Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO516.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Mon,  7 Dec 92 05:02:36
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #516
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  7 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 516

Today's Topics:
                   Another Orbit Question (2 msgs)
  Archives: Great but, how do you know WHAT the files are!? (2 msgs)
                             DC-X status?
       Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
                            Just the fax?
                        lunar flight (2 msgs)
                        NSSDC Datata on CD-ROM
                           Orbit Question?
                    Range Safety and DC-X (2 msgs)
            Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a Do
                         Scuttle replacement
                     Shuttle replacement (3 msgs)
                        Space Digest V15 #495
            STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland (2 msgs)
                      US Soviet Space Comparison
                    Visual inspection of Galileo?
             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: 6 Dec 92 14:14:49 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Another Orbit Question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In light of the fact that a geostationary orbit above only one pole is
not possible, I have another question that concerns an idea that I have been
working on for the past few months. Is it possible to keep a body at
relatively the same point say about 20000 or so miles above the north pole
or south pole of the earth? I assume that it would require some type of
thrusting to keep it from orbiting around the earth in normal fashion. If
you could give some insight on this question such as the relative amount of
thrust this would require and whether it would have to be continuous or not
I would appreciate it.

[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 23:32:01 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Orbit Question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In light of the fact that a geostationary orbit above only one pole is
>not possible, I have another question that concerns an idea that I have been
>working on for the past few months. Is it possible to keep a body at
>relatively the same point say about 20000 or so miles above the north pole
>or south pole of the earth? ...

Only if you thrust continuously to counter Earth's gravity.  With normal
rockets, this will quickly exhaust your fuel supply.  There has been some
thought about the possibility of using a solar sail for this, although it
would require much higher altitudes because the light-pressure thrust is
so feeble.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 22:55:15 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Archives: Great but, how do you know WHAT the files are!?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I was browsing through the ames.arc.nasa.gov archives the other day
looking for some GIFs. My problem isn't that the directory isn't 30k long
but I don't know what the images ARE. I tried FTPing the README and INDEX
files and that didn't help. One was the IMDISP dectription which I already
have and the other was something else.
How can I find out what any particular file is and ANY archive?

I'm also looking for a good orbital program to display orbits with the
2-line set version. I do have a co-processor, any suggestions as to the
BEST one to use???


        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 09:27:27 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Archives: Great but, how do you know WHAT the files are!?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff) writes...
>
>I was browsing through the ames.arc.nasa.gov archives the other day
>looking for some GIFs. My problem isn't that the directory isn't 30k long
>but I don't know what the images ARE. I tried FTPing the README and INDEX
>files and that didn't help.

Read the CONTENTS file.  This file has descriptions of each of the GIFs.
Also, most of the GIF files have caption files (the *.txt files).

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that children
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascinating:
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | space, dinosaurs and ghosts.

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 19:44:51 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X status?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>
>It's also not getting a "very typical new aircraft checkout"; it's
>getting a very typical technology demonstrator/experimental vehicle
>checkout.  The two types of checkout are very different, as they have
>entirely different objectives.
>

So what sort of checkout does a experimental vehicle get?
and what does a new aircraft get?

Shine a little light here on what are the objectives.

thanks
pat

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 03:21:26 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I don't know if this is  correct, but an article that came out in a local
paper on 29 January 1986 that said that the Challenger ET exploded with a
force of 1.7-2 megatons.  If this is true then a launch pad accident
would destroy every out to about 10 miles from the pad.

One flaw: the large pieces of debris from the orbiter.  A nuclear-equivalent
blast would have vaporized the orbiter.  WMy point: a major source for concern
is the prospect of the media harping about Challenger when the DC-series
starts flying.
Simon

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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 92 22:27:14 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Just the fax?

To nobody's great astonishment, the Shuttle onboard facsimile receiver
has broken once again. (Actually, I can't remember a flight when the
fax worked all the way through.) There was some mention that the rollers
were not feeding the paper properly.

Fortunately, there's a backup device called the teleprinter. I would have
to guess that the fax machine is better than the teleprinter when it's
working, and that's why they bother to bring it along.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 20:04:44 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: lunar flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

You may get better science return by flying up 7 tons of polar orbiter
and lander probes that can survey sites of interest and land micro rovers
and experimental hardware.
From orbit a man is no better then a machine.  down on the ground,
put men,  but you can do a heck of a lot of prelim with the machines...

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 23:33:56 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: lunar flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>-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.

