Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO378.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Thu,  5 Nov 92 05:00:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #378
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  5 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 378

Today's Topics:
                 Automated space station construction
                 Comet Collision
           Gloveless in Vacuum? (was Re: Man in space ... )
                How to electronically detect X-RAYS???
                           Hubble's mirror
                          Man in space ...
                            Moving comets
                        NASA Coverup (4 msgs)
                    QUESTIONS: Apollo, Earth, Moon
        Russian Engines for DC-Y, Defense Conversion (THEIRS)
                        the Happyface on Mars
                                 Vote
              What does the "P/" mean in P/Swift-Tuttle?
                      Why the Electoral College
                            X-15  pictures

    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: Wed, 4 Nov 92 7:51:32 CST
From: ssi![e-mail] (Louis F. Adornato)
Subject: Automated space station construction

David Rowland <[e-mail]> writes:
> But wouldn't the robots been discussed here be operated remotely by
> ground based people.  This way, there is no need to program much AI
> into the system.

No.  The transport lag in such a system would make it at best clumbsy,
at worst, dangerous to any humans in the area.  The space environment
isn't as outright nasty as, say, August in Houston, but it doesn't allow
a lot of mistakes.  Of course, it might be easier and cheaper to use a
remote manipulator from a crew onorbit (rather than having them go EVA)
but, with all due respects to the current holders of the World Series
trophy, the remote arm that the Shuttle's currently flying is a bitch
to operate.

Carl Hage <[e-mail]> writes:
> Is this partly due to a focus on manned space missions? How much research
> is done on developing space based robotic/remote-operated technology and
> designing space hardware suited for robotics vs research on manned space
> technology? Could this be somewhat of a self fulfilling prophesy in that
> if we have a manned space capability, e.g. the shuttle, then it's easier
> and more reliable to use it, therefore designs are made assuming manned
> assembly, therefore robotics technology is nowhere near building robots
> capable of such things and then we need manned space capability.

[e-mail] (F.Baube x554) writes:
> (This may be naive but ..) How difficult could it be to take a
> collection of JPL and university robot tinkerings and put them
> in a shuttle small package and put them thru their paces ??
> The ones that look like they can work without babysitting
> get subsequent rides on unmanned launchers.
>

There's a shuttle payload planned called FTS-1.  This is a flight test
of some of the robotics hardware that was intended for SSF (although
the robots for SSF have been dropped from the plans).  As of July of
last year, the extent of the experiment was to have the arm go through
some autonomous tasks on a work board, and to move a 25kg mass through
a pre-defined path.  Even that turned out to be a headache because the
design review turned up at least one non-redundant data path for a
joint position/velocity encoder.  There was some concern that a
"pathological" failure might cause the arm to go into Konan mode,
swinging a 25 kg mass around the payload bay and muttering "Ahll Pe
Beck".

Also, there is a retreival robot under development for SSF construction
work; the goal is to have it be able to optically track "dropped"
tools, nuts, bolts, etc, go after them on it's own, and bring them
back.  There was some talk about it being able to retreive "dropped"
flight crew, but the Flight Crew Operations people just couldn't get
warm to the idea of automated grappling of an EVA suit.  Given what I
saw of the system status at the '91 Engineering Week displays, I can't
say as I blame them.  The system was barely capable of discerning paper
shapes on black felt.

> Is every dry run for SSF construction going to involve hundred-
> million-dollar gizmos with a MTBF of 0.2 shuttle missions ?

Flight certifying systems takes time and money.  How good would you feel
flying a commercial airliner if the FAA only put 10 hours of field testing
into an air traffic control system?

And now, The Flame...
>
> > Then again, some of NASA's funding comes
> > from the romance of humans being there, not robots (IMHO).
>
> Aha .. the truth will out.
>

Take a look at the statistics on college enrollments in engineering and
the sciences, then take a look at the stat's on crewed missions.  The
impact crewed space exploration has had on the engineering and science
communities in this country have, IMHO, paid for those programs.  If
you want to think that the NASA bias toward crewed programs is based on
funding, I'm certainly not going to change your mind.  However, there
are an awful lot of people who just don't think that firing toys into
the solar system is as awe inspiring as having _people_ out there,
regardless of the volume of raw data rerturned.

Lou Adornato uunet!ssi!lfa   | The secretary (and the rest of the company)
Supercomputer Systems, Inc   | have disavowed any knowledge of my actions.
Eau Claire, WI               |      ** Space IS our future! **

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

Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 19:23:00 +0000
From: Lee Walton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Collision
Newsgroups: sci.space

>For the first time in history a real attempt could be made on a global scale
>to cooperate. External threats may unite us against a common threat
>and force us to face the challenges and problems of food distribution.

