Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO422.TXT

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

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 05:02:19
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #422
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 14 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 422

Today's Topics:
                      Addr: SPACWE FOOD (4 msgs)
                              COSMOLOGY
                                COSTAR
Is NASA doing what Feynman deplored again? -- Was: NASA Town Meeting (2 msgs)
                     Lunar "colony" reality check
                   Mars Observer Update - 11/13/92
                           Mascons on Earth
                             NASA coverup
                       Putting air on the moon
               Shuttle Status for 11/13/92 (Forwarded)
             Study says: Space research spinoffs marginal
                SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Ra
        SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Raleigh NC (long)
                      Ulysses Update - 11/13/92
              What kind of computers are in the shuttle?

    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: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:17:40 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Kevin R. Cain") writes:
>Nigel Allen posted:
>
>>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three
>>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day.  Diets are
>
>WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800
>kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised!  :-)
>
>As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends.

The original article was correct.  A calorie is defined as the amount of heat
required to raise one milliliter of water one Celsius degree.  A kilocalorie
is 1000 such beasts.  The "calorie" listed on food packaging is really the
kilocalorie with the "kilo" dropped for convenience.

Otherwise, can you imagine a blond fashion model reading a diet Coke can
saying "only 1000 calories per serving"?

Mike

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:06:57 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Kevin R. Cain") writes:
>>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three
>>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day...
>
>WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800
>kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised!  :-)
>
>As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends.

2800 kcal/day is correct.  The unit of food energy content, often sloppily
called a "calorie", is in fact a kilocalorie by the normal scientific
definition of "calorie".
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:36:43 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Kevin R. Cain") writes:
   >>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three
   >>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day...
   >
   >WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800
   >kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised!  :-)
   >
   >As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends.

   2800 kcal/day is correct.  The unit of food energy content, often sloppily
   called a "calorie", is in fact a kilocalorie by the normal scientific
   definition of "calorie".

A kilocalorie is often called a Calorie. Some ignorants change the
case, making it a calorie.

(the `big C' Calorie term for a kilocalorie has been around for decades).

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 15:07:23
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD
Newsgroups: sci.space

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


   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Kevin R. Cain") writes:
   >>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three
   >>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day...

   >WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800
   >kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised!  :-)

   >As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends.

   2800 kcal/day is correct.  The unit of food energy content, often sloppily
   called a "calorie", is in fact a kilocalorie by the normal scientific
   definition of "calorie".

Not only that, the correct nomencalture is that 1 kilocalorie = 1 Calorie
A great way to thoroughly confuse people.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 19:53:13 GMT
From: amelie' 'agathon <[e-mail]>
Subject: COSMOLOGY
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

LOOKING FOR -1 STUDENT IN COMPUTER SCIENCE(graph theory,trees,automates..)
            -2 STUDENT IN FUNDAMENTAL PHYSIC
            -2 STUDENTS IN FUNDAMENTAL MATH

interested in the evolution of the Univers.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 22:04:43 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: COSTAR

-From: [e-mail] (Pat)
-Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror  or Really Costar.
-Date: 6 Nov 92 13:02:30 GMT
-Organization: UDSI

-Ball Aerospace is making costar, and it's  a prety interesting instrument.

Are they the same company that makes mason jars? (The logo appears to
be the same.)

-it's essentially three little mirrors on a sliding arm on a giant optical
-bench (phone booth sized).  each of the little mirrors is calibrated
-to adjust each of the intruments.

There was a replica of COSTAR on display at the World Space Congress.
I couldn't make head or tail of it. (An explanatory video would have
been useful, but I didn't notice one.)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 04:53:34 GMT
From: "John M. Owen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA doing what Feynman deplored again? -- Was: NASA Town Meeting
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gerald Cecil) writes:

> In article [e-mail], [e-mail]
> >I was reading Feynman's account of his work investigating
> >the Challenger and he was complaining about how NASA is so
> >backward. Now the shuttles are flying again, what is
> >NASA's situation?
>
> Based on the 1st NASA Town Meeting in Rayleigh on Monday
> that I attended, some in NASA are still denying reality.
> The lone astronaut chairing the pane took issue with the
> question I posed to Goldin regarding shuttle reliability.
> [...]
> [...] the astronaut stridently stated that (I paraphrase):
> ``I want to clear up some misconceptions regarding the
> Shuttle. The Shuttle is the most reliabl space vehicle
> that's every flown.  We have a reliablity of .987, etc
> etc etc.[..."]
> OK, so use his number, raised to the 45th power
> (i.e. approx # of shuttle flight until SSF is assembled)
> to get a 45% probability of losing an orbiter.  Feynman
> must be spinning in his grave. [...]

