Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO297.TXT

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

Date: Thu,  8 Oct 92 05:02:44
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #297
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  8 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 297

Today's Topics:
                     Bouncing radio off the moon
                       Chemically Reacting Air
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (2 msgs)
                          Greenhouse effect
                     GSFC Monthly Status Reports
                         Mars Observer orbit
                    Population here and elsewhere?
                  Population here and elsewhere? (2)
                       Revised FAQ on Launchers
             Robert H. Goddard - Born 110 Years Ago Today
                       SETI positive? (4 msgs)
                             UFO? REALLY?
                         What use is Freedom?

    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: 8 Oct 92 01:14:38 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bouncing radio off the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (FRANK NEY)
-Date: 7 Oct 92 12:52:27 GMT
-Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.

-So how about landing a series of corner reflector arrays set to the
-EME sub bands from 50Mhz to 20GHz or whatever?

-Should take care of the scatter....

The radio people I've asked about that have said that the corner reflectors
would have to take up a pretty large fraction of the moon's surface for
there to be any noticeable effect. The natural surface of the moon is a
"fairly good" reflector as-is.

On one hand, that's good - modern radio amateurs can bounce signals off
the surface. On the other hand, the moon "smears" the return signal by
2000 miles or so - thus limiting the communications bandwidth, no matter
how much power is used.

I bet the amateurs would really love an active repeater - that probably
*would* make a difference.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 00:19:17 GMT
From: Ronald Fedkiw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chemically Reacting Air
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm trying to model the flow of high temperature air.......
I need to calculate the heat of formation of: N2 O2 N O NO NO+ e-
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anyone know what to do ??? References ????

--
Ron Fedkiw ([e-mail])

A plan is made by someone who is sitting and thinking ...
while others are doing.

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 20:45:16 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
>P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like dumping it
>in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else.

True in one sense... but the Sun already pumps out vastly greater amounts
of radioactive garbage, so it's not as if we're polluting the pristine
reaches of space.  (The oceans are a lot smaller and more vulnerable.)

The *sensible* thing to do with the stuff is to just put it down a hole
for umpty-ump years until it decays.  Among other advantages of this
approach, we can recover the stuff if we find uses for it.

It's not as if it was something that's going to be poisonous forever...
like the vastly greater tonnage of stack-scrubber sludge that comes out
of coal-burning power plants.  (Oddly enough, nobody seems to scream and
shout about that, even though it's a far bigger and much more difficult
disposal problem.)

But it's an issue that people are not rational about.

As Jordin Kare said recently:  "shooting it out of the solar system is
more expensive than putting it down a hole in the ground... but it's
cheaper than putting it down a DoE-designed hole in the ground".
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 7 Oct 1992 17:14 PST
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes...

>Someone even suggested that we might turn the sun _out_. Good grief,
>go get some education, why don't you?
>
>Again, _please_ think about doing some sums, or at least thinking
>about physics, before posting to sci.space. These sums are _very_
>easy. If you can't do them, don't try to answer questions that other
>people post.
>
>That statement betrays a complete lack of understanding of the scale
>of space, so I'll post some basic numbers and ideas to help the
>clueless.

For someone who so sharply critical of others, I would have thought that
you would have taken a little care to work out the numbers before you
said this:

>If the Earth were an apple, the whole biosphere shebang, including the
>oceans, would be thinner than the skin on the apple. The sun would be
>a 10-foot sphere about a mile away. The solar system would be forty
>miles across. The nearest star would be on the moon (if you see what I
>mean). And in all this space, there's _nothing_ except a few
>basketballs (the gas giants), assorted small fruit (the other planets)
>and a bit of dust. We can't pollute something that large.

The Sun's radius is roughly 110 Earth radii.  So if the Sun is a 10-foot
sphere, the Earth is 1.1 inch, an awfully small apple, if you ask me.
Even if you meant the sun to be a sphere of 10-foot radius (rather than
diameter), I'd still recommend you find yourself a better greengrocer.

I normally wouldn't be so picky, but since you insist on berating others
for their failure to put pen to paper, I think you should take some
of your own medicine.  Need I point out that these were very simple
ratios that you easily could have done before posting to sci.astro?

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:55:55 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Greenhouse effect

\Yes, solid waste isn't as much of a problem as some people think it is.
/Air and water pollution (and I suppose topsoil depletion) are of much
\more immediate interest. For instance, human-caused acid rain appears
/to be a genuine problem over significant parts of the east coast of
\North America. (And for that specific problem, at least, the
/"environmentalists" appear to be hurting more than helping.)

