Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO518.TXT

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

Date: Tue,  8 Dec 92 05:00:15
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #518
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  8 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 518

Today's Topics:
  Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement) (2 msgs)
              Galileo Earth-Moon Briefing Set For Dec. 8
              Japanese Solar Mission_Yokoh: comparisons?
                             lunar flight
              Nasa town meeting, mistaken attribution...
                           Orbit Question?
                Pioneer and Voyager messages (2 msgs)
                            Saturn V fates
 Shuttle Costs from Space News Article (Was Re: Shuttle replacement)
                     Shuttle replacement (2 msgs)
  Shuttle Replacement/LH2-LH2 road safety and availability (2 msgs)
            STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland (2 msgs)
                   The Weather Channel / Satellites
                    US weather satellite question

    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: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 11:56:15 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>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.


It's complete bullshit, of course.  First of all, megatons measure
"yield" (as in energy), not "force".  Second, the energy of the
propellant in the ET is on the order of kilotons, not megatons.
Think:  chemical propellants are of limited energy content, at most
several times that of high explosive, and the mass of the entire
STS stack at liftoff is only a shade over 2000 tons.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 16:24:13 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
...
>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.
>
    Just the highest heat of combustion per unit mass of any
common propellant!  Also the highest flame speed and the widest range
of detonability of any common fuel (18.3 to 59% H by volume in air is
detonable, depending on exact conditions), and its minimum spark
ignition energy is 30 times less than that of methane.  Hydrogen is
not something to fool with!  Fortunately, it doesn't pool like natural
gas, but caution needs to be maintained.  Indy car people can tell you
how dangerous an invisible fire can be!  I've had related how an
undetected H2 fire in a test cell went undetected until somebody
smelled/saw the paint burning off of the steel beams next to the
leaking line.  We use it as a fuel, (inside a lab...it'd be nicer if
we were outside) and feel that ventilation and detection are our best
defenses.  The last thing we want is a "bubble" of hydrogen trapped in
a room.
--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 00:18:45 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Earth-Moon Briefing Set For Dec. 8
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.               December 7, 1992
(Phone:  [phone])

Jim Wilson
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])


NOTE TO EDITORS:  N92-105

GALILEO EARTH-MOON FLYBY BRIEFING SET FOR DEC. 8

     Galileo officials will describe the Earth-Moon flyby at
a briefing on Tuesday, Dec. 8, at 1 p.m. EST.  The briefing
will originate from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL),
Pasadena, Calif.  Reporters can participate from the NASA
Headquarters auditorium, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W., Washington,
D.C.

     NASA's Galileo spacecraft swings past the Earth on Dec.
8 for its last gravity assist on the way to Jupiter, with a
closest approach to Earth at 10:09 a.m. EST.

     Project Manager William J. O'Neil and Mission Director
Neal Ausman will describe the flyby, mission plans and
Galileo's status.  Project Scientist Torrence V. Johnson and
other members of the science team are expected to discuss
ongoing Earth-Moon scientific activities and present some of
the earliest results.

     Galileo is scheduled to continue observing Earth and
Moon for a week or more, and a preliminary science briefing
at JPL is set for Dec. 22 at 1 p.m. EST.

     A program, called "Blue Room," will provide up-to-date
information on mission and science operations and present
sample images starting at 9:30 a.m. EST.  The conference and
some of the Blue Room activity will be carried live on NASA
Select television, Satcom F2R, 72 degrees west longitude,
Transponder 13, C-Band.

- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 15:25:00 GMT
From: "Dave Batchelor, Space Phys. Data Facil. 301/286-2988" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japanese Solar Mission_Yokoh: comparisons?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]>,
 [e-mail] (Robert W Murphree) writes...
>The Japanese Space agency, ISAS, launched its newest Solar observation
>satellite a year ago.  It has soft and hard x-ray imaging devices with
>resolution around 6-7 arc seconds(I think I remember that).  And it
>has two x-ray spectrometers.  How does this compare to the U.S. satellite
>Solar Max?  Is it any improvement over Solar Max?  Does it lack capacities
>that Solar Max had?  I know it weighs a lot less.  The U.S. has
>cancelled its follow-up to Solar Max.  How would that follow-up US
>satellite have compared to Yokoh?