The key summary of Feynman's report, IMHO,
was along the lines of:
 "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
  over public relations, for Nature can not be fooled."
The decision-making process where P.R. goals and the desire
to get along with management goals took precedence
over real-world limits is insidious. NASA needed to make
sure it was eradicated (at least w/r/t go/no go decisions).
After the SSME hydrogen leak episodes, I felt like NASA
management had demonstrated the lesson as learned.

But now I wonder if we see signs of a shift towards
the old insidious attitudes. Urgh. in AW&ST Oct 26 '92,
pg. 15, _NewsBreaks_, _Columbia Begins Mission 52_ :
 "the mission management team granted last-minute rule
  waivers to permit the launch in wind conditions which
  exceeded the normal limits and under conditions likely
  to impose excess structural loads."
 "The weather waiver was granted despite reservations
  expressed by Jeff Bantle, mission flight director,
  who said he considered the weather ''no go," but that
  he would ''execute the launch.''
(pardon me if Mr. Spencer has already covered this)
The article goes on to say that the weather waiver was
granted (regarding crosswinds on the KSC runway in event of
RTLS abort, I assume):
 "...after the [management?] team determined the average
  wind velocity value was less than the maximum permitted."
The loads prompting the load waiver were not reached
during launch, but the gust limit (15 kt) was exceeded
(during the period an RTLS might have occurred, I assume).

I wonder who asked for the waivers? I suspect everything
was still within some tolerance which exceeds the normal
limits. On the other hand, is the flight director being
quoted in context? In any case, average wind velocity
seems to be a slightly half-baked basis for a decision.

Is there a followup to this story, esp. regarding Mr.
Bantle's comments, and the relevance of the particular
safety limits? Certainly the AW&ST article makes me
feel a bit uneasy. It's not enough to make me believe
the attitudes that led to the Challenger accident are
affecting shuttle operations again.

-- [e-mail] (John M. Owen)
-- My .sig is bigger than yours - but I keep it offline.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:03:50 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA doing what Feynman deplored again? -- Was: NASA Town Meeting
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John M. Owen) writes:
>the old insidious attitudes. Urgh. in AW&ST Oct 26 '92...
>(pardon me if Mr. Spencer has already covered this)

Nope; I've only just read it, in fact.  First the Canadian post orifice has
to deliver it to my PO box (takes a while), then I have to pick it up (I only
clean out the box about once a week), then I have to read it (usually fairly
quick), and then I have to post it.  My rule of thumb is that I'm doing fine
if posting date is one month behind cover date.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:42:26 GMT
From: Andrew Hamilton-Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>The inverse square law is a hard master. A microwave array on the Moon
>
>Satellite power systems are of dubious economic viability at best. Placing
>one on such a distant satellite is lunacy. [I kill me. :-)]

One of the important benifits of a lunar ground based (and therefore
more easily maintained, IF there is some kind of permenant base on
the moon) power, is the possibility of powering obital or other craft
with power requirements exceeding feasible solar cell array production.

An excess(!) of power could even be used to supply power to incoming
craft landing on the moon - thereby reducing total craft weight by
reducing fuel carried.

-andrew



--
    /||  // // ,'/""\'   Andrew Hamilton-Wright  [e-mail]  [phone]
   / ||/// //\' `\\\     Database(Admin),        Mortice Kern Systems Inc.
  /  |/ /_//  \\___/     56 Scottsdale, Guelph,Ont.
o/ "Everything is possible except skiing through a revolving door"

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

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:50:13 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 11/13/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

                      MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                          November 13, 1992
                            11:00 AM PST
                          Launch +49 Days

Flight Sequence C3 C continues executing toward its completion on
November 17.  Magnetometer and Gamma Ray Spectrometer instrument
teams are receiving early cruise calibration data.  The Mars Observer
Camera "bakeout" is continuing through December 28.