Gore's Clean Air Act that mandates using clean coal?

\While I don't think NASA should blow its entire budget on Earth observation,
/some level of it seems to be worthwhile, for instance in determining whether
\a runaway greenhouse effect is possible, by actual observation rather than
/political debate.

I don't care how they find out, as long as it isn't by experimentation.
I.e. I want to find out _before_ it gets too hot, not _after_...

\John Roberts
/[e-mail]

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
---------------------
Disclaimer: Some reasonably forseeable events may exceed this
message's capability to protect from severe injury, death, widespread
disaster, astronomically significant volumes of space approaching a
state of markedly increaced entropy, or taxes.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:58:17 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: GSFC Monthly Status Reports
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Goddard Monthly Public Affairs Status Report, September 1992

COMPTON        Gamma Ray Observatory
UARS           Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
HST            Hubble Space Telescope
SAMPEX         Solar Anomalous Magnetospheric Particle Explorer
EUVE           Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer
GEOTAIL        Geotail Spacecraft


COMPTON: Compton scientists continued studying an unusually bright
X-ray nova in the constellation Perseus this month.  The spacecraft
was reoriented to get an even closer look at the object, which was
seen continuously for approximately one month before fading in mid-
September.  After September 17, the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment
Telescope (EGRET) and Imaging Compton Telescope (COMPTEL)
instruments resumed the nearly complete all-sky survey.  As of
September 22, the Burst and Transient Source Experiment
(BATSE) detected 436 cosmic gamma-ray bursts. Compton launched
April 5, 1991 aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis.
Contact: Randee Exler [phone]

UARS:  UARS is operating nominally.  However, attempts to restart
the UARS Improved Stratospheric and Mesospheric Sounder (ISAMS)
chopper wheel motor still have not been successful and so ISAMS
remains inoperative.  The motor stopped working on July 29.
Automated attempts to restart the motor continue.  On September 21,
the observatory made a routine forward to backward yaw around.
This maneuver, executed approximately every 36 days, keeps the
solar array on the Sun side of the observatory and the instruments
in the correct orientation with respect to the Sun.  UARS launched
September 12, 1991 from the Space Shuttle Discovery.
Contact: Jessie Katz [phone]

HST: The first four batteries (#2,3,5 and 6) have been discharged
successfully under a battery reconditioning program started in
August. Recharging is in progress.  After an analysis of the
discharge and recharge profiles of the first four batteries,
reconditioning of the last two will be undertaken.  HST launched
April 24, 1990 aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery.
Contact: Jim Elliott [phone]

SAMPEX:  The Low Energy Ion Composition Analyzer (LEICA) reached a
nominal operating state Sept. 23. Spacecraft operators currently
are collecting data from all four SAMPEX instruments. However,
analysis of the anomaly with LEICA's high voltage, first reported
July 21, is ongoing. SAMPEX, a small explorer satellite, was
launched July 3, 1992 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc,
Calif., aboard a Scout rocket.
Contact: Dolores Beasley [phone].

EUVE: All EUVE instruments are performing at or better than
expected levels. The satellite is now 11 weeks into a survey of the
entire sky which will provide astronomers with their first detailed
maps in several EUV energy bands. NASA's Guest Observer program
will begin at the conclusion of the sky survey in Freshman 1993.
EUVE was lunched June 7, 1992 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
onboard a Delta II rocket.
Contact: Dolores Beasley [phone].

GEOTAIL: Geotail is now in full science mode with the first segment
of the mission, the deep tail phase, during which the spacecraft
will use several orbits to travel deep into the geomagnetic tail,
using lunar swing-bys to achieve the deep orbits.  On Sept. 26,
Geotail reached its first deep tail apogee, and conducted a
velocity adjustment to shape the orbit for the first in-bound lunar
swingby scheduled for October 14. Geotail was launched July 24,
1992 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station onboard a Delta II
rocket. Contact: Dolores Beasley [phone].

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:32:49 GMT
From: "Allen Halsell, MO NAV" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 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.
>
> 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.

Exactly.  Well-put.  Actually, it will go slightly outside Mars' orbit,
then swing back in a little.  For more insight consider that its orbit
plane will be around 5 pm solar time when it arrives, making 70-80 deg
between the Sun and the orbit plane (coming in exactly tangent would be
90 degrees).

The non-Hohmann-ness is also because the window extended for 24 days; some
of these required large velocity changes (~100 m/s) in interplanetary cruise
to get to Mars.  Sometimes it was out-of-plane, sometimes not.


