Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO286.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Tue,  6 Oct 92 05:00:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #286
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  6 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 286

Today's Topics:
                    Alleged Benefits of Military $
                     Amber (Was: Re: Population)
                   another sad anniversary (2 msgs)
                Automated mail > file cat & decoding ?
                             Blue Danube
                   Controversy over V-2 anniversary
                          Laser Space Mirror
                         Mars Observer info?
                    Population here and elsewhere?
             Robert H. Goddard - Born 110 Years Ago Today
               Space and Presidential Politics (3 msgs)
      Switching ALSEP back on (was Re: another sad anniversary)
                 Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?
                       What is this ? (2 msgs)

    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: 4 Oct 92 20:53:00 GMT
From: Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reply-To: [e-mail]

Steinn Sigurdsson writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> Mark Goodman <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>
>   > Military and aerospace dollars have a particularly
>   >high multiplier, 7x, because the jobs pay well and allow the workers
>
>
>   I wonder where these numbers come from.  They seem implausible
>   to me, and would in any case be very hard to measure.  Everything
>   I have read suggests precisely the opposite, that money spent on
>   the military and other unproductive high-technology efforts (read
>   NASA) is particularly unbeneficial to the economy.
>
>Try Nature _355_ 107, 1992.
>
>So what are your sources?

I will try to find the article you mention.  But let me explain why
I think the numbers are implausible.  Military spending goes primarily
to high income people in capital intensive industries.  It is known to
produce far fewer jobs (about a factor of 3, if I recall) than the same
amount of money spend on public works or education.  I haven't looked
at this in a while, so I don't have references, but the Council on
Economic Priorities will.

I believe it is also true that higher income people spend less of their
money than low income people, so their money is likely to go into the
economy fewer times.  I have heard this as an explanation for the fact
that the increase in income during the Reagan years did not produce
sustained increases in consumer demand; the increases went to people
who spend less of their money.  Not being an economist, I cannot vouch
for the validity of this argument, but it tends to contradict what Gary
said.

It is important to note that military spending is essentially wasteful
in the narrow sense that it produces no product or public resource with
economic value.  Building a highway contributes to the economy by
facilitating transportation.  Building a fighter aircraft does not.
Technological spinoffs have become increasingly rare as military
technology has become increasingly specialized and isolated from civilian
technologies.

In the broader sense, of course, military spending can be extremely
valuable if it contributes to national security.  I think the debate
over military spending should rest on our security needs, not on
disputed economic claims.

Brad Wallet writes (in response to my skepticism):

>You may dispute [Gary's] numbers, but at least he offered some data.  To
>simple say "I have read" simply will not do.  Offer either data or
>logical reasoning.

See the above.  I would hardly call Gary's numbers "data," however.

>In an earlier posting, you said you worked in Congress.  No doubt you
>are pushing sometime of political agenda.  I respect that you admit
>that you are going to be biased.  Undoubtable, some will accuse me of
>being biased because I work for the military.  I just want to state
>that I work for the military because I believe what it does is necessary.
>Not vice versa.

Let me explain my position.  I am a Congressional Science Fellow, paid
by but not representing the American Institute of Physics to work for
Congress for one year.  I have just started, and am now interviewing to
see who might want me.  (As an aside, AIP opposes the Space Station
because it's not good -- or cost-effective -- science.  I think that's
correct, but misses the point.  The space station isn't about science;
it's about human spaceflight. I just don't think human spaceflight is
that important.)

I don't understand why you think having a connection with Congress should
associate me with any particular political agenda.  Congressional staff
members are not expected to pursue their own agendas, but those of their
bosses.  Members of Congress have almost as wide a variety of agendas as
those expressed on the internet.  In any case, their agendas are a reflection
of their constituents and (unfortunately) their campaign contributors and
lobbyists, among whom military contractors are an especially influential
group.

I hope to help Congress develop better public policies by providing sound
technical guidance where I can.  I may offer nontechnical judgments as well,
but I will do my best to distinguish clearly between technical analysis and
personal opinion.


