 92 00:49:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (david michelson) writes...
>Re: the Apollo lunar instruments
>
>Henry suggests that monitoring and recording the downlink from the
>ALSEP transmiiters would have been barely within the capabilities
>of a team of amateurs or, I suppose, university researchers.  As
>opposed to a NASA/JPL/GSC type of organization.
>
>Can anyone provide us with the downlink specifications?  Effective
>Radiated Power (EIRP), frequency, type of emission...
>
>It would then be a simple matter to set up a link budget and
>determine just what would be required in terms of a receiving setup.
>
>It would have been a bit much to expect anything worthwhile to be
>done by amateurs in 1977 when the ALSEPS were shut off but today would
>be a much different story, I'm sure.
>
>--
>
>Dave Michelson
>[e-mail]
>

The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon.

We have been doing EME communications in the Amateur World since the
fifties.  (EME is Earth-Moon-Earth). EME sends a signal from Earth, bounces
off of the Moon and returns to Earth where it is recieved.  There are many
reports in Amateur Radio magazines such as QST (American Radio Relay League,
Newington CT.) that report on hams recieving the audio and video from the
Astronauts, which is much harder than simply receiving the digital telemetry
at a low data rate.

So the answer is that no one was really interested in
doing that at the time and there were no space advocacy groups with any
power around at that time to publicize the fact and scream about it on this
net (which did not exist at that time either).

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 2 Oct 92 02:06:30 GMT
From: david michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

[stuff about path loss and EME]

> So the answer is that no one was really interested in
> doing that at the time and there were no space advocacy groups with any
> power around at that time to publicize the fact and scream about it on this
> net (which did not exist at that time either).

> Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville


Thanks, Dennis, but that's not what I was asking.

I wanted the gritty detail (EIRP, frequency, modulation type, and data
rate).  Path loss alone does not a link budget make!   If anyone has
access to one of the Apollo Science Reports from A14--A17, perhaps they
could take a look for us...

I suspect that the main problem back in 1977 would have been finding
a way to store the data as it was received.  PC's were rather primitive
back then and even small mini's were rather expensive.  The other
problems, such as automatically pointing the antennas, providing sufficiently
sensitive receivers, etc., could have been solved with relative ease.

--

Dave Michelson
[e-mail]




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

Date: 2 Oct 92 03:19:56 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>  With the latest in high-tech radios and computers now available, couldn't
>your basic University Astronomy Department set up an Earth Station?

Equipping it with a 30m dish and liquid-helium-cooled maser amplifiers
is still going to be rather expensive.  Those improvements in technology
haven't passed DSN by; the data-transmission rate from modern planetary
missions is many times what it was twenty years ago.  You really need
performance close to that of DSN to get good data from Magellan in
particular, because it's an extremely data-intensive mission.

To get high data rates from far away, the basic laws of physics pretty
well dictate that you need (a) a big dish and (b) very-low-noise amplifiers.
Nothing you can do with "the latest in high-tech radios and computers" will
get you around those two requirements, both of which are expensive.

Your basic U.A.D. perhaps could set up an Earth station good enough to
receive from a 1965 planetary mission.  Unfortunately, they aren't
launching those any more.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1 Oct 92 22:26:41 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blue Danube
Newsgroups: sci.space

>For some strange reason, I have visions of sleek Pan Am
>(RIP) 'liners slowly spinning across a starfield.  Have I gone nuts, or should
>I put up my 2001 tape for a while?
>--

I'd say for about 100 years.

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Oct 92 10:44:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinto and Space Funding(long...apologies)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>> I would suggest one area that need serious consideration are lung cancer
>> subsidies (ie. the money given to the tobacco producers which goes to subsidise
>> lung cancer all over the world)
>>
>
> I agree. The government should at the same time stop all subsidies to anti
> smoking organizations. Smokers should pay very large (market and risked based)
> insurance premiums for their health insurance, commensurate with the extra risk
> they have chosen.

I think some support somewhere for anti-smoking campaigns is needed to offset
the effects of tobbaco advertising like Joe Camel and Malboro Man (I may have
the names wrong as they have yet to make a strong appearance in the UK).

> (I wonder... will there have to be smoking and non-smoking space settlements? :-)
>

I'd hope they'd only let the intelligent ones (non-smokers) on :-)

>> and other agricultural subsidies. At least
>> Europe ios making some moves on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), I have
>> seen no sign of similar moves in the US (though I may have missed them).
>
>
> Strange, I was under the impression that GATT broke down because there was a
> refusal to end subsidies on the part of the EC.

