Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO515.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 37KB

Date: Mon,  7 Dec 92 05:00:05
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #515
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  7 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 515

Today's Topics:
                             CAD Files ?
                      Complexity and reliability
  Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement) (2 msgs)
                             lunar flight
        Mir, STS-53 and Galileo (Was: Re: Galileo through SAA
    Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a DoD hoax! (2 msgs)
                         Shuttle replacement
           Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
                         The Science of Kriya
                       US/Sov space comparisons
                      US Soviet Space Comparison
             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: Sun, 6 Dec 92 13:24:10 EET
From: @fuug.fi:[e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: CAD Files ?

I don't suppose anyone has (or knows where to find)
some CAD files of Shuttle, S/S Fred, Apollo CM, LEM,
launch pads, Skylab, planetary probes, any old space
hardware ?  *Some* of these have to be in the public
domain by now, sheesh!

I would expect the usual format to be a MicroStation .DGN

fred :: [e-mail]

Failsafe systems fail by failing to fail safe !

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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 92 08:25:35 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Complexity and reliability

-From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
-Date: 5 Dec 92 16:52:19 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

-Look, I'm not trying to be dense here, but in circuit design we know
-that the more parts you have in a circuit, and the harder you push
-them, the more likely you'll have a failure. So you try to simplify,
-and beef up what remains to stand the maximum expected stress. Redundant
-power supplies tend to fail redundantly into a shorted load. Add protective
-circuits, and the protective circuits will fail in such a way as to take
-the system off line at the most critical moment. Simplicity, two wires
-make a light, the lever and the inclined plane, strict quality control,
-extensive testing, never depend on an active system when a passive system
-will do, never have two critical systems with a common failure point, always
-have a totally separate backup system, these are the routes to reliability
-in my business.

I used to have similar opinions concerning some of the newfangled automotive
systems such as electronic ignition, ignition-control computers, and
antilock braking systems. Why make major changes and add complexity to
simple systems that work fine? It'll probably reduce reliability.

I'm beginning to suspect I was wrong. :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 04:42:53 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>Gary has been going on
>>and on about Flaming rockets crashing into disneyworld. a vehicle
>>crashing with deflagrating fuels is much less damaging then a SCUD
>>missile with a TNT warhead.

>A SCUD warhead leaves a crater a few dozen feet across at the impact
>site.

I recall film of early US V-2 tests in which the 1 ton instrument packages left
80 foot craters in the ground.  Since the Scud is a derivative of the V-2, I
would expect a ton of TNT on a roughly similar vehicle to do more damage.  What
am I assuming wrong?  Are you perhaps taking your info from Israeli Scud hits?

>Of course ordinary airliners present this fire risk too, but they
>have a proven track record of reliability that makes the odds of
>such a crash tolerable. No rocket has that kind of track record
>yet, and it will take many thousands of takeoffs and landings to
>develop one.

And rest aussured that human beings are smart enough to be careful.  They
aren't launching DC-X from O'Hare or LAX and they won't.   Allen optimistically
assumes a time in the future when SSTO designs have lived up to predictions
they may deserve.  Chill folks.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 19:20:17 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>Gary has been going on
>>and on about Flaming rockets crashing into disneyworld. a vehicle
>>crashing with deflagrating fuels is much less damaging then a SCUD
>>missile with a TNT warhead.
>
>A SCUD warhead leaves a crater a few dozen feet across at the impact
>site. Great for attacking a hardened bunker (provided a SCUD could
>hit it), but a few tons of volatile fuel spread over a few blocks
>would likely do more damage to soft targets and people. That's why
>the military uses napalm instead of high explosives on soft targets.
>Fire may be old fashioned, but it's still deadly.
>

Well, if you want to get soft targets and people,  wrap a TNT charge in
ball bearings and you can really kill.  The military uses Napalm, but
they prefer cluster bombs.

And if you want FIre,  you use Incendiaries, then napalm or LNG.  LH2
is just not a good explosive.  as henry pointed out in the hindenberg,
most of the people dies from the fall, not the fire and they were
Right under the gas bag.