Mark W. Goodman

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 22:48:37 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Amber (Was: Re: Population)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.geology

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Dellinger) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes...
>> 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.
>
>    In the Sept 1992 "Natural History" magazine, Stephen J. Gould
>writes that the "current" record is for chloroplast DNA from preserved tree
>leaves in the Clarkia lake beds, 17-22 Million years old. The Clarkia
>preservation is extremely unusual: leaves falling right into an anoxic lake
>bottom, rapid burial, and an anoxic environment continuously maintained until
>present. Even so they still haven't managed to get nuclear DNA.... yet.

I've heard that Dr. Poiner from UC Berkeley cloned some blood cells from
a stingless bee from amber recently.  I've heard this from word of mouth, so
I'm trying to find out the details.  Dr. Poiner, by the way, was the first
to extract DNA from amber in 1982.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Einstein's brain is stored
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | in a mason jar in a lab
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | in Wichita, Kansas.

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 13:00:36 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>The Apollo lunar instruments might have been an exception.  They weren't
>complex, they were mostly just sitting there sending data, and they were
>close enough that a *really good* amateur setup might have been able to
>receive from them.  Continued operation just might have been within reach
>of amateur efforts, barely.

It would have been pushing the amateur state of the art at the time.
Perhaps a dozen stations were capable of receiving the signals then.
Today there are thousands that could do the job. Such is progress.

Gary KE4ZV

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 13:31:15 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon.

This is incorrect. That figure is the round trip loss at 2.3 GHz for
a signal beamed from Earth, passively reflected from the Moon, and
received again on Earth. The free space path loss from an active
transmitter on the Moon to an earthbound receiver is less, about
196 db. This figure is frequency dependent with lower frequencies
having less path loss and higher frequencies having more. The
figure is for isotropic antennas. Antenna gain scales up with
increasing frequency for the same physical size antenna, balancing
out increased path loss.

MDS on amateur receivers in the 1970s was around -136 dbm. It's
about 10 db better today with a typical multimode getting down
to -146 dbm. Specialized GasFet preamps can improve that by another
20 db today for under $100, though not in the 1970s. So about 20 db
of antenna gain would bring a 1 watt signal on the Moon into detectability
on modern amateur equipment. That's the kind of setup that is typical of
users of the amateur satellites. With a 12 foot dish, 30 db of antenna
gain is available giving you a 10 db C/N ratio. That's within reach of
home satellite systems.

Anyone willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars could receive
a 1 watt signal from the Moon with sufficient margin to decode digital
data, or copy analog voice. An EME grade station is probably still
required to pick up video, or high bandwidth data.

Gary KE4ZV

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 09:56:21 GMT
From: Borre Ludvigsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated mail > file cat & decoding ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Automated mail > file cat & decoding ?

We need a shell script, program, gizmo that reads a mail spool file, recognizes a
series of uuencoded images (which are not necessarily in the right order), extracts
them, cats them in the right order, strips headers and decodes.

Tall order?

We're running the Internet anonymous ftp site for the NOA/NESDIS wxsat waffle server
being run by the System Support Group. Images are fed over as mail. They're not
always in the right order and other type of mail will be interspersed. It would of
course, also be useful to have other, plain mail automatically saved too. Ideally,
we're looking for a mail reading agent with an IQ high enough to see the difference
between text and uuencoded binary and to know what to do with it. Ie. read, sort,
convert and sluice it to the right directory of anonymous ftp account.

If anyone has any tips, scripts or code that they think might help, we'd be
etarnally grateful.


Kjell Are Refsvik <[e-mail]>
&
Barre Ludvigsen <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 14:19:34 GMT
From: "Harold H. Ipolyi 713-486-6444" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blue Danube
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <msrMr*[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay Denebeim) writes:
|> If its 100 years, its forever.  We'll run out of enough energy to put the
|> first SPS up if we don't start much sooner than that.

