Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO349.TXT

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 05:05:57
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #349
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 27 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 349

Today's Topics:
                           Comet Collision
Finding another comet (was Re: Smith-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?)
                 Gore Blames George Bush for Big Bang
                 Long duration orbiter: SPEDO (long)
                        Nuke Jupiter? (3 msgs)
                    Putting volatiles on the moon
      Sen. Al Gore on the American Space & Aeronautics Programs
                     Space for White People only?
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
    Two comets? (was Re: Re:Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?)

    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: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 06:51:20 GMT
From: Robert J Woodhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Collision
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] writes:

>Drat.  I was hoping for the "Comet" movie scenario and a real shot
>in the arm for the space program.  A 2016 collision would be a
>real challenge; 2116 is far enough away that Congress won't feel
>the need for immediate action.

I'm sure I speak for most of the readers of sci.space when I say
that we'd much rather get more funding for Space by a less
apocalyptic means.

Rooting for a comet to hit the Earth to get funding is sick.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.    [e-mail] |
| AnimEigo US Office Email (for general questions): [e-mail] |

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 07:56:46 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding another comet (was Re: Smith-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>Swift-Tuttle is
>>virtually certain to hit the Earth at some point during the next
>>few million years
[discussion of tagging comet with transmitter deleted]

> Of course, it's too late for Swift-Tuttle, but surely we can find
> another Earth-crossing comet which is posing an imminent threat to
> all life on the planet...

Astronomers are searching hard, Brian.  It's the key to their future
prosperity.  (-:

(I apologize to Dave, Anita, Jim, and colleagues for this overly
cynical comment.)

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

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 05:53:29 GMT
From: Richard Whitmeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gore Blames George Bush for Big Bang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Patrick Draper) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
|> >Oh, Dennis, Dennis, Dennis...you're beginning to sound like a broken record...
|> >(Dennis' tired old diatribe against the Democratic party has been deleted for
|> >everyone's benefit...and my sanity :-).
| (more deleted)
|> >>to train the real space professionals of the twentyfirst century. These
|> >>students can read write and see propaganda when it is put out. Your
|> >>talk is just talk.
|> >>
|> >It's just a pity that they haven't taught you how to spell properly.
|> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> >Irwin Horowitz                        |
|> >Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
|> >California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
|> >[e-mail]                |
|> >[e-mail]                 | >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Let's see,
|> 1)  Weak defense of the Democratic party and,
|> 2) a spelling flame!
|> Irwin Horowitz is out of arguments, that is true.
|> ------------------////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\------------------
|> | Patrick Draper           Disclaimer:  I can't control my fingers,        |
|> | [e-mail]                   I can't control my toes! - Ramones |
|> | University of Michigan Computer Club                                     |
|> NO CARRIER                     We are a nation of laws, not people         |
|> ------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////------------------

Why try to defend the Democratic Party? The space record speaks for
them, and the Republicans too. Too many total flops on programs to
be the fault of one party. (Been on TWO flops and ONE going.)
After reading the original post from Dennis Whoever, I'd like him
to give the same critical analysis to the Republicans.  Come on, really!
I'm sure I'd enjoy it just as much as the Gore flame.
Neither party supports the leap into space as it should be supported.
Perot, from what I've read, wouldn't even try, until later.
Perhaps that's what you get from opportunists seeking to placate a
growing under-educated lower class, while rewarding the upper class.
That means a bleak future for all those Aerospace Professionals soon
to be unleashed in Huntsville. Me too, come to think of it!

Keep on going folks, every post is news to me. Thanks!

Rich Whitmeyer              Views expressed are solely my own.
                              Nobody ever agrees with me.

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 06:32:05 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long duration orbiter: SPEDO (long)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

The 26 Oct 92 issue of Aviation Week contains a fascinating 3 page article
written by Owen K. Garriott (astronaut aboard Skylab in 1973 and Spacelab in
1983) and Frank L. Echols of Teledyne Brown Engineering in Huntsville, AL.

They and NASA are looking at ways to extend the on-orbit capability of the
Shuttle.  NASA is currently looking at:
             1) adding more cryo tanks [EDO once more]
             2) docking orbiter to Space Station Freedom (SSF)

They suggest 3) Solar Powered Extended Duration Orbiter (SPEDO)

The current limitation to on-orbit ops is electrical power.  The orbiter
requires 10.5 kW for life support and mid-deck payloads and Spacelab needs
5.5 kW to be useful, which yields a total of 16 kW.  [Discovery and Atlantis
can do 8 days with this load, and Columbia and Endeavour can normally do 10.]
Columbia has done 14 days with the EDO pallet, and it should be able to do 18.

