Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO502.TXT

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

Date: Fri,  4 Dec 92 09:52:21
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #502
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  4 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 502

Today's Topics:
                   absolutely, positively overnight
                     DCX Transportation on Earth
                           How many DC-Xs?
                    NSSDC Data on CD-ROM (3 msgs)
                    physiology in zero-G (2 msgs)
                         Scuttle replacement
                     Shuttle replacement (4 msgs)
           Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
             Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!?

    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: 3 Dec 92 18:58:01 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: absolutely, positively overnight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>can't get a non-stop flight from John Wayne to Antarctica, so why would
>>anyone expect to get a non-stop flight from John Wayne to orbit?
>
>Depends. Some earlier speculation on using DC-1 for sub-orbital hops which
>would bring new meaning to the word "absolutely, positively overnight."

Reportedly, if DC-1 can be built and suitably certified, Federal Express
is most definitely interested.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 21:08:18 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX Transportation on Earth
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:

>I suppose this would apply more to the DCY/1/...

>Once the vehicle was on the ground, how would it be transported from
>the landing site (say Edwards AFB) to the launch site (say Florida)?

>As I type the question, I realize that the DC... could be partially
>fueled for a suborbital jump, but if that's not the case, is there any
>vehicle (like the 747 used for the shuttle) to transport the DC... in
>mind?

Most of the discussion I've heard says that if possible you'd just refuel a DC
and hop home if you had an emergency landing.  During normal operations however,
you'd use the simple strategy of landing where you launch.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    "Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 21:51:12 GMT
From: David Becker <[e-mail]>
Subject: How many DC-Xs?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>"commercial" engineering approach would be to construct several test
>articles and launch and relaunch them repeatedly...unto destruction,

How many DC-Xs are being built?  Are our eggs in one basket?

Have "pathfinder" mockups been built to test facilities?

What is the test plan?  How many times are they (SDIO or McD?)
planning to launch DC-X?


--
                Use the Source, Luke.
David Becker [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 19:19:00 GMT
From: "E. V. Bell, II - NSSDC/HSTX/GSFC/NASA - (301" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] writes...
>     There are twelve CD-ROMs that contain about 30,000 images taken
>by Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 on their encounters with Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus
>and Neptune.  There are also 66 Magellan CD-ROMs containing over 30,000
>images of Venus.  The CD-ROMs are available to the general public at the
>NSSDC (National Space Science Data Center) at the Goddard Space Flight
>Center.  The "nominal" charge is $20 for the first CD-ROM, and $6 for any
>additional CD-ROM in an a set.  However, NSSDC may waive this charge for a
>small amount of data requested by bona fide research users, government
>laboratories, etc.  School teachers who are unable to pay may be helped on a
>case by case basis, and/or as resources permit.

    Actually, we charge almost everyone these days. The demand for
    CD-ROMs has so outstripped our capabilities to keep them in
    stock without any remuneration that we've unfortunately been
    forced into this. (The setup fees for additional pressings of
    the CD-ROMs are not to be believed.) One exception to this is
    sample discs sent for educational purposes.....these are
    almost always (if *not* always) sent free of charge. Educators
    can request a sample disc of almost any CD-ROM set we
    distribute and get them free.

>     NSSDC also provides the following software to display the images:
>
>        o IMDISP       (IBM PC)
>        o Browser      (Macintosh)
>        o Pixel Pusher (Macintosh)
>        o True Color   (Macintosh)

    Again, a small correction here. We no longer distribute True
    Color or Pixel Pusher. Instead, we distribute Image4PDS (which
    can also be obtained over the net). There is a charge ($9) for
    each software package sent out, but this is only to cover our
    handling and reproduction costs. The user of these programs
    is obligated to pay any shareware fees associated with them.