Wrong?  Really?  Details, please.  As I recall, the Clinton/Gore position
on SEI is quite explicitly "we cannot afford to do anything about this now".
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 92 22:36:15 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: NSSDC Datata on CD-ROM
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!copper!vexcel!ncar!elroy.j
l.nasa.gov!kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke
>From: [e-mail] (Ron Baalke)
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Subject: Re: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 6 Dec 92 07:49:21 GMT
>References: <[e-mail]>
>Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>Lines: 55
>News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
>Nntp-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
u.edu (Ryan Korniloff) writes...
>>>Xref: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu sci.space:27435 alt.sci.planetary:363 alt.cd
r
>>m:6194
>>>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!copper!vexcel!ncar!ames!
l
>
>>>>Has anyone looked at these images?  Are the pictures very detailed an

>>>>diverse?
>>>
>>>Yes.  Keep in mind the images are the raw unprocessed data from Voyage

>>>The images are black and white.
>>>
>>Black and white!? Well, I understand that Voyager's camras took 3 pictu
es
>>to make a complete color image - in a green, then red, then blue (was i

>>yellow??) filter. Then, on the ground, the images were processed to mak

>>the color image.
>
>This is true, except the color filters normally used by Voyager are oran
e,
>green and blue.  From a scientific viewpoint, the raw data is more impor
ant.
>As new image processing techniques are developed, you can always go back
>to the original data and squeeze out more information.
>
>>Can this be done with IMDISP or any other image
>>displaying software?
>
>With IMDISP, no.  I have looked into it, and it is not a trivial process

>First, the three images have to lined up properly. Second, you have to a
count
>for differences between the images due to spacecraft movement and planet
moon
>rotation.  Third, you have to adjust for the orange filter (Voyager didn
t
>have a red filter).  The only software I know of that does all of this
>is VICAR, which was developed by the Image Processing Lab at JPL.
>
>>I was relly excited with the prospect of purchasing
>>CD-ROMs of the images. Now I'm not so sure it would be worth it for me.
>>Is it the same for Magellan??
>
>The Magellan images are different.  Its images were derived from radar
>bounced off the surface of Venus.  You cannot get a true color image fro

>the Magellan data.  Magellan did not have a camera - it would
>of been useless on a cloud shrouded planet like Venus.  So yes, the Mage
lan
>images are black and white, too.  However, in some of the press released
>photographs, a yellow-orange color palette was applied to the image.
>This color palette came from a Venera lander image from the surface of
>Venus.
>
>>And what about the Mars Observer in the
>>future? Are thoes images going to be in B/W?
>
>Yes, and this is true for Galileo, too.  In fact, all of the cameras
>carried by  planetary spacecraft were black and white cameras.
>     ___    _____     ___
>    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
a.gov
>    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
> ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that ch
ldren
>/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascin
ting:
>|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | space, dinosaurs and
ghosts.

Ok, then I will there be any way of obtaining VICAR?? I guess that it
would be hands off to ordinary people like myself.

Also, there is a program for the IBM PC called Vista Pro. To be as short
as possible in explaining this, it is a 3D landscaping gernerator that
accepts the U.S. Geological Survey's Digital Elivation Model images. You
can also creat liniar flybys with it. Can I do this with the Magellan
images or any other that are available? And if so, what other images are
available??? And, where can I get them?


        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 20:08:41 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbit Question?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I have a question concerning geosyncrenous (please excuse my spelling, my
>dictionary was  printed before space exploration got started) orbits. It is
>my understanding that a body in geosyncronous orbit remains over the same
>point on the earth and has the same rotational period as the Earth. My
>question is what happens to a body that is in geosyncronous orbit at either
>the north or south pole. Does it remain stationary above the pole?
>If you can help me with this question please mail me.
>Thanks.
>
>[e-mail]


Geo sync orbits only exist at 0 latitude.  you could put a relay
at 90 degrees, but youd need a huge amount of fuel to hover there.

To do ppolar communications,  either LEO relays sats are used
or you can create highly inclined highly elliptical orbits that
leave the bird hovering for a few hours at perigee, a modest tracking
antenna can then follow the bird.  if you have several in the constellation, you can have continous coverage.