And pigs might fly! :-)

Lee

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

Date: 4 Nov 92 15:34:38 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gloveless in Vacuum? (was Re: Man in space ... )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andrew Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>   What will happen if the space suite of an austronaut gets ripped in space ?
>
> Well Nick, my feeling is that he would nearly explode.

*Bzzt* Wrong, but thank you for playing.  I append Henry Spencer's
summary of this every-so-Frequently Asked Question from the FAQ files
(as if they hadn't been posted just days ago!).

Ever put your hand up against the nozzle of vacuum cleaner? Your skin
will hold about 1 atmosphere pressure nicely.

The reason I'm writing, instead of just allowing the discussion to
peter out, is to mention that a suggestion of Hermann Oberth's:
Astronauts might wear spacesuits without gloves for delicate work!

He reasoned that your skin can stand up to low pressure without major
medical problems, so maybe you could work without pressure gloves in
space.  You'd have to wear thin gloves for thermal and UV protection,
and making a good wrist seal on your spacesuit might be tough-- but
maybe not as hard as the problem of making a really flexible pressure
glove! I think this was in his Fifties book *Man in Space*.

Now, here's Henry...
==================

    HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE

    If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a
    minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your
    breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to
    watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your
    Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal
    experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no
    immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do
    not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

    Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
    [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
    start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from
    lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes,
    you're dying. The limits are not really known.

    References:

    _The Effect on the Chimpanzee of Rapid Decompression to a Near Vacuum_,
    Alfred G. Koestler ed., NASA CR-329 (Nov 1965).

    _Experimental Animal Decompression to a Near Vacuum Environment_, R.W.
    Bancroft, J.E. Dunn, eds, Report SAM-TR-65-48 (June 1965), USAF School
    of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas.

==================

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:45:00 GMT
From: Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to electronically detect X-RAYS???
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]>, Allen Wallace <[e-mail]> writes...
>Also, how does airport X-RAY machines work?

    It's basically a fluro unit, with an imaging chain.

                thin layer of
                scintillator            TV camera
                on surface of    image        (with very
                intensifier       intensifier    sensitive
         bag        tube      __________        pickup tube)
x-ray source        _             \     |          \             ________
   _        | |              \__|           \______   __|        |
  (_)        | |                     |            ______| |__         |
        |_|             |           /           |________|
                     |__________/

   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  [e-mail]
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : [phone] fax : [phone]
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _
                                   | \|_)  Moral principle is a looser bond than
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  pecuniary interest. - A. Lincoln

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 09:31:16 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror

-From: [e-mail] (Donald H. Locker)
-Subject: Hubble's mirror
-Date: 3 Nov 92 21:39:06 GMT
-Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc., Chelsea, MI

-Now that I know a little about mirror-making, I'd like to hear again
-how the Hubble mirror contractor messed up the figure of the main
-mirror.  I understand it has spherical aberration, but wonder how
-[Rockwell?] managed to do that.

The contractor who made the mirror was Perkin Elmer (now Hughes Danbury).
The manufacture specification called for the use of two "null correctors" -
a highly accurate reflective corrector, and a less accurate corrector, which
I believe was based on transmission rather than reflection. The reflective
corrector is designed to be set to a range of figures, so it can be used
for many different mirrors. To make sure it was set correctly for the HST
primary mirror, a calibration rod was provided by NIST. Two or three
Perkin Elmer employees set the adjustment of the corrector, and unfortunately
they used the calibration rod incorrectly, thus giving the reflective
corrector the wrong setting. The reflective null corrector was used in the
manufacture of the mirror and in the most precise tests, so while the final
figure of the mirror matched very precisely the setting of the reflective
corrector, it was the wrong figure. Tests were made (as required in the spec)
using the transmission corrector, and those tests *did* show the error, but
Perkin Elmer made the arbitrary decision that since the reflective
corrector was so much more precise, any discrepancy must be the fault of
the transmission corrector. Furthermore, they didn't bother to inform NASA
of the discrepancy. (NASA only had something like a third of the number of
inspectors that they would normally use for a project of this size and
complexity, attributed to severe budget cuts in the project and heavy
pressure from DOD to keep out of the manufacturing process.)

There was an opportunity to conduct an integrated test of the finished
telescope, but this was not done because of concerns that the mirror
might become contaminated with organic matter and thus useless in the UV
spectrum (perhaps a good thing, because UV astronomy is now one of the
strongest points of HST), and because such a test could not adequately
compensate for gravitational effects, etc., and thus would not have
determined whether the scope was fully within specs. (It would have
detected the large error present, but there was no reason to believe there
would be such an error, assuming that Perkin Elmer had done their job
with the previous testing. Also, I suspect that if the error *had* been
detected after assembly, it might well have led to cancellation of the
entire project - the time to find the error was before assembly.)