No problem. Our one remaining land-fill will be tall enough so we can just winch it up :)

Of course if you mean oil by "energy", then remember that other Nations are not as
finicky about nuclear power as we are, so in 100 years we'll still be buying
foreign energy, only a different kind :(

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 13:45:46 GMT
From: Jonathan McDowell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Mary Shafer):
[About "our Germans":]
>
> That still doesn't make it right.  Not persecuting people for crimes
> against humanity because they may be useful to you is wrong.  Period.

> Mary


 I agree with you about that, Mary; and certainly there were members
of the Peenemunde team who had a prima facie case to answer on war crimes.
But it's the usual question: how much did you know and when did you
know it? There is a large body of anecdotal evidence, some of it possibly
even accurate, that von Braun himself was only interested in building
missiles as a route to building space rockets, and a lot of people have
defended him on those grounds - he wasn't really happy about bombing
London. Personally I think that's irrelevant, participating in the
war effort was one thing but being complicit in the mass murder
in the labor camps used to build the weapons is quite another. It
seems to me quite possible that during development and early
testing of the V-2 there wasn't much involvment of the labor camps,
and it was only when they went into production that slave labour
was used. At what point did von Braun know about this? My guess is
quite early on and that he didn't care a bean, but I'm think the
question is a valid one historically. At what point are you criminally
complicit in a crime against humanity? (For instance, are those Americans
who voted for governments which gave support to the genocidal regime
in Indonesia in the '60s complicit in that crime?)

My personal opinion is that the hagiography of von Braun and his
colleagues prevalent in a certain city in Alabama is inappropriate,
that they were likely guilty of war crimes in some degree, but that
they were not responsible to anything like the same degree that
those that ran the camps and oversaw the camp system, many of whom
(like Krupp) spent a few brief years in jail and emerged to
become rich, respected and powerful. I also feel that the first A-4
flight (it wasn't called the V-2 yet) was not a product of the Nazi camp
system but more directly of the Peenemunde military R&D team; so
while I don't think it good to celebrate the anniversary of the
V-2 weapon system, I feel fine about celebrating the Oct 1942 flight
from Test Stand VII as the first rocket flight into space.


 .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell                 |  phone : [phone]                |
 |  Harvard-Smithsonian Center for    |                                        |
 |   Astrophysics                     |                                        |
 |  60 Garden St, MS4                 |                                        |
 |  Cambridge MA 02138                |  inter : [e-mail]   |
 |  USA                               |  inter : [e-mail]      |
 '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 13:16:38 GMT
From: Ian Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Laser Space Mirror
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
>Perhaps in the short term building a Space electricity transmitter would be
>better than a SPS.
>
>Put a flat optical mirror in Clarke orbit. Build a laser transmitters near a
>ground based power station.

New Scientist this week (No 1841, 3 October 1992) reports that next month a
crewless Progress spacecraft will open a space mirror after resupplying Mir
at an altitude of 350 km.

The solar reflector is 20 metres across and will be unfurled by centrifugal
force. The mirror weighs 4 kg and is made from aluminium coated plastic film
5 micrometres thick, it is attached to a 36 Kg frame and costs $60,000.

The plan is to test the effectiveness of using space based mirrors to provide
illumination for ground based artic locations!

+---I----- fax [phone] ------------------------- voice [phone] --+
| T a y l o r  Alcatel-ELIN Research, 1-7 Ruthnergasse, Vienna A-1210 Austria  |
+-- n ---- [e-mail] --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+

         better, smaller, faster, cheaper, smarter, brighter ... never?



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

Date: 5 Oct 92 07:09:58 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, niininen@messi (Kristian Niininen) writes:
>How big is the Mars Observer? (weight, length etc.)
>What kinds of instruments it has?