The Uraguay (sp?) GATT round was stalled because of this. However, early this
summer a major rearrangement of the CAP was achieved which answered most of
Bush's points on it. The has rather embarrassed Bush as he was relying on the
usual EEC confusion to give him an excuse not to settle the US agricultural
subsidy problems. I do not think they have done anything about it yet, for
obvious electoral reasons, which is probably why you haven't heard what's been
going on. In this case, Bush is certainly not helping the free market...

[more comments about fgarm support... agreed with]

>
>> a great deal of wasted GNP can be sorted out by changing your ridiculous legal
>> system (70% of lawers in the world are in the US, and all earning lots of
>> money that could go to real commercial use elsewhere),
>>
>
> Again, totally agreed. The tort system abandoned the ideas of simply "making an
> injured party whole" where "whole" was commenserate with damages and
> responsibility was assigned to the one at fault rather than by search for
> a patsy to pay the bill.

Might I suggest an alternative system? No-fault compensation...

The majority of the money awarded in these cases is punitive and is generally
over the top for the actual needs of the injured party. In addition, at least a
third, and probably more, or this money gets wasted on legal fees, and never
goes to help any injured party, and that is after all what we want to achieve.
At the very least a limitation on liability (for Cessna and the like) is
needed.

>> and getting your medical
>> system sorted. You can lambast the UK and other Eropean countries for having
>> doctrinally unsound socialised (gasp!) medical systems, but the fact is *our
>> health services are ****cheaper***** in terms of GNP than yours.
>
> Having experienced both, I prefer the US one. In three years here I have yet to
> recieve a call from my doctor.

I'm not sure what you mean here. In 28 years in the UK I haven't had a 'call
from my doctor' I only see her when I'm ill.

>Wellness programs are unheard of.

I am also unsure what you are refering to here, as none of the practices I have
been part of have mentioned such schemes.

> And if you need
> certain classes of operations, you are best off flying to the US and paying for it
> because you might be dead before your turn in the queue comes up.

This is a bit of a distortion. The waiting list system is for non-urgent and
non-life threatening treatments. Things like varicose veins. You *never* have
to wait for something life threatenning (at least in an acute sense). Vhronic
care and other long term things w are less well sorted, but I suspect the US
has problems with these as well, usually generated by money or the lack
thereof.


>There ARE NO QUEUES in the US.

*Come on*! I have even seen US TV programmes lambasting the US medical 'system'
for its dreadful treatemnt of people who can't afford to pay the hideous costs
of medical bills or medical insurance. I have heard stories of people who have
been cut off by their insurance company when they are found to have  a serious
chronic medical problem. Are you living in the same country as these people or
have you got the US and UK confused????

> Oh, and my blue cross/blue shield were job benefits at CMU. And even if taken as a
> cost on my paycheck there versus here, they cost less (for far better and more
> aggressive service) than the amount taken out for National Health Service (NHS) in
> the UK.

I repeat the statistics I mentioned earlier. The US medical 'system' spends
more GNP than the UK one, by about a factor of 2. It *is* thus *more expencive*
for you and *everyone* else. I do not see how this relates to your suggestions
here (unless you are so hideously healthy that BC has given you a no claims
bonus or something...).

In addition, and agressive care system is not necessarily the best. Any medical
action has a side effect. Everything. A drug without a side effect is a drug
without action (as my GP father says). Most of the time leaving something alone
is the best, and most effective, thing to do. But the medical/legal system in
the US prevents this. This is also why you get banks and banks of (expencive)
tests at US doctors, so they can't be sued for missing something that might
just perhaps be there. This is a silly waste of money and resources (yours).

> As long as you don't get too sick and just do things like have babies, NHS
> APPEARS to work quite nicely.

It generally does work quite nicely. Its just that it is such a political
football that people make votes by suggesting that it isn't working well for
99% of the population.

>> The legal and
>> medical issues are in some sense linked too because fo the degree of litigation
>> in US medicine.
>>

> Oh, and catastrophic coverage was handled by blue cross or in worst case, by
> charity. Hospitals and doctors NEVER turned anyone away.

I understand they do now...

> He can tell you what publications are available from the Libertarian Alliance in
> London.
>

Having heard several libertarians at the 1990 World SF convention I have been
sickened by the whole breed. I used to thinnk it was a pretty good idea, but
the shear arrogance and inability to cope with real issues (like the
environment) and the inevitable litigousness of a libertarian society (which
would make todays US look calm) have turned me off the whole proposition. It
cannot work with todays people.