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 23:41:29 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Range Safety and DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

I just got back from the NSS Policy Committee. There I was told the
following interesting tidbit:  The DC-X will NOT have destruct charges
when it flies. They convinced the range safety people that they
simply wheren't needed.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------139 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 6 Dec 1992 18:54 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Range Safety and DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>
>I just got back from the NSS Policy Committee. There I was told the
>following interesting tidbit:  The DC-X will NOT have destruct charges
>when it flies. They convinced the range safety people that they
>simply wheren't needed.
>

Hey Allen you might want to call range safety out at White sands to confirm
this. I cannot imagine that the first flight of a totally unproven system
that is unmanned would fly without range safety, ESPECIALLY at White Sands.
I bet the folks over in El Paso and Las Cruces would be a mite concerned as
well. I may be out at White Sands for the CONSORT 6 launch in late February or
early March and I can bet you that if we are anywhere near DC-X there will
be range safety to kill it to keep it away from us in case of trouble.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 19:33:34 GMT
From: Richard Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a Do
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [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.

Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh should know by now that the truth is
not as important as entertaining his listeners. Every few years a different
crackpot becomes popular on the radio or TV....I think the National
Inquirer scooped Rush on this story anyway.

R. Murphy

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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 92 21:54:26 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Scuttle replacement

>But once again, we had stopped building GOES, because GOES-NEXT was coming
>along.  we shouldnt stop building something until the next version
>is flying.  While i dont think much of the shuttle, until the DC-1
>is running, we shouldnt scrap it.  in 1997, when we get a DC-1 built
>then we can decide to scrap teh STS.

/Absolutely agreed. It's the folks who want to terminate Shuttle
\so we can pay for the DC that I'm against.

Or are you the 'folks' who are terminating DC-X, Space Van, Sea
Dragon, Laser Launchers, gun launchers, Phoenix, and mass drivers
to get one more year of Scuttle launches?

--
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: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 01:37:01 GMT
From: Carl Hage <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

[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.

Out of curiosity and perhaps a more reasonable comparision, could someone
post where and how KSC gets it's LOX and LH2?
  What quantities are consumed?
  Does most of the output go to the Shuttle?
  Does anyone know what percentage of the US LH2 production is used by
    NASA (i.e. is there some other major use for LH2)?

The current consumption of LOX/LH2 for space use seems to be a large
amount at irregular and infrequent intervals compared to the hoped for
routine use of SSTO.

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 02:38:18 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>> h> some really huge SSTO designs in the past; most things get easier at
>>large

>Which ones?

Check out the Journal of the Practical Applications of Space. They have
several articles including a survey of SSTO ideas. Some where pretty big.

>Its worth pointing out something that JR Thompson, former Associate Administrator
>for NASA once pointed ot to congress and NASA. If you refueled the ET in LEO
>the Shuttle could go anywhere in the solar system.

A refueled ET in LEO with a Shuttle can't go anywhere since the engines
can't be restarted.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------139 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sun,  6 Dec 92 19:28:38 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Unfortunately a lot of this stuff is classified so it's a little
>hard to tell,  but if we made 11's with a little more regularity,  we
>would have had fewer problems.

   Well, I'm guilty of this as well, but hindsight is 20/20! Alas,
   KH-11s, Space Shuttles, and GOES are a little on the expensive
   side to build a whole bunch of backups. (Who'd have thought in
   1985 that inside a year, all our space boosters would go kablooey?)

>But once again, we had stopped building GOES, because GOES-NEXT was coming
>along.  we shouldnt stop building something until the next version
>is flying.  While i dont think much of the shuttle, until the DC-1
>is running, we shouldnt scrap it.  in 1997, when we get a DC-1 built
>then we can decide to scrap teh STS.

   Absolutely agreed. It's the folks who want to terminate Shuttle
   so we can pay for the DC that I'm against.

>I am sure with a little work the IV will get flying with out difficulty.
>Ariane IV or was it the III  went 0/7???  for a long time.  they were
>popping into the ocean with distressing frequency.  new versions can go
>through pangs.  i am sure DC-X and DC-Y will have a lot of trouble,
>but being well designed like the X-15, we should not have too many losses
>of craft.

   I sure it will, too, but I'm getting tired of waiting. That beast
   flew in June 1989, and since then has spent more time sitting on
   the launch pad than any other launcher in the world. This is the
   marvelous machine that the military abandoned the Shuttle for. So
   far, I'd say, they haven't gotten their money's worth. It's more
   expensive than planned, harder to launch than planned, and is flying
   much less frequently than planned. Sound familiar? That's why they
   abandoned the Shuttle.

>Actually this is a good question.  in the X-15, 4 (i think) planes were
>built.  and i think 2 were lost in testing.  will DC-X build 3-4
>prototypes?  or will the whole basket be on one ship?  and are they building
>a ground test vehicle.  kinda a pathfinder/Structural test Article/
>ground flyer????  for the shuttle program, i heard they built like
>5 test articles including the pathfinder.  Henry,alan?  any input????