Fire is not too deadly.  Regis will do her fire eating act if you want.
I can hold flaming alcohol in my palm.  but you couldnt convince
anyone to swallow a 15 grain firecracker or hold one in their palm.

I have a feeling LH2, is like alcohol. not a lot of specific heat.

>Of course ordinary airliners present this fire risk too, but they
>have a proven track record of reliability that makes the odds of
>such a crash tolerable. No rocket has that kind of track record
>yet, and it will take many thousands of takeoffs and landings to
>develop one. Until then, I'd prefer DC to spend it's time near
>the surface either over desert or water. That's just prudent,
>and cheap, there are good launch sites already present in those
>types of terrain, at least one complete with fuel plant.
>
>Gary

And DC-X will test at white sands.  DC-Y will probably also test there,
if it can get a sponsor.  I am sure DC-1 will test at St Loouis
over at SCott AFB or at teh McDAC test range.  Once teh DC-1
completes it's test program, aroun 1999  then we, the FAA et al
can come to some collective decision.

I am sure Houston will sign up to support DC-1 landings at the International
airport.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 92 08:14:51 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: lunar flight

-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: Lunar flight
-Date: 6 Dec 92 01:49:57 GMT
-Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

-Except that Clinton & Co have already came out as opposed to any resumption
-of manned space exploration, or any preliminary steps towards it, no matter
-how cheap.

Wrong.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Dec 92 20:25:19 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir, STS-53 and Galileo (Was: Re: Galileo through SAA
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
|
|I'd be interested in knowing where the Shuttle and Mir will be during the
|flyby. If it's within a few hundred miles, they might conceivably be able
|to track it visually.
|
|John Roberts
|[e-mail]

For Dec 8 at 15:09 UTC:

Object        Lat       Long (West)     Height (km)
------        ----      -----------     -----------
Galileo       -34         6             306
Mir Complex    +3        31             396
STS-53        -13       151             319



--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

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

Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1992 22:03:00
From: Robert Dyess <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a DoD hoax!
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>[e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff) writes:
>>
>> The popular American radio personality Rush Limbaugh stated today that
>>the problems with HSTs mirror are a Department of Defense hoax. He
>>says that the DoD took over control of the HST program so they could study
>>a strange radio source that could possibly be another civilization's radio
>> emmisions. And that the DoD cooked up the story of the faulted mirror to
>> cover up there actions.
>> Rush has over 13 million listeners and has may connections into the
>>goings ons of many behind-the-scenes happenings. I don't think that he
>>would make such a statment without a reason to believe it is true.


>     If anybody would have listened clostly to what he said, they wouldn't
>make statements like this.  He said specifically that this was a rumor that
>was going around (indeed, I heard it here on the net several days before he
>said it) and, although he didn't like to report rumors, he thought this one
>was funny enough to talk about.  ONLY AFTER SAYING ALL THIS did he "report"
>the rumor.
>
>     He never said that he thought it was true, nor did he say
>that he had any sort of (whisper here) inside story.  Keep in mind that
>the man considers himself a humorist, albeit a conservative one.

Thanks for clearing this one up. I hadn't heard the radio show, but
Ryan's message sounded out of character for Rush Limbaugh.

The interesting phenomenon has been the way in which so many intelligent
people can be brought to a boil over a message posted by one person who
made an error. I've been reading this Newsgroup daily and as far as I can
tell, all of the heated discussion about how stupid Rush is can be traced
back to Ryan's message quoted above. Incredible isn't it. :-)

Robert

 * Origin: *AmeriComm* in Dallas,TX 214/373-7314 - The info source. (1:124/6507)

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 17:39:20 GMT
From: JIM GRAHAM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a DoD hoax!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes...
>To be fair, one of the first things anyone wants to do with a
>new radio source is to look for an optical counterpart. But
>who knows whether Limbaugh understands the difference between
>optical and radio?