A new Star Catalog/Ephemeris was uplinked and a successful "USE"
command radiated this morning.  The ephemeris previously used had the
intended effect of altering the solar array sun incidence angle by 5
degrees, from 60 degrees to 55 degrees.  This sun incidence angle periodic
decrease will be performed in subsequent ephemeris loads, with the final
objective being to point the high-gain antenna at earth by the time
transition from inner to outer cruise takes place.  The current offset is
designed to prevent direct sunlight on the solar panels creating an excess
amount of power.  At the time of transition from inner to outer cruise, the
spacecraft will be of sufficient distance from the sun that excess power
is of a lesser concern.

Uplink of the C4 sequence is planned for November 16.  C4 will begin
execution at 8:00 AM, PST, upon completion of C3 C.  C4 is 28 days in
duration and continues the MOC bakeout, performs Radio Science Ultra
Stable Oscillator tests, Modulation Index Test, Radio Frequency Subsystem
Automatic Gain Control and Command Data Unit Signal to Noise Ratio
tests, and a Static Phase Error test.

The Spacecraft Team reports that all Mars Observer subsystems continue
to perform well.

Today, the spacecraft is 8,793,376 miles from earth, traveling at a
velocity of 8,106 miles per hour.  One way light time is approximately 47
seconds.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:39:12 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mascons on Earth

-From: [e-mail]
-Subject: Re: Ten embarrassed questions about the moon (very long)
-Date: 12 Nov 92 23:28:14 GMT

-> You don't see these phenomena on the Earth, because over the long run it
-> behaves pretty much like a flexible crust floating on a liquid interior,
-> so any local area of high density tends to sink down, and any region of
-low
-> density tends to bob up, so out at the distance of Earth orbit, the
-> anomalous effects tend to cancel out - in other words, the Earth is in

-John: A slight difference of opinion. Although what you say is true to an
-extent, there are some gravity differences on Earth. In fact, a good laser
-altimeter can read off major underwater features from the differences in
-ocean hieght. Sea level is a relative term. In some places water is
-actually going "up hill" and "down hill" in sync to the gravitational
-anomalies caused by subsea massifs and such.

-There are also some differences on land. Although the isostatic
-equilibrium you name is certainly real, it doesn't always track rapid
-changes, so there can be highs and lows to some extent.

I agree with all that - I believe I discuss it in a followup post. But
based on my interpretation of several sources, the mascons of Earth have
little or no perceptible effect on orbiting spacecraft (in the sense that
you don't have to allow for them in your calculations when putting your
spacecraft into a selected orbit). I believe this is because the Earth
mascons are generally less intense than those on the moon, and because the
gravitational field of the Earth is so much greater than that of the moon that
the mascons have a much smaller relative influence on spacecraft trajectory.
(Again, the equatorial bulge does not count as a mascon.)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 21:47:19 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA coverup

-From: [e-mail] (Elling Olsen)
-Subject: NASA COVERUP
-Date: 11 Nov 92 18:09:00 GMT
-Organization: Thunderball Cave BBS - Oslo, Norway  (47 2) 56 70 18

-EO>Why don't you do some work and disprove the claim that the
-EO>earth/moon neutral point have changed from 20,000-25,000 miles
-EO>to 43,495 miles from the center of the moon?

-HS>I have too much real, worthwhile work to do already.

-EO>Or is it more
-EO>confortable to sit in your couch judging and laughing?

-HS>"They laughed at Fulton."
-HS>
-HS>"Yes, but they also laughed at Rube Goldberg."

-With limited time, I understand and respect peoples need to do
-what they consider real and worthwhile.  What I feel rather
-strongly about is someones need to laugh at what they know
-little about and do not care to look at.

Henry knows a lot about the moon. When one can immediately think of
several dozen counterexamples (and in fact some of them were discussed in
sci.space a few months ago), then one may not feel a very strong incentive
to go to the trouble to disprove yet another wild theory.

-I do not know about
-Fulton or Rube Goldberg, so please enlighten me.  My current
-interpretation of Henry Spencers comment is that he finds it OK
-to laugh at Fulton because Rube Goldberg was wrong.  I find that
-kind of attitude very saddening, more so when it comes from one
-interested in science and even more so if the person happens to
-be a scientist.