Fortunately, there is considerable hope that the WF/PC II installation
(which had been planned even before discovery of the error) and the
addition of COSTAR will compensate for nearly all of the error, at an
incremental cost of only a small fraction of the initial cost of HST.
(The main loss is three years of the best measurements - HST is even now
producing world-class results, but it could have been doing even better
without the error. Computational deconvolution has been helping considerably,
at least for bright objects. The High Speed Photometer instrument will be
sacrificed for the installation of COSTAR, but it's been the least-used
instrument - only employed a few times.)

Other changes planned for the upcoming HST Shuttle service mission:
 - The European supplied solar panels that cause HST to wobble for several
   minutes after each day-night transition will be replaced with new panels
   (also from Europe, but they claim that this time they got the design
   right).
 - Some of the gyroscopes needed for the most precise attitude sensing have
   gone bad, thus reducing the redundancy of the system. The bad ones are
   scheduled to be replaced.
 - There *may* be a plan to replace the current control computer with a more
   powerful one, which would make it easier to handle complex maneuvers
   like compensation for wobbling. (I don't remember whether that's scheduled
   or not.)

All of that is old news - here's something new: NASA is now seriously
considering suing Hughes Danbury for failing to inform them of the errors
they detected.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1992 13:23:09 +0000
From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man in space ...
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>   Hello dear netters ,
>
>   Here in my office we have an argument  :
>
>   What will happen if the space suite of an austronaut gets ripped in space ?
>
>   Some of us recon that he will explode while others that he will end up
>with lots of bruises!!. One thing that all of us agree, is that it is not
>going to be a very healthy activity.

Well Nick, my feeling is that he would nearly explode.  A fit person can
exert a pressure of about 2 psi.  With the lungs at 15 psi and outside zero
there would be some nasty ruptures if he couldn't exhale quickly enough.
(The valves in the windpipe may lock, denying him the choice).

His eyes would almost certainly pop out, and I should think the main cause
of death would be an instant and massive stroke.  Bit depressing really...

Next...

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates   | Email: [e-mail]         |
| 54 Greenfield Road, London     |        [e-mail] |
| N15 5EP England. 081-800 1708  | Also:  0621-88756 081-802 4502       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> Those that can, use applications. Those that can't, write them! <<<<

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:32:28 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moving comets
Newsgroups: sci.space

Michael K. Heney writes:

> Could you use a large laser for "steering" a comet?

The laser experts at Los Alamos seem to think so.  The major technological
hurdle is the need for a gas lens about 1 km in diameter.

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

Date: 4 Nov 92 14:07:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy

One descrepancy does not make a conspiracy, it only makes you dig for more
information.  An issue so fundemental as this would not be easily hidden
based upon data from other sources.  Gravity can be mathematically derived
from physical observations.  Case in point:

Monday night on PBS, there was a special on Space Exploration which showed an
interesting experiment.  One of the astronauts dropped a hammer and feather
at the same time to show that Galieo was right.  I propose that somebody
does some quick calculations based on the time it takes for these objects
to drop a certain distance and use the following basic physics 101 equations:

where
d = Distance object travels
a = acceleration due to gravity
t = time it takes to drop.

    d = 1/2at**2   or    a = 2d/t**2

Bottom line: based upon historical video footage, we can estimate the
force of lunar gravity.  This estimate will validate or question your
claim.

Of course, you could also time some of the explorer's hops to see if they
are consistent with the outcome of this equation.

(Instead of flaming folks, let's try to shed more light than heat...but
 ya, this is alt.conspiracy...)

--
    Roasted Quail over a burning Bush, a fine fall delicacy.
--                                    ----
Welcome to post-modern Western Materialism 101.  Choose between the following:
        Wedding        Child        House
        Automobile    Computer    Motorcycle
********    LIMIT:     One choice per year, maximum.        ********
--------    --------    --------    --------    -------
Dave Doucette            Digital Equipment Corporation    Westford, MA
Common Sense Rules!        [e-mail]    (508)-635-8513

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

Date: 4 Nov 92 15:22:43 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
> Gravity can be mathematically derived
> from physical observations.  Case in point:
>
> Monday night on PBS, there was a special on Space Exploration which showed an
> interesting experiment.  One of the astronauts dropped a hammer and feather
> at the same time to show that Galieo was right.
[...]
> d = Distance object travels
> a = acceleration due to gravity
> t = time it takes to drop.
>
>     d = 1/2at**2   or    a = 2d/t**2

Hidden assumption:  this film is playing back on your TV set at the
same speed it was photographed.  (Or is it video?)  In any case, you
need to know the correct frame rate to get an accurate value for t, and
even then you will have some irreducible error in the measurement,
thanks to the discrete time resolution of film and video.