Jumping in as devil's advocate I question:

Rush is probably much more intelligent than most of those left of his
ideology want to admit (ie liberals seem to be the only ones doing
the name-calling).  But that's another story that doesn't belong here
in sci.space.  And NO, I'm not a right-wing conservative (nor am I
a leftist, socialist, whining liberal either) :-)

But, regardless of politics, I have a gut-feeling that he's at least
smart enough to know the difference between radio and optical waves.

Someone should ask him.

>The rumor is still ridiculous.

As are many rumors, but what, exactly makes you think this one is
"ridiculous"?

Just asking...

Jim Graham

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: [e-mail]                              |
|           dolmen![e-mail]                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            [phone], 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|

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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 17:06:16 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> How many people does it take to operate the liquid hydrogen and liquid
>> oxygen plant? You've got to have one everywhere DC takes off.
>
>Well, no.  Liquid oxygen and hydrogen can be delivered by truck or
>rail car.  Haven't you ever driven behind a liquid hydrogen tanker
>truck on the interstate?  And LOX is delivered by tanker to hospitals,
>universities and industry all the time.
>
>You may want a holding tank, but that's much less complex than
>a separation plant.

Well yes, I've seen such tankers. The dewars are pretty good, but
I think they only carry something like 1000 gallons in one of them.
The proposed DC-1 will need something like 270,000 pounds of cryogenics
from what I've seen here. That's 15 to 20 tanker truck loads per launch.
If the plant is in Florida, and the launch from John Wayne, the trucking
costs are going to exceed flight costs(!). Liquid air plants are pretty
common, but how many liquid hydrogen plants are there in the US? For
such high tonnage uses, I'd think an onsite plant would be a real
advantage.

Gary

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 19:09:57 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] (Pat) writes:
>>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.
>
>I'm an EE not a PE, but I know enough to figure out that if your
>mass margins are extremely thin you don't add extra mass if you
>can trim it out. In structures and in engines, beefier parts almost
>always mean higher reliability. A truck engine is usually good for
>a million miles while a formula one engine may last 100. They both
>put out roughly the same amount of power, but one masses a lot more
>than the other.
>

I think formula one race engines are good for about 1,000 miles.
they need to be able to do the Daytona 500;-).

But you see.  you are proving my point.  The DC will be a beefy
version of a spaceship.  it will be the model-T of space, not a
Daimler Roadster.  A truck compared to a racecar.

The RL-10 engines are simpler, heavier and less stressed then an SSME.
They will have simple service procedures, not hundreds of welds
that are redone for each flight.

>>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.
>
>So you're saying that if we just throttle back Shuttle to 75% power
>and brace a couple of struts, we'd have a system as safe as DC????

I think people would sweat a lot less on takeoff.  As has been pointed
out the SSME's are a major point of concern.  if you, throttled them
back, i bet you could avoid having to overhaul them every flight.
i bet they wouldn't run a risk of failure on operation.
The shuttle has other safety problems,  that DC will never have.
Shuttle has trouble with Aborts.  if an SRB wont light, you are scrwed.
if you blow an approach, you are scrweed.

If you want,  you could take a DC-1,  strap SRB's on it, and reduce it's
reliabilty to shuttle levels for takeoff.

Oh and BTW for the shuttle, if you add any more mass to the structure,
you end up with the Enterprise.

DC has an advantage, in that it will be using High Tech composites.
the weight savings allows a beefier structure.

>Or a 747???? I don't think so. I believe that spacecraft have to push
>the envelope a lot harder than an airliner just to achieve orbit.

Gary,  you have hit the point of the argument.  It's religious.
You believe certain things about spacecraft, and not your mind
or your senses will alter it.  People used to believe the same thing
about aircraft.  Would you want to commute on a wright flyer?
how about on a COmet.  People used to say Aircraft have to push the margins.
Well, somebody found away to increase the envelope.
Sure. early rockets were very marginal,  but if you scale back your
expectations, you can increase reliability.

>Otherwise, lets just fit a big oxygen tank to a 747 and forget all
>this high tech stuff.
>

Dont be obnoxious.