    I also feel obligated to point out that right now we are out
    of stock on two of the Voyager CD-ROMs, so if you request a
    whole set right now, you'll be told to check back with us
    (probably in three months). (We are out of the Saturn and
    Jupiter CD-ROMs which contain the browse images. Although we
    *did* have a few complete sets of the Uranus and Neptune
    images, my guess is that they will be depleted shortly, too.)
    You may want to e-mail a request anyway (so we can get a
    better feel for how many to re-order), but since I don't
    know when an order will be made at this time, it may be a
    couple of months before we're back in stock.

    (As kind of a sidebar, here, we have distributed between 750
    and 1000 copies the Voyager CD-ROMs to date. Some volumes have
    been more highly requested (slightly), but they remain one of
    our most popular data sets (within the top 10 most requested).
    Magellan and Viking CD-ROMs are up there, too.)

    One action which I might suggest to people is that they send
    a request asking for a copy of our CD-ROM catalog. It lists
    not only the CD-ROMs which we distribute, but describes where
    to get some which we don't hold, but for which we are often
    asked.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II    |  E-mail:                       |
|  Mail Code 633.9        |    (SPAN) NCF::Bell               |
|  National Space Science    |    or   NSSDC::Bell               |
|    Data Center        |    or  NSSDCA::Bell               |
|  NASA                |    or  NSSDCB::Bell               |
|  Goddard Space Flight Center    |   (Internet) [e-mail]       |
|  Greenbelt, MD   20771    |                           |
|  [phone]        |                           |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 21:07:35 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>     NSSDC also provides the following software to display the images:
>
>        o IMDISP       (IBM PC)
>        o Browser      (Macintosh)
>        o Pixel Pusher (Macintosh)
>        o True Color   (Macintosh)

Are specifications of the data format and/or source for the code available,
for those of us who have real computers rather than PCs or Macs? :-)
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 22:24:54 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry Spencer ([e-mail]) wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >     NSSDC also provides the following software to display the images:
> >
> >        o IMDISP       (IBM PC)
> >        o Browser      (Macintosh)
> >        o Pixel Pusher (Macintosh)
> >        o True Color   (Macintosh)
>
> Are specifications of the data format and/or source for the code available,
> for those of us who have real computers rather than PCs or Macs? :-)

This isn't quite the reply you wanted, but the VICAR image format is covered
in the book Advanced Windows Programming by Martin Heller (Wiley, 1991).
There's an associated software package ($40) containing IMAGE2 which is a
multi-format viewer for Microsoft Windows.

Martin Heller can be contacted by Internet mail and is known to post in
areas such as comp.os.ms-windows.misc.  He's also accessible via BIX.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 19:50:50 GMT
From: Steve Derry <[e-mail]>
Subject: physiology in zero-G
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> ...
|>
|> Bear in mind, also, that Gemini flew missions up to 14 days long with no
|> sanitary facilities at all.  They used diapers.

In his book "Carrying the Fire", Mike Collins describes usage of an apparatus
to measure and sample urinary output.  The whole process was something like 15
or 20 steps.  Fortunately, the astronaut got to relieve himself fairly early
in the process!
--
Steve Derry
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 21:11:20 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: physiology in zero-G
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Derry) writes:
>|> Bear in mind, also, that Gemini flew missions up to 14 days long with no
>|> sanitary facilities at all.  They used diapers.
>
>... Mike Collins describes usage of an apparatus
>to measure and sample urinary output...