   Three X-15s were built, and upgraded periodically throughout the
   program. One crashed in 1968, just before the program was to end.
   The other two are now at the Smithsonian and USAF Museum.


   -Brian

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

Date: Sat, 5 Dec 92 02:49:34 EST
From: "Zalbar Delphi, Mominium MAIL:GOD" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Digest V15 #495

>
>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.
>
>What bothers me is that I, a *native* of the world it came from, can't
>decipher what the crazy 'code' is that everything is written in.  For
>example, here's the labling for our nine planets:
>
> [ Neat picture deleted ]
>
I don't quite remember what the code for the planet was...
There is a REAL good book called "The search for life in the Universe"
which had an interesting explantion for the Voyager plaque..
Unfortuantly I can't find it now and can't remember the author's name.

>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.
>
The two circles are the Hydrogen Atom (if I remember right) or
something *chemical* along those lines...
The starburst is a "map" to our solar system from 14 pulsars...

>Does *anyone* know what this was *supposed* to mean???
>
>Rick Miller   <[e-mail]> | <[e-mail]>   Ricxjo Muelisto

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  Chris Sheldon               |
  [e-mail]           |        * This space for Rent *
  [e-mail]   |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 19:10:24 GMT
From: Grant Edwards <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors

[e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
: [e-mail] writes...
: > James Oberg will _of course_ have an explanation.  He is a member of
: > PSICOP and works with Philip Klass, THE well-known skeptic "nothing-
: > is-real" other famous member of PSICOP.
:
: Given that you've failed to address Oberg's *arguments* at any point,
: and that you've complained about his affiliation with an organization
: whose name you don't even know how to spell (there is no such organization
: as "PSICOP"), why should *anyone* take your posting as any evidence at
: all against the reasonability of the posted Oberg rebuttal to the alleged
: STS-48 UFO?
:

Spelling CSICOP as PSICOP (sort of a homonym/pun: psi cop, he who
polices claims of the paranormal) is a fairly common jab at CSICOP.
It was even clever, the _first_ time.  We'll give him the benefit of
the doubt about whether he knew the name of the organization.

However, the claim that those tapes show some dog-fight in space is
still pure crap.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Those aren't
Rosemount Inc.                                |WINOS--that's my JUGGLER, my
                                              |AERIALIST, my SWORD
[e-mail]                 |SWALLOWER, and my LATEX
                                              |NOVELTY SUPPLIER!!

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

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 19:17:05 GMT
From: Grant Edwards <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors

I wrote:

: We'll give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he knew the
             ^^^                                        ^^
My apologies, Barb.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Send your questions to
Rosemount Inc.                                |``ASK ZIPPY'', Box 40474, San
                                              |Francisco, CA 94140, USA
[e-mail]                 |

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 23:39:16 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Soviet Space Comparison
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>>... 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.
>
>... I was under the impression that the Soviets were still blowing up
>N-1s well into the seventies.  What am I missing?

Two things.  First, much of the steam went out of the N-1 effort after
Apollo 11; they would have made their mistakes faster had the pressure
still been on.  They knew they couldn't land before the US, *if* the US
stayed on schedule; they were hoping that the US would have trouble.

Second, the N-1 wasn't necessary for a circumlunar mission.  Proton was
adequate to do that.  They flew unmanned precursor tests:  the Zond lunar
flights were stripped-down unmanned Soyuzes.  If a man had been aboard
the last one of those, he'd have survived in comfort.  (On the previous
one, he'd have had a rough flight but not a fatal one.)  There was time
to launch another before Apollo 8.  Nobody knows why it wasn't done;
the best guess is that they were trying but ran into minor problems of
some kind and missed the window.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 7 Dec 92 03:08:32 GMT
From: Raymond Blaak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Visual inspection of Galileo?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Is there any way to actually get a look at Galileo as it whips by Earth?
Maybe if a few hi-res pictures of it can be taken, we could actually SEE what
is wrong with its antenna.

Just wondering,
Ray Blaak
([e-mail])

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 23:30:08 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Pardon the odd question, but is there a recording of the "Voyager Record"
>available?

It's just recently come out on CD, although it's expensive ($80 or so).

>I've always been interested in exactly what was recorded on it.

In that case, you probably want the book "Murmurs of Earth" rather than
the CD.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 516
------------------------------