>Look, I'm not trying to be dense here, but in circuit design we know
>that the more parts you have in a circuit, and the harder you push
>them, the more likely you'll have a failure. So you try to simplify,
>and beef up what remains to stand the maximum expected stress. Redundant
>power supplies tend to fail redundantly into a shorted load. Add protective
>circuits, and the protective circuits will fail in such a way as to take
>the system off line at the most critical moment. Simplicity, two wires
>make a light, the lever and the inclined plane, strict quality control,
>extensive testing, never depend on an active system when a passive system
>will do, never have two critical systems with a common failure point, always
>have a totally separate backup system, these are the routes to reliability
>in my business.
>

Exactly Gary.  Your complaints are the shuttle.  Your solutions are the DC.
The shuttle has 4 engine types, separate engines for each mode of flight,
three different heat protections, 8 cargo bay doors, .

DC,x,y,1  will have one common set of engines.  the RCS i think uses
LH2/LOX.  The same engines will do orbital manuevers, landing, takeoff.

The engines will run at 66% of max power.  the airframe will not
exceed 70% of max stress.

AS you say. DC will have Simplicity.  Strict QC.  Extensive Testing.
Hopefully no common failure points.  Separate backup systems.
The only thing it doesn't have is wings.  that's a design issue.
the designers think it's safer to land on jets then on chutes
or wings, and the weight penalty for wings is HIGH.

For all your complaining about complexity, you should be picketing
Rockwell.

Hey, heres another good question.  How many test flights are planned
for the DC-X.?  Henry, Alan?  I would hope around 100-150.
Gary.  If the DC-X can pull off 100 flights in 1 year of testing, and no
major problems show up, will you stop complaining that it's unreliable?
I'll be happy if it has the reliability rate of an electra.
I think that 100 flights should also give us an idea of
how much ground crew it needs.

pat

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

Date: 05 Dec 92 23:43:26 PST
From: Baruch Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Science of Kriya
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.space

            The Original Kriya Science
        (How to Attain eternal Realization of the ultimate Self)

                The Message
                -----------

    Can thirst be quenched by merely shouting the word "water"?
Certainly not! Shouting only worsens the situation. The uttering of words
does not produce the desired results as some devotees advocate and
propagate.

    Can a person learn how to swim simply by talking to the instructor
while standing on land? Obviously not. It is ridiculous to think to have
eternal Realization simply by talking about and not practicing meditation.
The nature of the ultimate Self may be understood through intellectual
speculation, but eternal Realization comes only through ***actual***
practice.

    Can hunger be satisfied by the thought of food? The answer is no.
Thoughts and reason leave us at a point quite indecisive; they cannot go
beyond.

    "Dissolve thoughts or the mind (the restless breath) in the very
Source by any means."

    Realization is relative when the seeker tries to realize something
outside himself without ***first*** realizing the truth behind himself.
Relative realization, or relative knowledge, arises from relative existences.

    Inquire who is the knower. When the seeker knows himself (the
knower), this is absolute Knowledge from One Existence, which is both
subject and object of knowledge.

    To hold onto the quest "who am I?" undistractedly with efforts is
practice; when the same becomes effortless and natural, it is Realization.

    Absolute Realization is simply being the ultimate Self spontaneously.

    What is love? It is Oneness between the seeking self (son) and the
ultimate Self (father) ***within***. When one achieves it within, one
knows that the whole world is the reflection of his self.

    This is the only right way to grow into divine Love and attain eternal
Realization.

    "... O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

    "God is a spirit [the word Spirit comes the Latin word Spiritus which
means "breath". So it can safely be said that God is a definite state of
breath, that is, Tranquil Breath]: and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit [through Breath, that is through the practice of Pranayam or
Kriya with the help of Sthirabayu, or "tranquil breath"] and in truth
[Tranquility]." John 4:24

    "The kingdom of God [Tranquil Breath] is ***within*** you [inside the
physical body in Oneness between the seeking self and the ultimate Self of
the seeker]." - Luke 17:21

    What is grace? It is pure Consciousness of the ultimate Self, which is
internal. It is always there in everybody and never out of operation. If it
were external - coming from someone from outside, then it would be
useless, as it would not be permanent. What comes, goes. What appears,
disappears. So all visions (including inner visions, or revelations) are
secondary and impermanent.