The greatest improvement of Yohkoh over SMM is that Yohkoh has the Solar
X-ray Telescope (SXT) which is a full-disk solar telescope, whereas SMM
had image instruments that could only observe an angular area about the
size of a solar active region (without laboriously scan-rastering the Sun
with movements of the entire spacecraft, only done a handfull of times).
SXT takes full-disk images with a cadence measured in seconds, and no
instrument on SMM could compare with that.  On the other hand, this is in
the X-ray range; SMM had ultraviolet image/spectrographic instruments, too,
and Yohkoh does not.  SMM measured the full solar energy flux with ACRIM,
but Yohkoh does not carry a similar instrument.  The main short-coming of
Yohkoh wrt SMM is that Yohkoh has no coronagraph.  Eruptions in the X-ray
corona are typically followed by Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) in the
outer white-light corona, and disturbances in the interplanetary medium.
Yohkoh observers envy the SMM C/P instrument, which provided coronagraph
coverage with the X-ray and UV information about eruptive solar flares.

By the US follow-on the SMM, I assume you mean OSL, which was cancelled.
OSL also would have had a suite of full-disk or nearly full-disk image
instruments in various useful wave bands.  OSL would have been more
capable in imaging than Yohkoh and SMM, but not so many X-ray spectroscopy
instruments were planned as Yohkoh and SMM have.

>
>On a unrelated note, it appears to me from reading the literature
>ISAS sent me that the Japanese will have a very wide range of space
>capabilities, including a medium lift vehicle, capability for
>communication over planetary distances, earth resource satellite,
>communications satellites by 1995.  The only thing they will lack
>will be a manned capacity (not a flaw to my way of thinking) and

They wish they had it, whatever you think ;-)

>a heavy lift vehicle-like Titan IV or Energia.  They have already
>approved a mars orbiter for launch in the middle 1990's, focusing
>on the ionosphere and plasma science.
>They are working on a penetrator seismic/heat flow mision for the
>moon.  If they decide to spend the
>money they could easily launch a major observatory or planetary
>mission by 2000.  Will they?  Any japanese observers out there
>have any idea what it might be that they will pursue after 1996?  6
>Will they go for the big missions or keep launching small and
>medium missions at the same quick rate?  Tune in in 5 years...

They will be small for a long time.  The size of staff for their space
missions is barely adequate, and depends on substantial international
cooperation.  They do a great job with a small, dedicated team.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Batchelor   Space Science Data Operations Office   Mail Code 632
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center  Greenbelt  MD  20771  USA
[e-mail] == &( personal_opinions && !NASA_policy );

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

Date: 06 Dec 92  16:31:02
From: [e-mail]
Subject: lunar flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

The Soyuz/Proton manned flight to the Moon would cost much less than a robotic
mission and generate enormous publicity for space. A robotic mission, however,
would generate more science.

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 16:19:11 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Nasa town meeting, mistaken attribution...

\top two issues in my mind...) (and yes, I read the text of Phil Phaerings
/question at another meeting, but I feel that these issues need to be heard by
\these guys at EVERY meeting they hold, EVERYWHERE they go.)  And at the same
/time, I want a question that is not a lecture to be entitled "WHAT I BELIEVE".

That was a mistaken attribution; you're thinking of Bill Higgins.

\Can anyone help me be eloquent?

If anyone could, he could.

\Let me put it another way:  If you were going to ask a question on either or
/both of these topics, how would YOU phrase it?

I don't know.

\OR:  What is the BEST SSTO question that can be asked of NASA?

I don't know.

/John Stevens-Schlick

Phil

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

Date: 06 Dec 92  16:37:32
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Orbit Question?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Your polar geosyncronous satellite takes out one equatorial geosynchronous
satellite every 24 hours as it passes over the equator at 24,000 miles
altitude.....

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 15:27:57 EET
From: @fuug.fi:[e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Pioneer and Voyager messages

"Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]> writes:
> I read somewhere that if anyone finds the Pioneer and Voyager probes,
> they will probably be interstellar travelers from earth at some point
> in the distant future.  But would they still be able to understand
> the languages on the disks?