This analysis assumes there's a shortage of crackpot theories - in fact,
they're abundant. There are plenty of more plausible theories that can
be analyzed - when a post comes along that contradicts an enormous number
of prior observations, and the analysis used to support the new theory is
very incomplete, it's reasonable to suggest the poster go back to the
drawing board and work through the analysis again. Henry has very gracefully
shot down many less outrageous theories (including some of mine :-).
Anyway, snarfy got plenty of technical replies.

-Such a person may be useful in science, but it
-is not likely he will do anything outrageous for his time.  He
-will not invent the telephone, build an airplane, ask the
-doctors to wash their hands after touching a corpse or (read my
-lips) find a cure for AIDS.

Among other things, Henry has done considerable work on an innovative
solar sail. Many people who posted sarcastic replies to snarfy have done
extensive serious work on improving space exploration.

(What's that quote about keeping an open mind?)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 17:16:46 GMT
From: Roger Arnold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Putting air on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>[..]
>If that's correct, then a 1000 km array on the moon could potentially give
>a resolution at 10 light years of about 50 km. (Imagine mapping the continents
>on the planets of nearby star systems!) [..]

Sorry, won't work.  Not unless the individual telescopes in your array
are pretty spectacular instruments in their own right.

You need around 10 meters of unobscured aperture, with a mirror
perfectly figured and smooth to .01 lamda, to keep the light from the
planet from being lost in the statistical noise of light diffracted
from the primary.  And even that's only adequate for the dozen or so
nearest stars.

The problem is that, for a terrestrial planet at optical wavelengths,
the light any telescope receives from the planet will be ten orders
of magnitude below (one ten-billionth) the light from the primary.  If
planet and primary were of equal brightness, a one meter space tele-
scope could resolve them.  But as it is, it would take nearly perfect
diffraction-limited optics of ten times that aperture to concentrate
the planet's light enough to detect it above the far-field light haze
from the primary.

But, you ask, so what?  Won't mixing the signals from the combined
telescopes in the array isolate the light from the planet?  Well, yes
and no.  You can boost the signal-to-noise ratio by an amount that's
proportional to the number of telescopes in the array.  That might
allow you to detect the presence of the planet, where you couldn't
otherwise.  But unless you start with a pretty clean signal in the
first place, there will be far too much noise to allow anything like
imaging of continents.

People talk a lot about the fantastic resolving power of wide baseline
arrays.  You can do neat things with them, but when signal-to-noise is
an issue, it's total real aperture that counts.

>
>John Roberts
>[e-mail]

--
Roger Arnold
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:15:08 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Status for 11/13/92 (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>                         SPACE SHUTTLE WEEKLY STATUS SUMMARY
>                              Friday, November 13, 1992

           [STS-52 just completed.]

>          Mission: STS-53 DoD   Inclination: 57 degrees
>          Launch timeframe: Dec. wk 1   Nominal Landing Site: KSC
>
>          Mission: STS-54                    Inclination: 28.45 degrees
>          Launch Timeframe: January Wk 2     Nominal Landing Site: KSC
>
>          Mission: STS-55/Spacelab-D2         Inclination: 28.45 degrees
>          Launch timeframe: February, wk 4    Nominal Landing Site: KSC
>

Wow!  Look at this.  Do you remember the last time we launched four missions
in numerical order?  Glad to see payload processing is starting to settle down
into a process.

Mike

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:04:24 GMT
From: Robert Walsh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Study says: Space research spinoffs marginal
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lawrence Curcio) writes:

>I would think that the spinoffs od space research in the realm of
>materials science would be neither marginal nor random.

Yea! Where would we all be without our non-stick frying pans :-)
Seriously, though, where was this report published? Sounds a little
strange to me too...
--
[e-mail]          \ Drain you of your sanity
Robert Walsh                   \ Face the thing that should not be
Student Computer Research Group \
Trinity College, Dublin.         \             - Metallica

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

Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:41:03 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Ra
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gerald Cecil) writes:
>> Jon Leech & I were among the 700 people at the 1st NASA Town Meeting, held on
>> Monday afternoon 2-6:30 pm in nearby Raleigh.
>
>Thanks, Gerald, for posting your account, which was drenched in
>cynicism but made very interesting reading.