Wups, my mistake:  what I meant was "no facilities for solid wastes".  Urine
disposal they did have, but it wasn't until Apollo that even the stick-on
baggies became available for bowel movements.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 21:04:26 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Control can be tricky when your lift comes from several *aerodynamic*
>>sources.  It's a solved problem when the lift producers are rocket engines,
>>which are much easier to control.
>
>I don't think aerodynamics had anything to do with it. It was *throttle*
>response synchronization failure that caused the crash. Note the Soviet
>booster doesn't use throttlable engines, but DC does. Note that airliners can
>have throttle synchronization problems and keep flying because the engines
>aren't what's *directly* holding them up. DC doesn't have that luxury.
>It's not an impossible problem, but it's another disadvantage of DC
>versus horizontal landing systems using wings, or other aerodynamic
>devices like lifting bodies, or even VTOL via parachutes. SSTO doesn't
>*require* powered VTOL, it's just the way DC is supposed to do it.
>
Throttle response synchronization is not an ugly problem in control theory.
also i imagine the DC-1 will have the flight characterestics of blunt
lifting bodies.   It could use parachutes, but engines are neater and
cleaner.  maybe when DC-1 comes around the FAA will require an emergency
landing drogue in case of medium altitude engine or control problems.
Not enough to float down but enough to get a decent crash landing.

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 18:48:54 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl Hage) writes:
>Come on, it doesn't make sense to fly DC-1 from John Wayne airport.
>Airliners fly from John Wayne because they are taking passengers to Las
>Vegas or whatever. DC-1 is taking freight or crew from Earth to space...
>From an ecomonic point of view I see no reason to have more than one
>launch complex (at least on a continent)...

DC-1 is taking things from *specific places* on Earth to space.  Would
you claim that it doesn't make sense to fly 747s from Dallas-FtWorth?  I
mean, it surely *is* cheaper to use surface transport as far as JFK or LAX
and then fly from there, isn't it?  Surely a continent doesn't really need
more than one or two intercontinental airports?

As the folks trying to get Galileo's antenna open will tell you, shuffling
spacecraft from point A to B on Earth is not always desirable.

>...cheaper to ship the payload to the DC-1 launch complex rather than
>build multiple launch complexes, or operate out of existing airports. You
>can't get a non-stop flight from John Wayne to Antarctica...

But you *can* get a non-stop flight from John Wayne to New York (or I'd
expect so, anyway).

The crucial assumption here is that spaceflight is always going to be

rare and expensive, with small numbers of very costly payloads launched
infrequently.  The whole reason why so many people are praying so fervently
for the DC series to work is that it could well destroy that assumption.
If spaceflight becomes relatively cheap and commonplace, there is going
to be considerable interest in making it more convenient, e.g. by avoiding
hassles like transcontinental shipping of delicate payloads.  The ground
facilities needed for a DC-1 are potentially modest enough that it would
be realistic to have quite a few spaceports.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 19:44:16 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>>>the key point that DC-1 will have
>>>>over STS is that when they punch out of the blackout zone they can
>>>>get a guidance update from GPS,LORAN, Ground radar or visual and if they
>>>>are significantly off course  they cna look for a convenient emergency
>>>>descent location and make a powered landing.
>>>
>>>    The Space Shuttle no longer has a 'blackout zone'. The TDRS satellites
>>>    eliminated it. I don't know about the DC, but it probably will avoid
>>>    a blackout zone, too, if Mc-D leases TDRS space from NASA or something.
>>>
>>
>>Yes but shuttle for a long time landed blind and you didnt run around
>>screaming about how the hsuttle might land in hte middle of epcot.
>>what gives the dc-1,y,x an advatage is that even seriouly off course
>>they can cruise about looking for a good alternate landing field.
>>sort of the Damn, we missed miami,  o'hare can you clear us for emergency
>>final, but :-)
>
>     I think that depends on where the DC was intending to land. If it was
>     headed for California but undershot, it would have to ditch in the
>     Pacific. But in most cases, I agree. However, the Shuttle isn't
>     exactly without backup plans. If the Shuttle undershoots Kennedy
>     Space Center, one of the emergency backup landing sites is at
>     Orlando International. It would be a tough landing, in which the
>     Shuttle might run off the end of the runway and break up, but the
>     option is there. The drag chute and new brakes help some, though.
>
>     By the way, when did the Shuttle ever land blind? It always has
>     onboard computers telling it where it is. When it came out of the
>     blackout (still many minutes from touchdown) they got UPDATES from
>     the microwave landing system, etc. It makes the landing much, much
>     safer, but the Shuttle *could* land without it. Mind you, I wouldn't
>     want to ride *that* one down.
>
When i said landed blind, i was referring to being in blackout
during critical re-entry.  once they pop out, they have several bands
and landing modes,  but if they have seriously undershot, it could get
ugly. although the crossrange capability of the wings does give them
a lot more capacity then an appollo or a DC-1 when this circumstance
occurs.