Will they be human ?

q.v. the *book* "Planet of the Apes" (Pierre Boulle)

/fred :: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 17:13:34 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pioneer and Voyager messages
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:

   I read somewhere that if anyone finds the Pioneer and Voyager
   probes, they will probably be interstellar travelers from earth at
   some point in the distant future.  But would they still be able to
   understand the languages on the disks?

If anyone finds the probes, it'll be because they knew where they
were. In other words, they'll be from Earth, (wanting to take them back
and stick them in the NASM, I expect).

Think about it. These things mass a few hundred kilos, put out less
than a hundred watts in a directional beam (this will have decayed to
effectivlely zero before they get out of the solar neighbourhood), and
move ballistically.  Millions (probably billions) of similar objects
(from ETs) could pass through the solar system every year and we
wouldn't know. If one hit the Earth it would burn up in the atmosphere
(travelling at cometary speeds). The technology to detect such a probe
passing within, say, half a light-year of the sun is, erm, rather
extreme (I imagine a community of a few trillion intelligent
self-reproducing nanotech robots drifting in interstellar space might
just about do it).

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 15:23:06 GMT
From: "Michael K. Heney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn V fates
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

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

>> LM now on display at the Smithsonian?
>
> [good stuff on Apollo mission assignments ...]
>
>So at the end of Apollo proper, one set of H hardware and two sets of
>J hardware were surplus, plus some pre-H CSMs from earlier in the program.
>I don't remember exactly which CSMs got used for Skylab.
>
>I've seen a list of where the various bits ended up, but I don't have
>it handy.  Don't remember which LM is in the Smithsonian.

The Air and Space Museum has LM-2 on display.  As I understand, this
was to be the 2nd LM flight article, back before delivery and scheduling
concerns routed Apollo 8 around the moon with no LM flying.  I recall
that originally there was to be at least one additional Earth-orbit LM
test flight (a higher altitude one?); the first landing would have been
the 5th LM flight on Apollo 12, instead of the 3rd on Apollo 11.  The
flight schedule would have lookd like:

    Apollo  7   CSM earth orbit test
    Apollo  8   CSM/LM LEO Test    (Was Apollo 9)
    Apollo  9   CSM/LM High Earth Orbit test
    Apollo 10   CSM/LM lunar orbit test (Apollo 8 w/LM attached)
    Apollo 11   CSM/LM lunar descent test (Was Apollo 10)
    Apollo 12   First lunar landing.

This is from memory, and was a schedule BEFORE Apollo 8 flew.  When
an LM was not available for Apollo 8, they decided on an aggressive
schedule, and two non-landing LMs became surplus.  One of these is
at the Air & Space museum here in DC.  And it's pretty ...





--
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
[e-mail]   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 16:42:31 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Costs from Space News Article (Was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   [...]

   Imagine how much a plane ticket would cost if we had to pay
   directly for ALL the costs of Air travel.

   [...]

So who does pay for them? What proportion goes on the ticket and what
proportion on taxes. Think carefully before answering.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 15:42:58 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
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.
>
>    Paul F. Dietz

    LN2 trucks are very common, LOX may sometimes ship by truck
(I've never seen one), but LH2 would be very very uncommon.  Just not
that much call for LH shipped by truck.  Plus, you'd need an immense
fleet of trucks to service big spacecraft.  The volumes are quite
large!

--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: 7 Dec 92 17:02:57 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Whitehurst) writes:

> (I've never seen one), but LH2 would be very very uncommon.  Just not
> that much call for LH shipped by truck.  Plus, you'd need an immense
> fleet of trucks to service big spacecraft.  The volumes are quite
> large!

Let's compute.  A large tanker truck can carry 2-3 tons of liquid
hydrogen.  A spacecraft with a fully fueled mass/payload ratio of 50,
burning LOX/LH2 at a ratio of 4-1, and carrying 10 tons of payload,
requires about 100 tons of LH2, or about 30 to 50 trucks worth.

Any significant launch rate would probably lead to the use of rail
cars or barges (Apollo had barges carrying about 50 tons of LH2).  The
average cost of rail transport (of all kinds) in the US is around
$.026/ton-mile; truck transport is, on average, about 10x more
expensive.  I expect the cost/ton of shipping hydrogen is higher,
though.