> Unmucking the legal system and placing responsibility where it belongs and to the
> degree with which it belongs are important issues.
How do you do this? Go to court, and where back at the same old USA problem...

> A society that tries for Total
> Safety and which reimburses people for an accident, no matter what level of
> stupidity was required for said accident, is not going to be a society that
> pioneers the way to the stars.

I agree on this one...

--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:19:59 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Easter
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward F Eaglehouse)
writes:

>I don't have any actual code to calculate Easter, but if I remember
>correctly Easter falls on the first Sunday following the first full moon
>after the Vernal Equinox.

That is true, but which moon one uses (and for which time zone one reckons
Sunday) is a matter of religious choice. The Roman rite uses a fictitious moon
which is readily reduced to a numerical algorithm since it is numerological to
start with. Rome, of course, is the determining venue for Sunday, presumably on
whatever time zone Italian politicians choose. The Orthodox rite uses the
physical moon to determine Easter and reckons Sunday on the longitude of
Jerusalem, though I do not know whether apparent or mean solar time is used.
The two Easters can be on different dates, though I don't know how often this
occurs.

The "Explanatory Supplement ..." to everything has a most readable chapter on
calendars which gives (almost) all of the necessary information for calculating
Easter. It makes very amusing reading for your liesure hours during the high
holidays. I find it especially amusing that, after many pages of tortuous and
tabular description of how Easter is reckoned, the editors have seen fit to
include a *table* of dates for Easter! It is by far the easiest way to
calculate that date.
I find that the public is readily amused by declamation on this topic, by the
way,
and I have used it often.

Leigh

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

Date: 1 Oct 92 23:23:25 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 10/01/92
Newsgroups: sci.space

>     As of noon Thursday, October 1, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
>status was as follows:

>        Distance from Earth         43,166,200 miles (.46 AU)
>        Distance from Sun           129,476,400 miles (1.39 AU)
>        Heliocentric Speed           59,800 miles per hour
>        Distance from Jupiter        625,618,900 miles
>        Round Trip Light Time        7 minutes, 50 seconds

Well, if you guys at JPL can't give out the elements for Galileo's
next Earth flyby, I can deduce them anyway, using the above and the
previously published Galileo trajectory reports.

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:46:13 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan
Newsgroups: sci.space

How does Magellan move its radar attena to transmit results to earth?
Is it an electric motor powered by solar power or thrusters?
Is this the ultimate limitation on Magellan's lifetime then, barring
breakdowns?

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

Date: 2 Oct 92 03:22:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>How does Magellan move its radar attena to transmit results to earth?

The antenna is fixed to the spacecraft; Magellan as a whole rotates to
point at Earth.

>Is it an electric motor powered by solar power or thrusters?

Magellan's rotation is done with momentum wheels, although it's necessary
to desaturate them from time to time using thrusters.  This does set an
ultimate limit on its life.  In Magellan's case, equipment failures will
probably kill it before then, and budget failures will probably silence
it even sooner.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 00:27:23 GMT
From: Dave Rickel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Collins) writes:
|> since the transfer orbit is close to a Hoama Homman elipse.

I was wondering about that.  Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars is about nine
months (the CRC says between 230 and 280 days).  Mars Observer is taking
11 months, which seems to imply that it is going a bit outside of Mars orbit
and catching it on the inward leg.  What is the reason for this?  (i was
playing around a bit with xephem, and it looks like there should have been
an orbit available that was much closer to a Hohmann orbit)

Anyway, orbit elements that are compatible with xephem would be fun.


david rickel
[e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Oct 92 03:29:15 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Rickel) writes:
>I was wondering about that.  Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars is about nine
>months (the CRC says between 230 and 280 days).  Mars Observer is taking
>11 months...

Don't forget that transit time to Mars varies somewhat because its orbit
is very noticeably elliptical.  You cannot, repeat *cannot*, get useful
results for Earth-Mars trajectories based on assuming circular orbits.
(I speak as the author of the first-look trajectory simulations for
the Canadian Solar Sail Project...)

A further note is that Mars Observer mission planning wants to minimize,
not energy to reach Mars's *orbit* (which is what a Hohmann trajectory
would give you, ignoring the noncircularities), but energy to reach an
orbit around Mars itself.  They care about arrival velocity, in other
words, and might well choose a superficially-suboptimal orbit because
they gain more from lower arrival velocity than they lose from greater
energy requirements for the interplanetary trajectory.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1 Oct 92 23:15:02 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Some of us actually have software designed for interplanetary trajectories,
>believe it or not.  Please give us heliocentric elements, *not* Ra and Dec.
>We can compute Ra and Dec ourselves if we know where the thing is.