    "No man hath seen God at any time" 1 John 4:12

    So, ***being*** God, not seeing God, is inner Realization, and
***being*** the ultimate Self, not seeing the ultimate Self, is eternal
Realization.

    "Brahmabid Brahmaiba bhabati ("One who knows Brahma, becomes
Brahma").

    Truth (Satya) is permanent, hence its Realization must be eternal.

    Above all, be true to yourself: Be one with the ultimate Self.


            The Path
            --------

    The Kriya Path is: Attaining eternal Tranquility by practice of
Pranayam and continuing meditations on the Formless, i.e. Tranquility.

    Increasing the practice of Kriya, doing all works without expectations
for the results thereof, the path aims at achieving Tranquility, observing
everytjing which is revealed in Yonimudra (Beatific Inner Revelation Kriya),
and terminating all desired expectations, renouncing every desire before it
originates, being freed from all thoughts.

    It is meditating on the thoughtless state of Consciousness, especially
holding that state of Consciousness where there is no sun, moon, light of
fire; still everything is seen eternally.

    One bright, dazzling star of Consciousness is seen very secretly in
between the eyebrows, and the unmanifested state of Consciousness is
revealed.

    Thereafter, whatever sentiments one possesses can be seen in vision in
the inner Self (Kutastha). Thereby believing the advice of the Master, five
states of vibrations (earth, water, fire air and ether), mind, intelligence,
ego and Supreme Being are seen, resulting in the steadfastness of mind
towards inner Consciousness.

    When all the three qualities are harmoniously together in one rhythym
inside the Spinal Cord, then the supreme Being is revealed, going beyond the
sentiments of discrimination between good and bad.

    Having the pure Love and reverence, when the breath is tranquil or
still, the seeker attains Sthirattva (eternal Tranquility, or Peace).

    "Be still [attain the state of tranquil Breath by the practice of
Pranayam], and know that I [the seeking self] am God [tranuqil breath, that is
Spirit]." Psalms 46:10

    "Peace be still. And the wind [breath] ceased, and there was a great
calm [Tranquility]." Mark 4:39

            The Keys of the Kriya Path
            ------------------------

    1. To attain the tranquil state of breath in natural course by
practicing Pranayam.
    2. To see in Yonimudra.
    3. Placing the tongue in the head [Talabya Kriya].
    4. Holding onto the divine Spot and listening to the sound of Om
[Brahmayonimudra].
    5. Holding the bright star at the forehead from the throat.

            Requirements for Kriya
            ---------------------

    1. The person must be honest and not a liar.
    2. The person should not smoke and drink.
    3. The person should read some portion of the Bhagavad Gita every day.
    4. The person should lose self-importance to destroy his or her ego.
    5. He should treat all women as his mother, except his wife, and she
should treat all men as her father, except her husband.
    6. The person should sit a little lower than his or her Gurudev or
Master's seat and offer everything to him.
    7. The person should practice Kriyas every day in strict accordance
with the instructions personally received from his or her Gurudev.

            How to be in the Path
            ---------------------

    The ultimate Self, being pure Consciousness, is beyond sensation,
concept, thought, and intellect. A definite mode of action to make the mind
inward and dissolve it is called Kriya.

    The Kriya path is the righteous way to realize the ultimate Self.

    Havig true Kriya depends on three points:

    1. The initiate must receive Kriya personally from the mouth of the
Master.
    2. He must receive "Kriya of Aksara, or letter," and
    3. He must receive "Kriya of the inner Aksaras, or letters."

    In Sanskrit Aksara [also meaning "eternity"] is a letter which is part
of a word, e.g. A, B, C, etc. A letter by itself has no meaning.

    What does "Kriya of the letters" mean?