There actually is some demand for LH2 for non-aerospace uses.  It is
about 10x cheaper to ship hydrogen liquified than as a bottled
compressed gas (pipelines are better, of course).  One use is in
hydrogenating vegetable oil.

    Paul

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

Date: 06 Dec 92  16:24:40
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle Replacement/LH2-LH2 road safety and availability
Newsgroups: sci.space

John S. Neff asks:
>Several times a year there are accidents involving tank trucks
>carrying gasoline or propane, sometime the consequences are very
>serious. I cannot recall hearing of any accidents involving
>shipments of LH2 or LOX. Why is that?

  I'm going to agree with Paul Dietz on this -- there are a LOT more
trucks carrying liquid hydrocarbons around than LOX or LH2.

   I know of several accidents involving spilled LOX or LH2 and of
several truck/traffic accidents with spilled cryos.  Fortunately,
most of those are cautionary tales told to orient industrial safety
classes or for training purposes.

   My opinion is that LOX is a more dangerous propellant to
transport in bulk.  LOX has nasty properties -- among other things,
it'll turn most organic materials into potential explosives if they
are soaked in it, and can turn a simple little problem into a great
big problem real fast.  For example, asphalt turns into a rather
potent contact explosive, when soaked with LOX.  This has caused
some really nervous times when accidents have happened on secondary
roads or surface streets.  The usual remedy by the haz mat response
teams is to set up fire hoses and establish a flow of water over the
surface and the leaking LOX.  This will quickly re-thaw the asphalt,
reduces the fire risk, and if they are lucky, will form an ice plug
over the hole, reducing or stopping the leakage.   But you still
have to be very careful -- a couple of years ago a haz mat team was
doing this for an industrial LOX spill in the LA area and forgot and
parked a new fire pump/engine truck downwind of the spill.  The pure
O2 drifted over the truck and what was described as a "small engine
fire and explosion" resulted.

   LH2 is also nasty.  One of the most common LH2 problems that I
have been aware of is uncontrolled venting.  Most tank trucks that
transport this stuff are pretty well insulated, but every so often
something will go wrong, and you'll get a heat leak or source, and
the tank starts venting rather strongly.   If this continues (and
with a real heat leak, it can continue until the tanker truck is
empty), you can get a static electric buildup on the vent nozzle,
and the possibility of a spark -- possibly resulting in an explosion
from the vented H2 and air.   Standard procedure for truckers if
they get a large uncontrollable vent of LH2 is to find a large empty
area (like a large parking lot), drop a grounding strip (standard
equipment), contact the local fire/police department to get a haz
mat team over there, and then to GET AWAY from the truck and to keep
people away until the truck boils itself dry.  The police and fire
department also make sure nobody gets too close until the truck is
dry.  I've heard second hand of trucks detonating from this
(supposedly one went off in the Santa Anita racetrack parking lot in
the mid-1960's), but I have no first hand confirmation of any recent
truck explosions from this.
   It should also be noted that if you are not careful in tank
design, LH2 also is cold enough that you can get liquid air
formation on the surface of the tank.  Considering that liquid air
is about 80% LOX, that qualifies as a hazard  (leaking LOX) -- even
if you don't have LH2 or GH2 leaking.

    Someone else asks about availability of this stuff.  LOX is
fairly common to get  -- however, most of the production facilities
are pretty small.  Most military airbases and some major hospitals
have small setups to provide some amount of LOX  -- but the common
setups only produce a few tens of lbs of LOX per hour.  (I believe
20-50 lbs an hour is common).  To fill a vehicle with several
hundreds of thousands of lbs of the stuff would take quite some time
from such a source.   And there are different grades of LOX that can
be required -- for example common LOX has a small percentage of
liquid argon in it (0.5%, or thereabouts).  That's fine for
propellant, but that residual argon will poison a fuel cell,
gradually making it unusable.  For that you need re-distilled or
"power grade LOX" which is pure LO2.
    LH2 is much less common -- I believe there are only two
operating sites in the US which can provide the quantities available
for space launch.  One is in Southern California (Fontana?) and the
other is in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana area.  For shuttle launches
LH2 and LOX is transported by tank truck to KSC.  I also believe
that a firm (Air Products?) is setting up a local LOX/LH2 plant in
the Orlando/Cocoa Beach area to supply KSC, but the plant is not yet
operational.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor


--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 7 Dec 92 15:36:34 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement/LH2-LH2 road safety and availability
Newsgroups: sci.space

Some figures for shipping of hydrogen and oxygen...