Now, if your government is lying about the Moon's gravity, why should
they tell you the truth about the frame rate on this little video?

> (Instead of flaming folks, let's try to shed more light than heat...but
>  ya, this is alt.conspiracy...)

I apologize for doing the opposite, but I couldn't resist.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              |
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | "Get the dinosaurs in, Martha,
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  |  they're predicting comets."
Internet:       [e-mail]  |      --Dr. Barry D. Gehm
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  |

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

Date: 4 Nov 92 15:06:57 GMT
From: Andy Harp <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>
>Monday night on PBS, there was a special on Space Exploration which showed an
>interesting experiment.  One of the astronauts dropped a hammer and feather
>at the same time to show that Galieo was right.  I propose that somebody
>does some quick calculations based on the time it takes for these objects
>to drop a certain distance and use the following basic physics 101 equations:

  stuff deleted

>Bottom line: based upon historical video footage, we can estimate the
>force of lunar gravity.  This estimate will validate or question your
>claim.
>
>Of course, you could also time some of the explorer's hops to see if they
>are consistent with the outcome of this equation.
>
>(Instead of flaming folks, let's try to shed more light than heat...but
> ya, this is alt.conspiracy...)
>
>--
>    Roasted Quail over a burning Bush, a fine fall delicacy.
>--                                    ----
>Welcome to post-modern Western Materialism 101.  Choose between the following:
>        Wedding        Child        House
>        Automobile    Computer    Motorcycle
>********    LIMIT:     One choice per year, maximum.        ********
>--------    --------    --------    --------    -------
>Dave Doucette            Digital Equipment Corporation    Westford, MA
>Common Sense Rules!        [e-mail]    (508)-635-8513

No, they obviously released slow motion films of this :-)
Keep this to alt.conspiracy *please*.

Andy

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]       Andrew Harp, DRA Malvern, Gt. Britain
[e-mail]         tel  : [phone]
[e-mail]     DoD #0737

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:10:25 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy

    I seem  to recall  an  astronaut dropping  a
hammer  and  a feather  while  on the moon.

    How  rapidly  did they accelerate  while
falling?

                    James  Nicoll

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 8:06:17 CST
From: ssi![e-mail] (Louis F. Adornato)
Subject: QUESTIONS: Apollo, Earth, Moon

>. [e-mail] writes:
> In article <1992Nov2.175554.26242@kbsw1>, [e-mail] (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes...
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >>further  reduce the descent velocity.  At 4.3 km above the surface, the
> >>three thrusters were shut off, and the spacecraft simply dropped the
> >>remainder of the way down, landing at a velocity of 11 km/hour.
> >>
> >
> >
> >If I understand you correctly, this means that I could drop over
> >a mile on the moon and walk away from the landing. (I can walk into
> >a wall at better than 6 miles an hour and not get hurt.) This
> >opens up the possibility for some _outrageous_ trampoline action
> >on the moon. Drop a mile, hit the trampoline and bounce almost a
> >mile back up. This sounds like big action fun. We need to go back
> >to the moon NOW.
> >
> >
> >--

Try reading Heinliens "The Menace From Earth".  I think he ran the numbers
pretty thoroughly (he usually did), and discovered that under 1/6 g, with a
slightly higher pressure than STP (air pressure at 20degC at sea level),
it would be possible for humans to strap on wings and actually fly!  We're
not talking hang gliders here, we're talking bird-type, flappy-wing FLYING.

He set up the story with a Lunar colony using something similar to a salt
dome (a lava dome?) as an air reservior, thus providing both the room and
the above normal air pressure necessary.  An interesting concept.

> >Chris Kostanick
> >"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog
> >it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

"What this country needs is a good five cent nickel" - G. Marx

>
> Oh well Ron shoulda dropped the "k" in "km" then it works just fine. Hey
> its only decimal points!!
>
> Kinda like Clintons tax and spend plans.

When it's _three_ decimal places, it's more like Regan/Bush supply side
economics.