Payload Weight                   156 kg (343 lb)
Total Weight                    2573 kg (5672 lb)
Size (launch configuration):
   Length                        1.6 m (5.0 ft)
   Width                         2.2 m (7.0 ft)
   Height                        1.1 m (3.25 ft)
Solar array                 six 183 x 219 x 9.1-centimeter (6 x 7.2 x 0.3-foot)
  (arranged in a 3 x 2 rectangle, the middle 2 panels are left folded during
   the  cruise to Mars)

There are seven science instruments:

Gamma Ray Spectrometer            (GRS)
Mars Observer Camera            (MOC)
Thermal Emission Spectrometer        (TES)
Pressure Modulator Infrared Radiometer    (PMIRR)
Mars Observer Laser Altimeter        (MOLA)
Magnetometer and Electron Reflectometer    (MAG/ER)
Mars Balloon Relay            (MBR)

(This last instrument is provided by the French, and is designed to act as a
backup relay antenna for the Russian Mars 94 and 96 missions.)

There are three 6 meter booms extending from the spacecraft.  One holds the
high gain antenna, and the other two have scientific instruments (the GRS on
one and the MAG and ER on the other).

This information is from the Mars Observer Press Kit, posted to sci.space.news
a month ago, and from the 17 August 1992 issue of Aviation Week.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:37:39 GMT
From: Gary Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population here and elsewhere?
Newsgroups: sci.space

     With the relatively low priority and lack of basic understanding
of our environment shown by most on this board;it is indeed merciful
that none are actively in this area.
What does bringing back dinosaurs have to do with such a critical
human dilemma as uncontrolled population growth. Persons who ecourage such
must either be quite ignorant of the future consequences or so insensitive
to the situation that reason eludes them.

Rush Limbaugh was quoted recently as stating that population growth
was a "phoney" issue since if we move the entire world pouplation
as it exists presently, to the state of Texas the human density would
equal that of New York City. Pooh.. Pooh.. population growth and the
environment are a ploy of the liberals!

Aside from the fact that Limbaugh is a pompus donkey;the truly frightening
part is he has so many mindless idolators in his ranks.

Yes, if he had his way I'm sure Earth would become the planet Gideon.

--
                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
 References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965

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

Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:40:07 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robert H. Goddard - Born 110 Years Ago Today
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,alt.sci.planetary

    On this date (October 5) in 1882, Robert Hutchings Goddard was
    born in Worcester, Massachusetts (about eighty kilometers west of
    Boston).  Goddard launched the world's first liquid-fueled rocket
    in March of 1926 in Auburn, MA, along with many other contributions
    to the development of modern rocketry.  Goddard died in August of
    1945.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic

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

Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 11:19:08 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics

> Yes, I can.  It doesn't simply come down to "everyone has
> their own values, and everyone's are as good everyone else's."
> Nor does it simply come down to the public interest being that
> of the private intrests of the majority.  Taken to extremes, your
> statement becomes "we can't tell the Nazis they are wrong. If the
> majority of the people support them, what they are doing must
> be in the public interest."

>

Why then democracy, if not to settle differences between different
views and special interests?

> Besides, in a sense, isn't the above statement hypocritical.  Many
> people in America don't think space is all that important.

> Space enthusiast have always felt that it was OK to tell them
> that they're priorities were wrong and that they should think
> more about the future.
>


Hardly. If the majority don't want the government to do anything in
space, the government will do nothing in space. Which is fine with me
anyway because I'd rather it be done privately.

Some people think space is important. Many more people hug trees.
Even more people cut them down. Each is an interest, and although
balanced somewhat by other "ideals" in the case of most people, the
ultimate vote is always with the wallet, ie the local personal issue
has more to do with the typical vote than "issues" and "causes".


"In a democracy people get exactly the government they deserve"
            -  Probably H.L. Mencken

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

Date: 4 Oct 92 20:49:00 GMT
From: Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reply-To: [e-mail]

Steinn Sigurdsson writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> Mark Goodman <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>   important issue than the space program.  I continue to believe that.
>   I find the pipedreams that human space exploration offers an economic
>   bonanza incredible, at least for the foreseeable future.  I don't think
>
>So, obvious question, how long is "foreseeable"?
>As you are working "in" [sic] Congress can we
>assume that it is order two years?