Me cynical about NASA?  Nah -- they're the only game in town.  I just object
to excessive razzle-dazzle, and attempts by certain of their employees to
push the Shuttle as the best way to accomplish NASA's goals. Goldin is better,
basically admitting that they're stuck with it. The best thing about the meetings
is that they're happening near many of you!  By all means try to attend. A note
on procedure that I've sent to NASA with my other comments: the 2nd stringer
segment (i.e. panel of NASA program managers) would improve if the panel members
were introduced *before* the final segment so that you could question them 1-on-1
during the break.  I suggest that you arrive early & find the managers you want
to talk to about specific issues, because you can't monopolize the open mikes.
Queue fast ... Goldin fielded < 15 questions.

My responses to Bill's questions:
>1. Do you think this meeting accomplished anything?  If so, what?
Yes.  Goldin gave a good summary of how NASA is attempting to address
budgetary concerns, why NASA is essential for high-tech development for
US industrial development, and the use of space as an educational magnet.

>2. Do you think this meeting (or the whole series of meetings) will
>accomplish anything that you want accomplished?  (-:
Officially, the whole experience will end up as a few sentences in some
Headquarters report.  But I'd like to believe that some enthusiastic little
girl in the audience will hop off a ladder in a few decades, to become the
first human on Mars.
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 18:51:55 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: SUMMARY of 1st NASA TOWN MEETING -- Raleigh NC (long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gerald Cecil) writes:
> Jon Leech & I were among the 700 people at the 1st NASA Town Meeting, held on
> Monday afternoon 2-6:30 pm in nearby Raleigh.

Thanks, Gerald, for posting your account, which was drenched in
cynicism but made very interesting reading.  I intend to show up for
the Indianapolis town meeting at IUPUI next Friday.  (I'd like to hear
from anybody else who plans to be there.)

Although he makes many negative comments, Gerald writes:

> Overall, I was fairly impressed.  I had not expected Goldin to attend & it was
> useful to spend a few minutes asking him technical questions. I hope he survives
> the change of Administration. That aspect of the format was much more successful
> than the Paine Commission hearing that I attended in '86.  NASA also solicited
> write-in questions that they promised to answer [Netters, here's your chance!!]
> The feel of the meeting often veered abruptly from that of an arcane
> budgetary/technical seminar to that of a religious revival.  The 2nd stringer
> component was less successful.  No-one in the audience appeared to have a
> focussed question to any of the senior managers.

1. Do you think this meeting accomplished anything?  If so, what?

2. Do you think this meeting (or the whole series of meetings) will
accomplish anything that you want accomplished?  (-:

I may ask these questions again as the meetings go on across the
nation.  I'm curious about the reactions of net.people to Goldin's
effort.

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

     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 05:26:23 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ulysses Update - 11/13/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                        November 13, 1992

     All spacecraft and science operations are performing well.
Routine Earth-pointing maneuvers are continuing to be conducted
about twice a week.  The last set of maneuvers were performed on
Nov. 6 and 10.  The next maneuver will be carried out on Nov. 14.

     A reduction in the number of ranging passes continued during
this reporting period to improve the spacecraft signal at its
great distance from Earth.  Today Ulysses is about 830 million
kilometers (515 million miles) from Earth, traveling at a
heliocentric velocity of about 32,400 kilometers per hour (20,200
miles per hour).  Ulysses is now 12.7 degrees south of the
ecliptic plane in which the planets orbit, slowly looping its way
back toward the sun.

     The Keppler Gas Experiment that measures neutral helium gas
from interstellar space was turned on today.  Measurement of the
arrival speed and direction of the interstellar gas allows
scientists to determine how our solar system is moving through
interstellar space.  Now that Ulysses has climbed almost 13
degrees out of the ecliptic plane, it is possible to determine
speed and direction more accurately by including measurements
made in the third dimension.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 13 Nov 92 23:10:46 GMT
From: Rich Kolker <[e-mail]>
Subject: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Kolker) writes:
>
>>Now, if we can just get the money for the glass cockpit...
>
>Rockwell recently won a multi-million dollar contract to upgrade the Shuttle's
>avionics.  This contract is the one, I believe, that is known as glass cockpit.
>

It's about time.  NASA has to train its new pilot astronauts how to use analog
instruments, they're all used to modern military cockpits, and the shuttle
looks like the inside of a 707.

++ricH

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 422
------------------------------