>>>>Your screwball scenarios require a guidance failure early in and major
>>>>loss of control surfaces or better then 3/4 loss of power.
>>>
>>
>>Note.  is said screwball scenairios, not you screwball..
>>anyone can have screwy ideas.
>
>          I think most people would feel insulted if you called their
>          ideas "screwball". I sure did (but I'm used to it, hah! :-)
>
I wonder if this tells us something ;-)  every shop i worked at used
screwball and other meaner terms to describe designs or ideas.
the best one was "Where did you go to school, again?".


>
>The point I, and a few others here, have tried to make, is that in most
>cases winged aircraft are easier to control in an emergency situation
>than a VTOL (until now, that's just helicopters). With very rare
>exceptions (Lockerbie 747 bombing, Amsterdam 747 crash) very few people
>were injured on the ground. The Amsterdam disaster is the only one I can
>think of in which a heavily-fueled airliner smashed into a populated
>area.
>
>(Allen... everybody remembers the Comet disasters. Don't forget the
> problems the U.S. had with the Electra.)
>
> -Brian
>

Um i think the point alan and henry were trying to make is that not all emergencys are the same.

Winged craft suffer from gusts and micro-bursts.  VTOL arent exactly the
greatest during total power failure.  Rotor failure on a chopper is
a KYAGB scenario.  I think the point is that a properly designed, redundant
Powered VTOL is as safe as a winged HTOL
Harriers operate in both modes and seem to have equivalent losses in both
landing modes.  i am sure you could modify the DC-1 to land horizontally
but you wouldnt gain much in large scale operations.  the losses due to
adverse weather would be abou;the same as teh losses due to power
problems.

i think the best way to see, though is to watch the DC-X as it goes through
shakeout and buiilds the database of experience.

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 20:32:01 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Carl Hage) writes:

>This is ridiculous. Lets think about this realistically. First, I can't
>see DC-1 being certified like an airliner since it isn't one, but so what?
>It isn't meant to carry passengers or freight between cities.

Actually, I've heard the occasional rumor that Federal Express or UPS would
like a really cheap DC or hypersonic vehicle for shipping overnight freight to
the Pacific rim - something that isn't possible now.  The International Date
Line could make for some interesting adds too - "When it absolutely has to be
there yesterday.."

>Everything that flies crashes: Cessnas, 747s, Space Shuttles, B1Bs, and
>DC-1s. We all take risks. But there is no need to fly B1Bs or DC-1s over
>populated areas,

Well, B1Bs are supposed to fly over populated areas to depopulate them and
DCs have to fly over them too.  They just try to do it as little as possible.

>[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>: DC-1 however, WILL be airliner certified and will fly from John Wayne
>: Airport without destruct charges or blockhouses.

>Come on, it doesn't make sense to fly DC-1 from John Wayne airport.
>Airliners fly from John Wayne because they are taking passengers to Las
>Vegas or whatever. DC-1 is taking freight or crew from Earth to space.
>is cheaper to ship the payload to the DC-1 launch complex rather than
>build multiple launch complexes, or operate out of existing airports.