By the foreseeable future I mean my lifetime, and probably my children's
lifetime.  I am 32, and my son is 4.  I like to compare it with the
prospects for fusion reactors.  For the last 40 years, we have been
told that commercial fusion power is 40 years away.  I take that to
mean that we have no idea how long it might take, and that it may
never happen.

I take a slightly less skeptical attitude toward human space
exploration.  Although the capital costs of any large-scale continuing
human presence in space seem prohibitive, I admit that there could be
economically viable activities to overcome this barrier.  We just don't
know what they might be yet.

By the way, I think there are great economic benefits from other
space endeavors, notably communications and remote sensing.  It's
just that these don't require people.

Mark W. Goodman

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 14:15:31 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> Yes, I can.  It doesn't simply come down to "everyone has
>> their own values, and everyone's are as good everyone else's."
>> Nor does it simply come down to the public interest being that
>> of the private intrests of the majority.  Taken to extremes, your
>> statement becomes "we can't tell the Nazis they are wrong. If the
>> majority of the people support them, what they are doing must
>> be in the public interest."



>Why then democracy, if not to settle differences between different
>views and special interests?

Is democracy that great in a situation like this?   Do we progress by
only doing what the majority wants?  Even the British socialist
George Bernard Shaw did not think so.

Quoting from memory,

    The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment.  The
    unreasonable man attempts to adapt the environment to himself.
    Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

One cannot expect the mass of the public to attempt to soar with the
eagles, or to even realize the joy of striving.  At most one can hope
for grudging support, and non-interference.

>> Besides, in a sense, isn't the above statement hypocritical.  Many
>> people in America don't think space is all that important.

>> Space enthusiast have always felt that it was OK to tell them
>> that they're priorities were wrong and that they should think
>> more about the future.



>Hardly. If the majority don't want the government to do anything in
>space, the government will do nothing in space. Which is fine with me
>anyway because I'd rather it be done privately.

But there is a rub.  The present legal and political situation restricts
what can be done privately.  I too advocate doing it privately, and this
means that the governments have the obligation to get out of the way.

>Some people think space is important. Many more people hug trees.
>Even more people cut them down. Each is an interest, and although
>balanced somewhat by other "ideals" in the case of most people, the
>ultimate vote is always with the wallet, ie the local personal issue
>has more to do with the typical vote than "issues" and "causes".


>"In a democracy people get exactly the government they deserve"
>            -  Probably H.L. Mencken

And too many believe that the government can solve all problems.

--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 16:12:08 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switching ALSEP back on (was Re: another sad anniversary)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (FRANK NEY) writes:
>>Is there any way to turn ALSEP back on once we get the ground station
>>set up properly?  Or was it a no-return type of prodedure?
>
> Such turnoff procedures are usually irreversible, I believe, to minimize
> the chances of dying hardware later reversing them on its own.  I'm not
> sure about ALSEP in particular.

Oh, I don't know. Armed with a soldering iron, a wiring diagram, and a
space suit, I imagine you'd find it pretty easy.

> In any event, I suspect that the ALSEP RTGs have long since passed the
> point where they no longer supply enough power to keep things running.
> Limits were being felt there at the time of turnoff.

Was it a plutonium-238 RTG?  238Pu has a half-life of 86 years, but
available power from RTGs seems to drop off at a faster rate than
that, for reasons that aren't clear to me.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 5 Oct 92 12:29:05 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I recall reading that there was a plot to spirit von Braun out of
Germany into England.  The plot was busted and von Braun was set
for execution when someone whispered in the fuhrer's ear that if
he wanted his Vengance-2 weapon, he had better commute the sentence
of Herr von Braun.

Somewhat less reverently, I also recall the words to Tom Lehrer's
60's ditty:
"'The rockets go up. I don't know where they come down.
That's not my department,' says Werner von Braun."

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 14:45:43 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What is this ?