LOX: if you are using several tons of LOX per day, it can be provided
by tanker truck at about $.15/kilogram.  A dedicated air separation
plant is about a factor of 2 cheaper, but requires much higher
throughput to be economical (factor of 100, at least).  Very small
quantities of LOX (hundreds of liters) are several times more
expensive.  Some tens of millions of tons of oxygen is produced
in the US every year.

I don't have a figure for the cost of LH2.  Liquifying LH2 requires
energy equal to about 1/3 the HHV of the fuel.  It is shipped in
tanker trucks with a volume of (2.1 to 3.5 tonnes) by rail car with
volume of 10^5 L (7 tonnes), or by overseas container with a capacity
of 2 x 10^4 L (fuel for Ariane is shipped to S. America by this mode).
Losses in shipment are around 7 - 11%, with evaporation losses in LN2
shielded tanks of < 1%/day.  A typical LH2 plant may make about 60
tons per day.


    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Dec 92 06:33:47 GMT
From: "Benito E. Villanueva" <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors

I seem to have caught this debate half way through and I have not seen
the video in question. Is this video available anywhere- everyone else
seems to have seen it? How can I view a copy?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Steven Villanueva

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

Date: 7 Dec 92 11:14:48 GMT
From: Alan Greig <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Grant Edwards) writes:
> [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.

And I thought it was supposed to  sound like psych-ops (Intelligence
spook division...)
--
Alan Greig                            Janet: [e-mail]-TECH
Dundee Institute of Technology       Internet: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]                 Int: [phone]
              -- There is only one true conspiracy --

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 16:06:00 GMT
From: Robert P Dale <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Weather Channel / Satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Energy and Climate Information Exch) writes:
>
>Regarding accuracy of weather predictions from the weather channel v.
>other sources, for years we've used a "weather cube," which is a small
>transistor radio tuned to one of three NOAA frequencies. [...]
>  Here in Eastern Idaho that's Pocatello, and as a source is
>quite good compared to waiting for hourly updates from the Weather channel
>based on Atlanta, GA.  Given the severe nature of winter weather in this
>part of the US, this kind of weather information is essential.

I think that he may have been referring to the poor NWS forecasts
before...  One thing to note - everywhere across the nation that
I've been  - when watching TWC the National Weather Service forecast
is scrolled across the screen every 5 minutes or so - maybe you
should check with your cable operator and see why you only get the
update on the hour?!?

Rob
--
Robert P. Dale                          <>      [e-mail]
University of Toledo                    <>      [e-mail]
Meteorology/Emergency Services          <>      [e-mail]

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

Date: 06 Dec 92 17:26 PST
From: Energy and Climate Information Exch <[e-mail]>
Subject: US weather satellite question
Newsgroups: sci.space

Regarding accuracy of weather predictions from the weather channel v.
other sources, for years we've used a "weather cube," which is a small
transistor radio tuned to one of three NOAA frequencies.  It's available
from Radio Shack (Tandy Corp.) for about $25, runs on a 9-volt battery,
and gives you direct access to the nearest NOAA weather center continuous
broadcasts.  Here in Eastern Idaho that's Pocatello, and as a source is
quite good compared to waiting for hourly updates from the Weather channel
based on Atlanta, GA.  Given the severe nature of winter weather in this
part of the US, this kind of weather information is essential.


* -------------------------------------------------------------
* Dan Yurman              |  Internet:  [e-mail]
* Climate Digest Editor   |    Bitnet:  ecixdy%igc.org@stanford
* Econet Energy & Climate |  MCI Mail:  364-1277
* Information Exchange    |     Phone:  [phone]
* -------------------------------------------------------------
* 112W01 43N28   >>>  PO Box 1569, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83403 USA


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

Date: Mon, 07 Dec 92 08:08:48 CST
From: Buddy Watson <[e-mail]>

Please Unscribe me from Space.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 518
------------------------------