    When the Master utters a letter, of course, it has sound although it
does not by itself represent a concept, meaning or though. So, "Kriyas of the
letters" obviously means sound and vibrations of Eternity [the ultimate
Self], free from concepts, thoughts and meanings.

    "Kriya of the inner letters" means vibrations of inner sound (Pm/Aum.
Amen) resonating from the ultimate Self.

    When the Master utters a letter, the vibrations of the sound of the
letter come directly from the enlightened state of mystic Energy
(Kundalini), and penetrates the ear of the initiate, resulting in true
initiation to the Kriya path.

    Vibration of Sound is the means of communicating Sakti, or energy.

    Thus following the vibration and inner Sound to transcend concepts,
thoughts, and the intellect, the initiate can find the trye Path.

    Unfortunately, many seekers do not know this subtle point and they
try to understand the advice through preconceived concepts, thoughts, and
meanings and find the intellectual path which is the negative way. The
scriptures support the righteous way of Guru-param-para, the personal
relationship.

    "... I have need to be baptized of thee, and cometh thou to me? Matthew
3:14

    "... Suffer it to be now: for thus it be cometh us to fulfill all
righteousness" Matthew 3:15

    ".. Except a man be born again [attain the state of tranquil Breath,
thereby, vibrations and rhythyms of inner Light and inner Sound], he cannot
see the kingdom of God." John 3:3

    Initiation is essential. It must be received personally and in a
righteous
way.


            List of Original Kriyas
            --------------------


    1. Mahamudra (Great Kriya):
    "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of man be lifted up." John 3:14

    2. Navi Kriya (Electronizing Kriya):
    "My little children of whom I travail in brith again until Christ be
formed in you." Galatians 4:19

    3. Talabya Kriya or Khecharimudra (Inner-Outer-Space Kriya):
    "... I have meat to eat that ye know not of." John 4:32
    "The nobles [the realized ones] held their peace [Tranquility], and their
tongue cleaved [Khecharimudra] to the roof [at the forehead] of their mouth."
Job 28:10

    4. Pranayam (Equilibrium Kriya)
    "Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm."
Mark 4:39
    "Be still, and know that I am God." Psalms 46:10

    5. The first Omkar Kriya (Electromagnetizing Kriya):
    "That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be
strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man." Ephesians 3:16

    6. The second Omkar Kriya (Cosmo-electromagnetizing Kriya):
    "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die."
    1 Corinthians. 15:36

    7. The third Omkar Kriya
        "...I die daily" 1 Corinthians. 15:31

    8. The fourth Omkar Kriya (Spontaneous transmigrating Kriya):
    "... When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am
he..." John 8:28

    9. Yonimudra (Beatific Inner Revelation Kriya):
    "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single [one-
pointed], thy whole body shall be full of light. " Matthew 6:22

    10. Brahmayonimudra (Spontaneous Tranquility):
    "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit [Tranquil Breath]
saith unto the churches." Revelation 2:7

    11. Purna Kriya (Eternal Tranquility):
    "... I AM THAT I AM". Exodus 3:14

Kriyas are the keys to eternal REalization of the ultimate Self.


            The Original Kriya Science at a Glance
            (The Psycho-physical Discipline)
            ----------------------------------

    The eightfolds:

    1. Yama: regulation on compassion, truthfulness, honesty, inwardness
and self-sufficiency.

    2. Niyama: Regulations on purity of body and mind, contentment of
heart, sincerity, adhering to the sound of OM, merging the mind in pure
Consciousness.

    3. Asana: Steadfast sitting at ease.

    4. Pranayam: Breathing exercises to dissolve the mind and intellect
by attaining naturally the still state of breath from the operation of Prana,
Apana, Smaman, Udana and Byana.