Phil G. Fraering changes my title "What is this ?" into "Mystery Alien
Object Invading European Airspace..." (I must say I disagree with this
new title) and writes (Fri, 2 Oct 92 12:24:33 -0500):

\Could not be an air to ground missile since nothing fell to the ground.
/Since the altitude displayed on the F-16's Westinghouse APG-66 radar
\display screen (upper right hand corner) has only two digits, 00 on
/this screen, and 0000 in the quoted report, means anything between
\0 and 500 feet (I think 0 = ground level, not sea level). The speed is
/the absolute value of the real 3-D vector speed (air speed ?), not the
\absolute value of its 2-D vector projection on the ground. (J. Pharabod)

(There is something wrong in what I wrote above: 0 was not ground level,
but sea level. Altitude of the ground is around 200 feet in this area
of Belgium - J. Pharabod)

>Don't be so sure. Have you heard of penetrators? It might have hit the
>ground and buried itself and gone unnoticed. (P. Fraering)

Interesting. Yes, I heard of those. Who could drop penetrators in a
highly populated area of Western Europe ?

\Nobody knows what it was (I mean, those who know keep silent...). In
/its SUMMARY REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS 30-31 MARCH 1990, Colonel (now
\General) De Brouwer, of the Belgian Air Force, writes:
/"...............
\ A total of 9 interception attempts have been made.
/ At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a lock-on with their air
\ interception radar. Lock-on distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On
/ all occasions targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and
\ break-locks occurred after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between
/ 150 and 1010 knots. At 3 occasions both F-16 registered simultaneous
\ lock-ons with the same parameters. The 2 F-16 were flying +- 2 NM
/ apart. ............."  (J. Pharabod)

>Just wondering, but I recall a while back that some Viggens on
>excercises in the Baltic once tried a lock-on to an SR-71, just to
>prove that they could catch it if they wanted to. This was "way
>back when."
>Target lock lasted all of three seconds before being overwhelmed
>by ECM. (P. Fraering)

Very interesting.

>            The "black" projects the US has been building all have
>heavy emphasis on stealth characteristics (passive ECM, as it were)
>and more active forms of ECM.
>I have heard speculation that the Belgian UFO's were American spook
>vehicles that were not capable of that sort of acceleration, but
>of making an F-16's radar _think_ it had seen something that could
>do that. (P. Fraering)

Yes. This, for instance, had been advanced by the French monthly
"Science et Vie", mainly in the article "C'est vrai: je l'ai vu" by
Dominique Caudron, October 1990.
I heard that the Belgian military, after a lengthy study of the video
record of the radar display screen, don't think it was ECM (at least,
that they are pretty sure it was not any kind of ECM known to them).
But I am waiting for confirmation. The problem with this kind of
inquiry is that you have:
1) only a part of official reports, since much is classified (as far
as I know, not "top secret", but only "confidential")
2) more or less direct information about the classified part
(private discussions, letters or phone calls).
Therefore I am still not convinced that it was not ECM.

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 15:36:58 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What is this ?

Topcoat writes (3 Oct 92 19:49:15 GMT):

>>Not necessarily, since the altitude displayed on the F-16's Westinghouse
>>APG-66 radar display screen (upper right hand corner) has only two
>>digits. 07 means 7000 + or - 500, 12 means 12000 + or - 500, etc...
>>So in this report, 7000 could be 6501, and 6000 could be 6499.
>>
>>J. Pharabod

>Looks like bad data, was the source a pulse doppler radar or pulse?

What do you mean by "source" ? If it is the radar which registered the
echoes, it was a Westinghouse APG-66 (a fairly common model for F-16),
in air-to-air mode, with radar range selected 10. If you mean the target,
that is the question.

>                                                                    If
>this was FAA "primary" data I'd call it jitter and disregard

The Belgian military did not call it jitter, and did not disregard.
There are several other records (there were several lock-ons that night).

J. Pharabod

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 286
------------------------------