*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 00:49:44 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population here and elsewhere?
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Gary Davis)
-Subject: Population here and elsewhere?
-Date: 5 Oct 92 14:37:39 GMT
-Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility

-     With the relatively low priority

After all, this is the *space* list.

-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

Dinosaurs are an environmental issue, and after all the valuation of
the environment is the value humans place on it. If we're allowed to
value owls and scrub jays and hypothetical Mars microbes, why can't we
value dinosaurs as well?

-uncontrolled population growth.

By "uncontrolled", do you mean legal control? Should population growth be
strictly limited by law even where it's pretty low (like the US and most of
Europe)? And if you feel the US should be controlling population growth
in India and Africa, what methods do you suggest? Offloading population
into space is extremely unlikely to be practical for the next several
decades at a minimum, and bringing in supplies from space (other than perhaps
rare elements, as discussed previously) would be very difficult to manage
at a level to significantly meet the day-to-day needs of the the entire
world population. Improving technology and education might help, and while
I don't have the same absolute confidence in the "increased prosperity always
leads to decreased population growth" concept that some other folks have,
at least it seems worth trying. Helping people to become happy and prosperous
is a worthwhile goal in itself, and if that doesn't solve the population
problem, you can always try something else. :-)

In the meantime, as others have pointed out, the population problem isn't
quite as dire at the moment as some would have us believe. It *is* probably
a good idea to keep track of it.

-Persons who ecourage such
-must either be quite ignorant of the future consequences or so insensitive
-to the situation that reason eludes them.

I don't think bringing back a few dinosaurs would be all that disastrous.
I wasn't really thinking of covering the planet with them - maybe a few
hundred in zoos. And they might turn out to be good to eat - ever read the
science fiction story about "dinachicken"?

-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.

Yes, political extremists tend to leave important factors out of their
arguments - it's easier to "prove" one's point that way. Such as the
fact that humans have much greater demands on the environment than standing
room. Many argue this way to some extent, but the extremists (extreme in
any direction) are generally the ones who claim that theirs is the only
point of view worth listening to.

John Roberts                | "I *am* 'equal time'."
[e-mail]   | - RL (television commercial, 9/92)

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 01:00:45 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population here and elsewhere? (2)
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Population here and elsewhere?
-Date: 7 Oct 92 08:25:43 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

-I've pointed out that if the entire world population produced garbage
-at the rate of NYC dwellers, it would take 10,000 years to cover the
-state of Nevada with it to a depth of 100 feet,

Yes, solid waste isn't as much of a problem as some people think it is.
Air and water pollution (and I suppose topsoil depletion) are of much
more immediate interest. For instance, human-caused acid rain appears
to be a genuine problem over significant parts of the east coast of
North America. (And for that specific problem, at least, the
"environmentalists" appear to be hurting more than helping.)

While I don't think NASA should blow its entire budget on Earth observation,
some level of it seems to be worthwhile, for instance in determining whether
a runaway greenhouse effect is possible, by actual observation rather than
political debate.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 06 Oct 92  23:10:32
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Revised FAQ on Launchers
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi Josh!

>I will happily use those if you can provide me with them or an
>accurate place to find them.
   Let me look through my files.  I try to keep current on such data
-- although I have had less time this past year to keep them up to
date.  I use the prices quoted from current launch competitions.  I
haven't had the time to update a full listing for about a year, and
it's about time I recompiled my list.
   For a source for accurate information, I would recommend calling/
writing the launch service providers and asking for such a quote --
single launch to 150 nmi circular, 28.5 deg inclination, payment
over 24 months prior to launch, total price in 1994$, standard
launch services (including .....), no insurance, standard pad &
range charges (including ....).  You might also try one of the space
insurance firms or the US DoT Office of Commercial Space
Transportation. If you want, I can provide you the names and
addresses to write.

>>   Secondly, same comments apply to reliability.  If you do quote
>>a reliability number, quote the time period, number of launches
>>and vehicle type the reliability is shown for.

>I thought I made this fairly clear.  The reliability number is a
>fraction with the total number of launches on the bottom.  All
>known launches/failures are included for each vehicle family at the
>top of the section and individual types farther down.  The time
>period is from Sputnik through December 1990.  Did I fail make this
>clear in the introduction, or am I making a mistake somewhere?