    5. Pratyahara: Interiorization of senses - smelling, touching, tasting,
seeing and hearing.

    6. Dharana: Glimpse of eternal Tranquility.

    7. Dhyana: Meditation, merging the mind in Tranquility.

    8. Samadhi: Attunement in Oneness between the seeking self and the
ultimate Self to attain eternal Tranquility.

Yama, Niyama and Asana (1-3) are the container;
Pranayam and Pratyahara (4-5) are the process;
Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi (6-8) are the means; and
eternal Tranquility (Sthirattva) or Peace of the ultimate Self is the content.

    For dissolving concepts, thoughts, mind and intellect
    -----------------------------------------------

    The Dissolving the Five States of breath:

    1. Prana: Appropriation -  and
    2. Apana: Elimination or ejection -  The First Kriya; First, Second and
Third Omkar Kriyas

    3. Samana: Assimiliation - Navi Kriya

    4. Udana: Regeneration and
    5. Byana: Distribution - Mahamudra

    For Dissolving sensation
    1. Smelling: Nose  and
    2. Touching: Skin and
    3. Tasting: Tongue - Talabya Kriya

    4. Seeing: Eyes, visions and
    5. Hearing: Ears, sound - Yonimudra


The Sanskrit Classics
Copyright 1992, all rights reserved



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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 92 10:52:24 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: US/Sov space comparisons

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>As for Apollo... the Soviets came within a hairsbreadth of sending cosmonauts
>around the Moon before Apollo 8, and last I heard, it's still not clear why
>they didn't -- the hardware was ready.  They were behind on the capability
>to make an actual lunar landing, but not that far behind.

Josh "Kumquat" Hopkins responds: (gee, I wonder if he's related to Kibo?)

\When I see something I think is stupid I usually tell myself that either the
/other person is insane or they know much more than I do.  My first reaction
\to this was the former, but when I saw who wrote it I decided to assume the
/latter.  I was under the impression that the Soviets were still blowing up
\N-1s well into the seventies.  What am I missing?

/Josh Hopkins                                         [e-mail]
\                       Ho^3     !=L

The N-1 wasn't the only rocket they had capable of lunar flight.
Proton is capable of sending a small manned capsule to lunar orbit
and back. (Or at least on some sort of lunar flyby; I guess it depends
on whether you have one or two people in the capsule etc...)

In fact, at about the same time as Apollo 8, they were sending unmanned
probes called "Zond" probes to the moon and back, using their Proton
booster.

Now get this: some of these Zond missions were Soyuz capsules without
the orbital module and a little more propulsion and beefed-up comm
gear, which was tested as the spacecraft played back human voice tape
recordings from translunar space. At the end of the mission the Zond
performed a lifting re-entry maneuver similar to the Apollo missions'
and landed. At all points of the trajectory the g-forces experienced
by any hypothetical cosmonauts along for the ride would have been
comparable to Apollo's.

In short, they could have done it. They did send a manned capusle on
a lunar flyby and back; they simply neglected to put a cosmonaut in.

In retrospect, they should have.

I also wonder what would have happened if they had put all the effort
they put into the N-1 into a good upper stage for the Proton and
in beefing up their docking technology. They could have gotten to
the moon shortly after we did...








--
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 03:59:35 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Soviet Space Comparison
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>>two different approaches, really.  Many simple things vs. a few complex, and
>>there are benefits and drawbacks to each.
>>
>>Which approach is better?  Well, they've gone head-to-head twice.  The first
>>was Apollo, the second was Desert Storm.  Draw your own conclusions.

>As for Apollo... the Soviets came within a hairsbreadth of sending cosmonauts
>around the Moon before Apollo 8, and last I heard, it's still not clear why
>they didn't -- the hardware was ready.  They were behind on the capability
>to make an actual lunar landing, but not that far behind.

When I see something I think is stupid I usually tell myself that either the
other person is insane or they know much more than I do.  My first reaction
to this was the former, but when I saw who wrote it I decided to assume the
latter.  I was under the impression that the Soviets were still blowing up
N-1s well into the seventies.  What am I missing?

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 10:46:28 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

Pardon the odd question, but is there a recording of the "Voyager Record"
available?
I've always been interested in exactly what was recorded on it.

Simon

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 515
------------------------------