SPEDO consists of 4 solar panels each 40 ft X 20 ft and a battery system.  The
batteries draw power from the panels during daylight and provide power during
the orbit's eclipse.  The panels and boom fold into the cargo bay, and its
bus is kept separate from the fuel cell's bus.  Overall the system is like
SSF's solar panels in miniature but does not have alpha and beta joints.
Instead, flexible cables rout power across the rotating joints.  Momentum
disturbances are eliminated by reaction wheels.  Average power output = 12kW.

Two possible uses for SPEDO and necessary equipment:

   1) Spacelab (12kW SPEDO + 4kW cryo = 16kW total)
         orbiter (flight deck and middeck for lab/hab/stowage volume)
         SPEDO solar panels
         EDO cryo tanks (optional)
         Spacelab long module (lab space)
         Spacehab (lab/hab/stowage space)
      Time: 80 days with EDO (9 tanks) or 42 days without (5 tanks)

   2) Space Station at Man-Tended Configuration (MTC)
         orbiter (flight deck and middeck for lab/hab/stowage volume)
         SPEDO solar panels
         EDO cryo tanks (optional)
         Spacelab long module (lab space)
         modified short tunnel
         mating system (to dock with SSF)
      Time: 70 days with EDO (9 tanks) or 30 days without (5 tanks)

Advantages:
   SPEDO can be folded and left at SSF, saving its 5200 lb on next flight.
   At MTC, 11 kW available to user stays available instead of feeding STS.
   160/120 vdc to 28 vdc power converter (SSF to STS) not necessary

Potentinal Problems:
   1) Stowage volume: consumables, waste storage, habitable volume
         lightly packed Spacehab used for hab/stow space on Spacelab flights
         US lab and node used for same on SSF flights
   2) Cryo storage
         H2 and O2 boil off are potential problems (needed for reentry)
         batteries for eclipse can also be used for reentry
         NASA already plans to measure boil-off and to cycle fuel cells
   3) Autoland: after 80 days in orbit pilot may be unable to land orbiter
         partial Autoland done but needs testing
         full Autoland do-able but is seen as too risky within NASA
         with Shuttle shuffle at SSF, new pilot can be flown to SSF to land
            old orbiter, but requires dual-ops capability
   4) [Water: fuel cells also provide potable water for crew
         carrying water tanks adds weight]

Advantages for SSF:
   1) Faster:
         SSF becomes permanently manned at MTC (Jun 97 instead of Jun 00)
         dual ops necessary for this to occur
   2) Cheaper:
         ACRV no longer necessary for PMC since Shuttle is at SSF
         allow alternate launch options post-MTC w/o jeopardizing PMC
            [some of us feel CIS and Energiya are too risky to risk SSF]
   3) Better:
         5 times on-orbit time for Spacelab
         10 times crew time for SSF after flight 6 (instead of 17)

-----
Note: Stuff in [brackets] is my own.  The rest is paraphrased from the article.

Does anyone else think this is an idea worth looking into?  Any comments?

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 04:54:18 GMT
From: "Andrew H. Bond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nuke Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space

    This topic has probably been discussed to death I have
never seen anything about it here:

    In my astronomy class we learned that Jupiter could
have been a twin star to the sun if only it were a little
bigger, and that it's size prevented spontaneous ignition. What
would happen if a large number of thermonuclear weapons were
used to ignite Jupiter? Could the reaction be self sustaining?
What would the effect on the solar system be? I know that the
"Aliens" in 2010 do this same thing with some alien technology.
But what would be the physics of this action. Also what would
the engineering hurdles be. Obviously with public sentiment
about fusion bombs, it would be difficult to pull off given the
level of protest against reletively harmless space reactors.

    I hope this posting develops some interest as this is
something I am really interested in. --AHB
--
andrew h bond,     rvgs    !!!!   No Matter How Bad the Election Gets Remember:
 dead fish: what you     ????   "Demoracy is the worst form of government,
 find caught in the net    ....    excepting all the others".--Winston Churchill

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 07:07:09 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nuke Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew H. Bond) writes:
>    In my astronomy class we learned that Jupiter could
>have been a twin star to the sun if only it were a little
>bigger,

"A little" sounds typical of astronomy (the science in which 10 = 1...)
In this case, "a little" means a few dozen times more massive. By

>What
>would happen if a large number of thermonuclear weapons were
>used to ignite Jupiter? Could the reaction be self sustaining?

No, Jupiter isn't massive enough to sustain fusion, and a few thousand
nuclear bombs aren't enough to change this...