   Sorry Josh, perhaps I misinterpreted this.  I will confess I
quickly scanned your article, rather than trying to decipher your
format which had become scrambled in transmission.
   From my quick scan of your scrambled posting, what caused that
comment was, for example, you show reliability for the Atlas
variants, but don't include the ICBM variant which had a significant
number of test launches in the 1957-1974 time period (Classes
A,B,C,D,E and F).  Some of the Atlas ICBM vehicles (particularly D,
E, F classes) are virtually identical to the space launchers of the
same class.  IRGSLS only includes orbital launch attempts, although
some sources also include these near-orbital attempts in overall
system reliability assessments. (Note: The Atlas D,E,F vehicles do
not leave their payloads in a sustainable orbit and require the
payload to perform the circularization burn.  This is why there is
some difference of opinion in including the ICBM version in
reliability assessments, since it basically flew the same trajectory
and mission profile.  And a similar discussion can be extended to
the Titan family (particularly the Titan II), the Europa/Ariane, the
ASLV/Agni, and some of the ex-Soviet systems.)
   Also, some of the failures included in IRGSLS are upper stage
failures which may/may not be part of the launch needs and in which
a failure should/should not be booked against the launcher.  (I'm
not sure of the methodology Steve used in assessing a failure to the
launcher, but the insurance folks treat it as a separate failure,
due to liability concerns).
   But yes, your above wording is much clearer.  If you are using
IRGSLS, then that data is pretty self consistent.  (I've got some
more current data at work from a space insurance actuarial firm
which provides some different interpretations -- but would not be
consistent with the rest of the data.)

>I didn't include ones I knew no longer launch (with the possible
>exception of the ASLV, that one slipped my mind).  If I missed one,
>please let me know.  I included data on H-2 and Ariane V because I
>didn't think they were likely to change much between now and first
>flight.  I probably shouldn't have included the PSLV and GSLV
>though.
   Hmmmm.... under that constraint (essentially having completed the
majority of the development program) you should probably also
include the Conestoga/COMET and the IMI Orbital Express, since they
now have signed near-term launch contracts.  The PSLV is also pretty
far along in development -- I was reading about a successful engine
test they just completed -- and you might also include the MS-J
which is pretty far along in Japan, and both essentially have
customers for initial flights.

>Thanks for the input.
   You're welcome.  Hopefully the comments are useful.  I hope I can
find the time to come up with better cost data in the next week or
two.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor



--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:22:49 GMT
From: Steve Swift <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robert H. Goddard - Born 110 Years Ago Today
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Klaes) writes:
>    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
>
>        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]

Why would he want to launch other contributions?

--


            Steve Swift, Sr. Staff Engineer
    Domain: [e-mail]
    Voice: [phone], Ext. 5737 direct: 356-5737
    FAX: [phone]
    UUCP: {uw-beaver,microsof,sun}!fluke!swifty
US mail: John Fluke Mfg. Co./ P.O. Box 9090/ MS 266D/ Everett WA  98206

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:24:16 GMT
From: Daniel A Ashlock <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI positive?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

   I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that our lackwit
bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a potential hit on a SETI
search and a multi-telescope confimation is planned Oct 12-???

   Any information?

Dan
[e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Oct 1992 15:54 PST
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI positive?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock) writes...
>   I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that our lackwit
>bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a potential hit on a SETI
>search and a multi-telescope confimation is planned Oct 12-???

Calm down.  There is no positive signal.  It's just that NASA's big SETI
project is scheduled to start on Oct. 12.  It's a ten year project to do a
megachannel search.  I believe that the first part of the program is to
look locally (within some tens of light years) at specific nearby stars.
Later there will be a generic search of the entire sky.

It's fascinating stuff, but don't hold your breath.  The search, though
4 or more orders of magnitude faster than the best previous search, is
still limitted in sensitivity.  For example, using this detector at 100 light
years from Earth, you could not detect the random TV and radio signals that
we have inadvertantly transmitted out into space.  We really only have
a possibility of detecting civilizations which are intentionally beaming
intense signals at us.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:40:15 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI positive?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

>   I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that our lackwit
>bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a potential hit on a SETI
>search and a multi-telescope confimation is planned Oct 12-???

Well, why don't you just get on the phone and call NewsWeek about it???

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 00:45:37 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI positive?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Dan>    I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that
Dan> our lackwit bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a
Dan> potential hit on a SETI search and a multi-telescope confimation
Dan> is planned Oct 12-???

Dan>    Any information?

Yes.  The message was "Send more Chuck Berry!"