I think you're both right.  The DC-1 almost certainly won't be operating out
of airports around the country since there's no point.  For a while, operations
will follow your model roughly.  However, if DC works and gets better in
thirty years the DC-3 may be taking off from several large airports.  It's not
inconceivable that future generation SSTO vehicles will bring down launch costs
enough to make tourism to LEO quite common.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    "Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 20:46:15 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>>So than now as the system has matured and the probabiltiy of launching when
>>>they say they will has been reached, you want to kill the system. [Shuttle]
>
>>Since it is still three times more expensive than the alternative it does
>>seem a good thing to do.
>
>There IS NO alternative!  The Shuttle is the only manned vehicle we have.  It
>is the only vehicle that can return payloads.  It is the only vehicle with a
>robot arm.  It is our only space station.  And it is cheaper per pound than
>a Titan IV to boot.  If you think your paper airplanes can beat the Shuttle
>then PROVE it!  (In the aerospace industry, that means FLY it.)
>
That's the problem,  That's a problem, kinda, That's a huge problem
and it's disputable.  Also we'll have to wait for the DC-X.

>>>Intelsat was willing to pay the big bucks to NASA to retrieve I VI
>>
>>Hold on there! They paid what amounts to the scrap value of the satellite.
>>You and I paid the bulk of the rescue costs. They did it to get out of
>>the cost of a new satellite and luancher. All in all an excellent deal
>>for them but only because they got some suckers to pay the actual costs.
>
>And I'm awfully glad we did, too, because now we know enough (maybe) about
>satellite servicing that next year's Hubble servicing mission may actually be
>successful.  The first thing we learned was that we need more practice.
>
As a learning experiment Intelsat was good,m but it was an expensive lesson.
lets hope we can amortize the tuition on HST, etc.
>
>
>
>
>I'd like to see you try to run the Space Vision System with a Pegasus.  Or
>just wear a Lower Body Negative Pressure apparatus.
>
Maybe MIR would be an equally good place to test these?

>>NASA hasn't reduced the cost of access to
>>space in 30 years.
>
>Maybe not, but it did make it 8 times more reliable and an order of magnitude
>more frequent.  Guess you have to walk before you can run.
>
I dont know,  while we went distance x with shuttle,  the russians
using their aging protons and those goofy soyuzes went 10X.
who holds the records for manned spaceflight.  who has the record
for spacewalks.  who understands more LEO lifescience.
We took one path, the stuck to the old one.  i bet they think they
made the better choice.

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 20:34:57 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>>necessitate them.  Just why can't a launcher be an airliner anyway?
>
>
>The proposed DC *is* a rocket, it *is* a low margin system as any
>SSTO has to be, and it has exactly *zero* flight history. It will

    You are making a mistake again.  i think you are confusing
a narrow payload margin with a narrow safety margin.....
Now DC-Y,X  have small payload practions to Launch weights,  but
they are being designed with high safety margins.
Gary are you an engineer?  safety margins are a function of use,
based upon past experience and law.
Houses have a 200% load margin for floors weight,, but judging by
hurricane ansdrew  only a 1/3 marginality for wind:-)
Airplanes (Commercial airlines)  are built for 130% of expected stresses.
now if you fly a 747 into a tornado, expect shredded wheat on the
other side.
You can rip teh wings off of a fighter in a high g turn.
The DC is being built with the same margin of safety that airlines have.
Engines will run at 2/3rds max power with detents at 75% .
Rated power will be significantly below max power.  All structural
elements will be below rated strength.  now if you fly
a DC-X through Thunderheads, you might rip her up, but if you stay to
clear air, i imagine she will have a long service life.
The problem with the shuttle is her engines are run to with 5% of MAX
power.  the structure is pushed to within 10% of deformation limits.

hence extensive inspection and rebuiilds must be conducted on each flight.
if a micro crack were to occur on an srb strut, they'd fail.
the DC is designed to withstand degradation in vehicle integrity until
some major milestone is passed.

Airliner undergo 10,000 hour and 100,00 overhauls.  often they are junked
at these, because the cost of overhaul exceeds teh economic worth
of the birds.  this is the problem of flying in third world contries.
i imagine if the DC-1 proves succesful,  then we will see old aging
spacecraft flying out of africa and asia.