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 09:05:16 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nuke Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andrew H. Bond) writes:
>     This topic has probably been discussed to death I have
> never seen anything about it here:

Yup, here and sci.astro.  Not much recently, though.

Your posting uses the words "little" and "large numbers" in funny ways...

>     In my astronomy class we learned that Jupiter could
> have been a twin star to the sun if only it were a little
> bigger, and that it's size prevented spontaneous ignition.

Like maybe 100 times bigger.  Ardent students of stellar evolution
will provide a more accurate number.  Jupiter, at 2E27 kg, is .001
solar mass; I believe something closer to 0.1 is needed for ignition.
Stein?  Dave C?

> What
> would happen if a large number of thermonuclear weapons were
> used to ignite Jupiter?

Short answer: "Forget it."  Long answer: "Depends on what you mean by
`large,' but you really want to deliver your energy to the core, not
the outer atmosphere;  how do you plan to do that?"

You know how sometimes the energy driving a hurricane is compared to
umpty-ump hydrogen bombs?  You know how Jupiter has this one big red
hurricane in its southern hemisphere that's much bigger than the
planet Earth?  How much energy is involved in that?  (Rhetorical
questions all.)

Non-rhetorical question:  Do you really think that setting off
hundreds, or thousands, or millions of bombs in Jupiter's atmosphere
can cause anything more than a small sneeze?

I encourage and applaud your speculative imagination, but it's useful
to get some quantitative grasp of a situation too.

Engineer of Hijacked Train:      Bill Higgins
"Is this a holdup?"
                                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Masked Gunman:
(Hesitates, looks at partner,    Bitnet: [e-mail]
looks at engineer again)         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"     Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 05:05:16 GMT
From: "Andrew H. Bond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Putting volatiles on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

Instead of the moon wouldn't Mars be a much better target, at
least in the very long range view...terraforming etc. Also with
it's stornger gravity Mars would be more likely to retain the
reminents of the collision.

As a method of steering the comets, a few large nukes could
give a comet enough of a push to do the job. Also a good
usefull way of turning swords into plowshares! I find that it
is a wonder that man is so hesitant to use his most powerful
tool for anything except as a weapon.
--
andrew h bond,     rvgs    !!!!   No Matter How Bad the Election Gets Remember:
 dead fish: what you     ????   "Demoracy is the worst form of government,
 find caught in the net    ....    excepting all the others".--Winston Churchill

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

Date: 26 Oct 92 14:25:20 GMT
From: Patrick Chester <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sen. Al Gore on the American Space & Aeronautics Programs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clinton for President) writes:
=
=                    STATEMENT BY SENATOR AL GORE
=                     Goddard Space Flight Center
=                       Monday, October 19, 1992
=
Gore butters up spaceflight enthusiasts, flem at eleven.
[deleting loads of political BS (Dem or Rep, it's all the same)]
=
=      It is therefore crucial that the government begin to focus its
= efforts on preserving our aerospace industries.  But the Bush
= Administration is continuing to indulge in the same wishful thinking
= that has helped destroy other sectors of the economy.  Believe me,
= I'm talking from first-hand experience.  As Chairman of the Senate
= subcommittee that writes NASA's authorization bill, I have battled
= every year with the Administration on priorities in aerospace.

What is his REAL record? Anyone? Back to our sound bite.



=      By far the biggest of these came in 1989, when the President
= declared that he intended to send humans back to the Moon and on to
= Mars by the year 2019 -- the so-called Space Exploration Initiative.
= For once, George Bush may have had a vision, but its absurdity became
= apparent as cost estimates for a mission to the Moon and Mars were
= put at anywhere from $100 to $400 billion.

=      Keep in mind that Bush unveiled this plan at a time when we were
= trying to refurbish the Space Shuttle program, fund development of
= the Space Station Freedom, and launch the Mission to Planet Earth,
= all from a space budget that was already constrained.

Maybe NASA's budget should be increased a bit more. At least cut the pork from
all of their projects.

=      Right to the point, Dan Quayle and the National Space Council
= have failed to act decisively on the issue of developing a new rocket
= program.  The blame must lie squarely at their feet.

He may have a point here.

=      As proposed by the Space Council, the U.S has been actively
= attempting to develop not one, not two, but three -- yes, three new,
= costly, and technically complex orbital launch systems:  the $12
= billion New Launch System, and the $15 billion National Aerospace
= Plane, and the Single Stage Rocket Technology program, which still
= has no price tag.

Allen, could you enlighten everybody to the Delta Clipper's price, please?

=      In their own right, each of these systems may have some merit,
= even given the fact that the Space Plane and the Single Stage
= Technology program may provide significant benefits only in the
= long-term future.  But, trying to fund all three in the current
= budget environment is ridiculous.