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:21:27 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFO? REALLY?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Davis) writes:

> I've always been fascinated with the hypothesis that other civilizations
>have visted Earth via a worm hole or other cosmic anomoly,but has anyone
>ever with true open mind investigated the evidence?

I'm always skeptical of lines like this, for two reasons.  The first being that
the people who say it usually mean "someone with a mind leaning towards what
I want to be true" and the second being that no one can approach this issue
without some kind of bias.

>I wonder if anyone has information concerning the rather strange event
>in New Mexico circ 1988. I think it involved a group of loggers with
>one man disappearing for a week and then relating an abduction tale.
>His companions,I believe were cleared on a polygraph and he later,taking
>same showed ambiguous results. The first try was a flunk and second tries
>passed. (Perhaps he was just nervous).

The trouble with stories like this is twofold.  The first being that lie
detector tests aren't very reliable, the second being that you can only study
what someone thinks happened, not the actual event.

>In any event,there most be some intermediate ground between the Amazing
>Randy specticisms and the Inquirer tom foolery?

Certainly.  There are numerous events in science we just don't have enough
data to understand or confirm.  You just have to leave them open or ingore
them until you have enough data to confirm them or deny them.  I'm sure there
are some UFO stories that are in the unkown catagory, but the vast majority
are easy to debunk, and there are none in the "confirmed" catagory.


>--
>                     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
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
     The views expresed above do not necessarily reflect those of
ISDS, UIUC, NSS, IBM FSC, NCSA, NMSU, AIAA or the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Acronymphomaniacs

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 18:43:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What use is Freedom?

            "Peace" v. "Freedom"

(Apologies if this information has been posted previously!)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Comparative capabilities in space
(from Space Station Freedom Program Office, 3/30/91)

          PMC SSF    Mir      mid-90's  CSDF     Spacelab  Skylab
                        Mir

Pressurized   3 lab    2 lab      5 lab        1 lab    1 lab     1 lab
Elements      1 hab    2 hab      1 hab                            1 airlock
          2 logs    1 logs      1 log                            1 mult.
          2 node    1 node      1 node                        docking
          1 airlock    1 Soyuz      1 Soyuz TM                    adapter

Pressurized   26900     7912*      14491*    2500     4950      14513
Volume,ft**3

Weight,lb     500000    198000      286000    35307    22000     159200

Power,kW      56.25    25*      40*        8.5         2           5.7

Permanent     4        2      2-6        0         0           0
Crew                                (3 temp) (4 temp)  (3 temp)

Environmental regen H2O    regen H2O regen H2O no regen no regen  no regen
Control                  partial      partial
                  regen O2  regen O2

Available     11232    4160      4160 to   396         672       5364 mh
Crew Time                   12480                            3 mission
man-hr/yr                                               total

PMC SSF: Permanently Manned Capability, Space Station Freedom
MIR: as of 8/90
CDSF: Commercially Developed Space Facility (SSI's free-flyer)
*: U.S. estimated value based on published data
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not sure if the mid-90's Mir refers to additional modules on the
current station, or Mir 2 which is scheduled for launch in 1997 (*Space
News*, Oct. 5-11, 1992, p. 2).

As far as replacing SSF with the current Mir, it must be noted that
that since Mir is nearing the end of its design lifetime, the current 2
person crew spends 3/4's of its time doing maintenance, or 1.5
equivalent crew members (ECM).  This leaves 0.5 ECM for research.  SSF's
maintenance will also take 1.5 ECM, leaving 2.5 ECM available (ref.:
Gary Oleson [SSF Engineering Integration Office], *Spacefaring Gazette*,
December 1991, p. 2)

Using Mir 2 instead of SSF is a different story, altogether.
    {"Using MIR 2 instead of SSF is a different story."  (voice 1)}
    {"Using MIR 2 instead of SSF is a different story."  (voice 2)}
    {"Using MIR 2 instead of SSF is a different story."  (voice 3)}  :-)

As far as size, the PMC SSF has a "wingspan" (dimension perpendicular to
the velocity and nadir vectors when flying in the Local Vertical Local
Horizontal [LVLH] mode) of 4253 inches, or about 354.5 feet.  The
"fuselage length" changes as the starboard and port power modules rotate
with respect to the center truss (which is fixed relative to the velocity
and nadir vectors), but the maximum value is 2976 inches, or 248 feet.
The third dimension does the same, and its maximum is 946 inches, just
under 79 feet.


Ben Muniz, Rocketdyne, SSF Dynamics | "Man will not fly for fifty years"
[e-mail]    |     Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901
Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 297
------------------------------