The problem in the DC series is if they miss their weight budget or
engine performance goals, we will end up with ballistic aircraft
instead of orbiters.  i wonder if the DC-Y could operate as
a Recon Bird?
>use throttleable engines with variable geometry *based* somewhat
>on RL-10 technology at first, but radically new and never flight
>tested. Later it intends to use aerospike engine designs that have
>*never* been tested, even on the ground. It will be difficult for
>it to live up to rocket standards of reliability, much less airliner
>standards of reliability. This is radically new engine and control
>technology being pioneered on a very marginal flight article. The
>cost and reliability levels being bandied about have no basis other
>than wishful thinking.
>
>I hope they eventually get it to work, but don't book tickets just
>yet. For the amount they intend to spend on the prototype we could
>have a new Shuttle Orbiter. Now I'd rather see some X plane work
>out of the government than a new Orbiter so I'm not complaining about
>the cost, but this isn't some commercial venture, this is a government
>funded R&D project right out on the *edge* of spaceflight capability.
>If it were a straightforward safe and sane sure thing, with customers
>lining up to sign contracts, it wouldn't *need* government funding.
>
>Gary

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

Date: 3 Dec 92 19:35:18 GMT
From: Jochen Bern <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Miller, Linux Device Registrar) writes:
>Does anyone know (or know who knows, or where to find out) what the heck
>the "message" on Voyager's gold plate was supposed to 'mean'?  In case I'm
>naming the wrong vehicle, I'm talking about a rectangular plate on which
>is inscribed a man, a woman, a simplification of the vehicle itself, a
>chart of our solar system showing the vehicle's flight-plan, and a couple
>other things.

>Are these facsimilies of spectrometer readings?  The codes along the
>radial lines of the starburst pattern are even *more* complex... and I
>can't make heads nor tails of the two circles linked by a line just above
>the starburst.

Others already pointed out that these Lines are binary Numbers. I don't know
what the Readings for the Planets mean, but I've read the following Explanation
for the Starburst:

The Starburst Codes are supposed to "origin" from the Earth's Position and to
point to a Number of Pulsars carefully chosen. The Numbers give a high-preci-
sion Measurement of the appropriate Pulsar's Frequency. This enables the Reader
of the Message to identify the Pulsars, compute the approximate Position of
the Earth, and the Time when the Spacecraft was launched - since the Pulsars'
Frequencies change (drop) at a computable Rate.

Hope that helps,
                                J. Bern
--
 /  \  I hate NN rejecting .sigs >4 lines. Even though *I* set up this one. /\
/ J. \ EMail: bern@[TI.]Uni-Trier.DE / ham: DD0KZ  / More Infos on me from /  \
\Bern/ X.400 Mail: S=BERN;P=Uni-Trier;A=dbp;C=de  /   X.400 Directory, see \  /
 \  /  Zurmaiener Str. 98-100, D-W-5500 Trier    /     X.29 # 45050230303.  \/

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


From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo through SAA (was Re: Space probe to pass Earth)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Dec 92 20:39:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Lines: 32
Nntp-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Derry) writes:
> So Galileo will pass over the South Atlantic at 190 nm next Tuesday morning.
> Does anybody know whether it will fly through the SAA (South Atlantic
> Anomaly)?  Will it matter if it does?  Since it is designed to fly near
> Jupiter, I guess it is designed to handle harsh radiation environments...

I think you answered your own question.

> On a different note, is there any way the Probe Relay antenna could be used
> to transmit data if the HGA fails to open?

(The Probe Relay Antenna is a nice little dish about a foot across at the
bottom of Galileo's orbiter.)

I asked Torrance Johnson this question recently.  He said (in the best
Socratic style), "What is that antenna supposed to do?"

I said, "It's for listening to the probe data as it drops into
Jupiter's atmosphere."

He said, "The key word is *listen*."

"Oh.  It doesn't have a transmitter?"

"Right."

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      [e-mail]  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  [e-mail]  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 502
------------------------------