I don't know about the NSP, but DC-X is going to be test-flown in a few months.
Guess long-term to Gore is anything longer than 4 years.

=      The Administration's New Launch System is a program that called
= for the development of a family of three launch vehicles built around
= a new, more reliable engine.  However, Quayle's National Space
= Council let politics determine how the NLS program would be
= structured.  Rather than tailoring the program to suit realistic
= launch needs of either NASA, the military, or the commercial launch
= industry, the Council made a politically expedient decision.  They
= saw the NLS as their last opportunity to develop a system capable of
= deploying the President's Star Wars program, as well as his Moon/Mars
= initiative.

=      The end result was a $12 billion proposal that did not
= adequately serve the needs of NASA, the Air Force, or the companies
= competing for commercial launch contracts.  In particular, NASA has
= no mission requirement for the New Launch System.  Space agency
= officials testified to that effect earlier this year, saying their
= only plans to use the NLS were as a truck to carry supplies to the
= Space Station, well after the turn of the century.

Hmmm.. You may have provided me a reason to not vote for Bush. You still
haven't convinced me to vote for YOU, though.

=      Nevertheless, we must improve our ability to access space.  In
= the near-term, there are several small, affordable steps that will
= move us toward that objective.  First, we must continue to improve
= the safety and reliability of the Space Shuttle.  NASA's Assured
= Shuttle Availability program is a valuable initiative that will help
= maintain a viable manned transportation capability into the next
= century.  Equally important is the continuation of the Advanced Solid
= Rocket Motor program.

Funny, didn't he know that ASRM is supposed to be bad for the ozone layer?
Odd for somebody so concerned with the environment. Ah well.
Send him a copy of the FAQ.

=      Given the importance of our aerospace programs, well-conceived
= action is clearly needed.  What can and should be done?  First, we
= need to make the space program more cost-effective and flexible.
= Spending more wisely in line with our established priorities will
= enable us to preserve jobs and ensure that the United States remains
= a leader in space.

Maybe you should turn some things over to private enterprise instead of
government programs. Might increase efficiency.

=      The findings of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S.
= Space Program, the so-called "Augustine Committee", offer a good road
= map.  I agree with the Committee's conclusions that within a balanced
= civil space program, space science must continue to be our highest
= priority.  In particular, the Mission to Planet Earth, which will
= provide critical data on global environmental change, must be
= developed as quickly as possible.

"Augustine Committee?" Could somebody email me w/info on this, please.

=      The Mission to Planet Earth is by all odds NASA's most important
= mission.  I have advocated that we proceed with this mission as
= quickly as possible, arguing in several instances that mission
= objectives should be accomplished more quickly than NASA had
= proposed.  In that regard, we must better utilize data already
= collected on the Earth's atmosphere, land masses, and oceans,
= hastening our understanding of changing environmental systems.

Gee, what a surprise. He picked this thing first. Will the wonders ever end?
Hope so.

=      Secondly, Bill Clinton and I agree that we must move forward to
= complete development of the Space Station Freedom.  This program will
= present the United States with unique opportunities for world
= leadership in science and technology.  It will enable research in a
= weightless environment and is expected to yield many new developments
= in materials, electronics, and medicine.  The Space Station also will
= serve as a test-bed for technologies that may one day be adapted for
= use on Earth, including water and air purification systems and
= robotics for conducting high-risk tasks.

=      We also must continue to learn about other planets in our solar
= system.  This knowledge will improve our understanding of our own
= world and stimulate advances in computers, sensors, image processing,
= and communications.  And, although we cannot yet commit major
= resources to human planetary exploration, this dream should be among
= the considerations that guide our science and engineering.  Because
= the entire world will share the benefits of human planetary
= exploration, the costs for any such projects should be borne by other
= nations as well as the United States.

My main bitch about waiting for manned exploration is that we've *been* waiting
for nearly 20 yrs to start. At least let us return to the Moon, dammit.

<SIGH> -- could someone send me the space platforms of Perot and Marrou, please?
This is going to be an ugly election for space.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
[e-mail] |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 26 Oct 92 13:48:21 GMT
From: Patrick Chester <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space for White People only?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:
=I had a rather disturbing conversation Saturday evening.
=
=I was talking to a Hispanic Woman (a business major) who
=said that we shouldn't spend a single dollar on space
=because "it only benefits white people."  She was rather
=angry about the mere thought that any money at all was spent
=on space.
I bet she used the phrases that make me cringe and want to start drinking:
"We spend all that money in space...."
"We went to the Moon and all we brought back was a bunch of rocks..."
"That's just science fiction..."
"We'll never do that for another fifty years..."