Lou Adornato uunet!ssi!lfa   | The secretary (and the rest of the company)
Supercomputer Systems, Inc   | have disavowed any knowledge of my actions.
Eau Claire, WI               |      ** Space IS our future! **

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 14:39:35 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Russian Engines for DC-Y, Defense Conversion (THEIRS)

> >>An article in the Oct. 28 _Wall Street Journal_ describes how Pratt
> >>& Whitney announced an agreement to market NPO Energomash's (said
> >>to be Russia's leading rocked designer) engines in the U.S.
> >
> >That is good news. Does this mean RD-170's will be available?

Another angle on this is that it means less space hardware up for
sale to the Third World.  Cases in point: 1) Slovakian tanks to
Syria; 2) Russian submarines to Iran; 3) that Russia plans (or
had planned) to give India a $200 million credit for launchers,
to go with their nice shiny peaceful-uses-only Bomb.

Better the Russians find a market for such hardware in the
West than it be for sale in the international arms bazaar.
There's only a few "responsible" buyers for their aerospace
hardware, and we is one.

Can anyone on the group provide some informed commentary
on how (or whether!) arms proliferation policy ties into
policy on foreign-launcher buys ?

[An obvious retort is, "Tell the Russians to stop making the stuff!".
 Good idea, so write a nice letter to the Russian Prattski & WhitMASH
 asking them politely to put themselves out of business, or convert
 to making three-stage liquid-fueled toasters.]

fred :: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed,  4 Nov 1992 13:04:26 -0500
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: the Happyface on Mars
Newsgroups: sci.space

According to _Flying Saucers - Serious Business_, by Frank Edwards, a
face was detected in a visual representation of radio signals from Mars.
The signals were recorded by C. F. Jenkins in 1924. Then, years later,
we get the face from a space probe.

This is clearly ANOTHER manifestation of the NASA COVERUP! (: <- My GOD!
There it is again!!!!

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 13:37:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Vote

> always vote with the popular opinion.  Exceptions are few and far
between.
> The last exception, if memory serves, was in the '88 election when
an

> elector decided he would rather have the democratic ticket
reversed.  He
>


Another exception was the Virginia elector who gave the libertarian
candidate an electoral vote. (1976 I think) In the process he made
history. The Libertarian VP candidate became the first woman in US
history to recieve an electoral vote.

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

Date: 4 Nov 92 13:19:48 GMT
From: Dominique Beauchamp <[e-mail]>
Subject: What does the "P/" mean in P/Swift-Tuttle?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Black) writes:
>I've been wondering why the names of comets are prefixed by 'P/'. What does the
>'P/' signify?
>
>            John Black.

Hi John,

The P/ means that this comet is a periodic one.  In other words, its
orbit is closed or its eccentricity is less than 1.  If a comet as
no P/ before its name, it is assumed to be a non-periodic one with
an open orbit.  In that case it should never come back.

Dominique Beauchamp

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 13:42:26 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Why the Electoral College

Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary> writes:
> [The Electoral College] was done to prevent some small geographic
> area of the country from dominating the government at the
> Congressional or Executive levels.

By limiting the effect of a huge plurality in a single state ?

Consider also that when the Constitution was written
the US was a large country with poor communications.
Makes election monitoring tres difficult.  But with
the Electoral College, massive vote fraud in a single
state has only a limited effect on the overall outcome.
(Although small-scale vote fraud probably cost Nixon
in 1960).

/fred :: [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Nov 92 14:21:41 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: X-15  pictures
Newsgroups: sci.space

Claudio:

[Private e-mail to you bounces, and this message may be interesting to
a few others, so I'm posting it.]

>I would like to know where I could get hold of X-15 pictures for
>possible publication. I am also interested, specifically, in a picture of
>one of the first flights of the X-15 that was flown by Scott Crossfield in
>which the (space)craft crashed and was broken in its very middle
>(Crossfield survived). I have never seen a picture of the X-15 after this
>accident and I am curious how it looked like.

It's strange to have somebody at a NASA center post a question like
this to the Net!  The NASA centers are the best sources of information
on this sort of thing...

Contact the Public Affairs Office at Langley, and ask them to help you
get in touch with the PAO at Ames-Dryden (where the X-15 project was
operated).  I imagine they have a collection of photos.

I just checked the new book on the X-15, *At the Edge of Space* by
Milton O. Thompson, one of its pilots.  It has the picture you're
looking for.  Jules Bergman's *Ninety Seconds to Space*  has another
photo of the accident, but it's not very illuminating-- a close-up of
the broken spot in the fuselage.

I'd recommend you hit Langley's library, and look for other books I
haven't checked, like *The X-Planes* by Jay Miller, Richard Hallion's
book on supersonic research, or maybe older books, like Scott
Crossfield's autobiography.  Since Langley is an aeronautical center,
I'll bet the library has a lot of material on the X-15.

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 378
------------------------------