Could we also have the geocentric elements for Galileo at the time
of its next (and last) Earth flyby?  Please?

Pretty please? I promise not to hurt the spacecraft.  :-)

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Oct 92 01:00:00 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Mars Observer is taking
>11 months, which seems to imply that it is going a bit outside of Mars orbit
>and catching it on the inward leg.  What is the reason for this?

The orbit is computed to minimize injection energy and Mars orbit
insertion delta-V.  Given that Mars' orbit is fairly elliptical and inclined
to the ecliptic as well, gas-guzzling transfer orbit solutions can arise
when the transfer angle to Mars is set too close to 180 deg.  In some
cases, a "split-plane manuever" is required, where half-way to Mars,
a burn is made to change the transfer orbit's inclination.  MO would
have done a split-plane burn had it launched prior to Sept. 21.
(According to the info I have: "Mars Observer Trajectory and Orbit
Design", Beerer & Roncoli, J. Spacecraft, V.28, No.5, pp 515-521).

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]


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

Date: 1 Oct 92 11:06:30 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Planet
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail]
-Subject: New Planet?
-Date: 15 Sep 92 19:21:46 GMT
-Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

-Fm: SKY  TELESCOPE 70007,2762

-There is some REALLY BIG NEWS just now breaking in the astronomical world.  The
-IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams has just issued IAU Circular 5611
-to report the discovery of a faint object that seems to be outside the orbit of
-Pluto!  Brian Marsden has given it the preliminary designation of an asteroid:
-1992 QB1. But its true nature will be the subject of intense observations in
-the next few months.

-Dan Green of the CBAT says they really don't want people to start calling this
-thing "Planet X" or the 10th planet or anything like that.

How about "Bronson Alpha"? :-)  :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Oct 92 14:16:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

> -I suppose we should next try to restore the dinosaurs to the prominance they
> -had a couple million years ago?
>
> That's a *little* beyond our current capability. I believe the current
> (and recent) record for DNA extraction is ~25 million years, for a termite
> trapped in amber. Reconstructing the entire genetic code from DNA fragments
> and using that code to produce a living organism are additional challenges.
>
> I'd like to see the restoration of the wooly mammoth. With frozen tissue
> available, there's a pretty good chance that they could be cloned.
>

  There are quite a few concepts about this issue discussed in the book version
of Jurassic Park (now in production at Amblin Entertainment). One of the
techniques they describe is using only the sections of DNA that "define"
the dinosuar and splicing them into strands that are "common" to many
different species. In the case of the book, they use frog DNA which
becmes part of the storyline (no spoilers).

  But well worth reading if you're interested in the subject.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        [e-mail]     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Date: 2 Oct 92 03:00:05 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick Chester) writes:
>What about the gas torus that Titan orbits inside of? Isn't that made
>up of escaped gas? Would that also affect the atmosphere of Titan?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the density of the Titan torus are very
low. I doubt they have any significant effect on the atmosphere (though
they might contribute to Saturn's plasma environment, where even extremely
low densities are important.)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

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

Date: 2 Oct 92 02:37:19 GMT
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:
:
:
:     Are there any SETI projects due to come on line within the
: next year?

Guess I should have looked closer at the other lines in the group.

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

Date: 2 Oct 92 02:34:04 GMT
From: Ryan Montieth Gill <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Are there any SETI projects due to come on line within the
next year?

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

Date: 1 Oct 92 23:23:50 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip G) writes:
>
>Allen, I have a question for you:
>
>How do you get "sources?"

Hardware Hank sells them for $19.95  -- they're in the same aisle as the sinks.

:)

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!

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


Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!rpi!utcsri!utzoo!henry
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: what use is Freedom?
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:02:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: zoo.BvGqKu.F1L
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 15
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:
>Space Station Freedom is big....REALLY BIG...I mean, it's not just some
>skylab or something...

Darn right it's not Skylab.  Skylab's habitable volume was larger.

Admittedly, Fred does add some useful things, like more power, more
places to mount things, and -- very important -- resupply capability.
(Most of Skylab's supplies were launched with it... necessarily, for
lack of any equivalent of the Russian Progress freighters.)  On the
whole it's a better station.  But let us not get carried away with
how tremendous it is.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 275
------------------------------