Oh well. Even if she didn't, what she said to you is going to be added to my
list of "AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!" phrases.
=
=This is rather disturbing.  Not because a single person
=has this opinion, but that because this seems to be a rather
=widespread opinion, both with Whites and Minorities.
I saw a speech by Jesse Jackson in which he stated the second phrase above. It
was the first time I got extremely angry at something he said. I guess that
some people are against space travel if it doesn't directly benefit them. They
usually don't notice the indirect benefits, though.
=
=Perhaps this attitude is a partial result of the perception
=that we spend a lot more on space than we actually do.
=When a space shuttle blows up, it is replayed for three years
=over and over again in slow motion.  A spacecraft is never
=reported as a spacecraft, but as a XXX million dollar spacecraft.
=By contrast, when a B1 bomber goes down in the desert, you
=MAY hear about it months later, and there probably won't be any
=motion pictures released to CBS.
You forgot how they gush at the vast distances involved. As if that made space
travel impossible because Mars is XX MILLION KILOMETERS away. NASA and other
spaceflight groups need to do a better job at PR.
=
=I don't have the exact numbers, but I understand that this year's
=NASA budget is approximately $10 billion.  This sounds like a
=lot until you learn that the TOTAL Federal budget is about
=$1 TRILLION ($1000 billion).  Thus, NASA only gets about
=1/100th of the federal budget.  I would argue that what we get
=in return for the space program is well worth the investment.
Funny thing. Last April I was following one of the mind-numbing budget battles
over SSF on C-Span. After hearing how the 1.5 billion dollars spent on that
year's budget for SSF was such a waste of taxpayers money (grrr..) I was very
shocked to see the budgets for HUD and Veteran's Affairs, which was on the same
part of the budget as NASA. HUD:approx. 30 billion, VA: 25 billion. Some
congresscritter was complaining about spending 1.5 billion dollars on space
when the budgets for their pet projects were nearly 20 times more expensive.
Blows the mind.
=
=New technologies for medical uses, computer technology,
=new materials, environmental sensing (it was a NASA sat. that
=discovered the ozone hole) are but a few of the many spin-offs
=of our investment in space technology.  Another, less tangible,
=but no less real, spinoff is the ability to look upon our Planet
=as it actually is:  A small fragle ball which is unique in our
=Solar System in supporting large quanties of water and life.
Did you tell the woman you were talking too about this? If not, then why?
=
=The future in space is just as promising.  Vast resourse
=await us.  The metal in a single small asteroid would
=supply us for decades or more, without strip-mining our
=wilderness areas.
YES!! Another fellow Belter!! You should spread the word. I try every chance
I get. I once went up to a table set up by an environmental group on campus and
asked them about SPS and asteroid mining being used to help the environment.
I got some strange looks, unfortunately.
=
=So, what are your thoughts?
Read my sig, take a wild guess :)
=
=
=/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
=| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving    |
=| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the     |
=| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."            |
=|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961>         |


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
[e-mail] |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 04:20:59 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 52

1 22194U 92 70  A 92299.94444444  .00103744  00000-0  25599-3 0   100
2 22194  28.4625  96.4461 0005902 303.3183 326.3892 15.94442582   517
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 27 Oct 92 08:17:30 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two comets? (was Re: Re:Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leigh Palmer) writes:
> What is the likelihood that there are *two* comets not too far apart in the
> orbital path of Swift-Tuttle, but that at each of the last two apparitions a
> different one was seen, and one was not seen due to unfavorable circum-
> stances? That might explain the large fudge factors which must be invoked to
> explain this as one object. I recognize that missing such a second object would
> be unlikely today.

This reminds me of the Great White Hunter who enters the jungle to bag
a titanic lion which has been terrifying the population.  Having no
success, he camps for the night.  Suddenly he is awakened, and peering
into the stygian blackness of the jungle, sees two huge eyes staring
back at him.  The creature charges.  Raising his mighty
double-barreled shotgun, he aims squarely between the eye and fires.
BLAM!  Still it keeps coming!  He fires again-- BLAM!-- this time at
point-blank range.  The enormous creature is almost upon him.  With
both barrels discharged, he is doomed.  The hunter seizes a
flashlight, so as to get a glimpse of the monster that has bested him.
CLICK!















The flashlight beam reveals two small lions,
each with one eye closed...

Bill Higgins                           | Sign in window of
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Alice's bookstore:
Bitnet:      [e-mail]       | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS?
Internet:  [e-mail]       |     YOU SHOULD!"
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | Gee, I hope it doesn't become
                                       |   *compulsory*.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 349
------------------------------