Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO522.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Wed,  9 Dec 92 05:00:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #522
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  9 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 522

Today's Topics:
                   absolutely, positively overnight
            Comsats to the Pole! (was Re: Orbit Question?)
                       DC damage and operations
                            Just the fax?
                       Mir, STS-53 and Galileo
             NASA town meeting question wanted on SSTO's.
                       Orbit Question? (2 msgs)
                        Pop in space (2 msgs)
                       pre-fire Apollo schedule
         Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a DoD hoax!
                       Science use of the Sr-71
                       Scud Missile technology
                  Shuttle Replacement/Shuttle Costs
            STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland (2 msgs)
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
                       US/Sov space comparisons
                             Voyager Icon

    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: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 02:01:36 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: absolutely, positively overnight
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>can't get a non-stop flight from John Wayne to Antarctica, so why would
>>>>anyone expect to get a non-stop flight from John Wayne to orbit?
>>>
>>>Depends. Some earlier speculation on using DC-1 for sub-orbital hops which
>>>would bring new meaning to the word "absolutely, positively overnight."
>>
>>Reportedly, if DC-1 can be built and suitably certified, Federal Express
>>is most definitely interested.
>>--
>And if the airlines are interested, what about 30 minute transcontinental or
>trans-oceanic flights.  :-)

I know you had a smiley but I want to follow up anyway.  The big problem with
transoceanic flight is that it would be much to expensive (and besides the
jet lag would be awful :-).  This may not be the case for highly trained
specialists or maybe special operations troops in the event of a really
important situation (though I'm skeptical).  The costs could become reasonable
for packages because they can be fairly light yet valuable and there are
situations in which very high speed shipping is necessary.  In fact, it looks
like overnight shipping creates its own demand because people will schedule
things differently or procrastinate longer when later deadlines are possible.
Transportation for the public may become a market if costs can be lowered
enough because people will pay, not to got to Japan, but to space.  There is a
fairly significant market for space tourism at around $50,000 a head and maybe
higher.  I don't think this would be profitable for a first generation vehicle
though.

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

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

Date: 7 Dec 92 18:38:45 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comsats to the Pole! (was Re: Orbit Question?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> A few comments about Geosynchronous satellites,
[...]
> 6)  A geostationary satellite can see up to about 82 degrees North Latitude

I asked about Antarctic communications last week, and received a reply
from Richard Dyson at the University of Iowa, who has wintered at
South Pole Station.  They *do* use GEO satellites to communicate by
phone-- at least during a short time window each day.  Apparently when
some not-quite-equatorial GEO satellites are at the southern end of
their daily figure-eight oscillation, they are visible to South Pole
antennas.   (Nice homework problem: how tall does an antenna at the
South Pole have to be, before it can see a perfect equatorial
geostationary satellite all the time?  I haven't worked it out.)

Communications satellites are supposed to stay in a well-defined
region of the sky, within the beam width of customers' antennas.
When a comsat nears the end of its lifetime and its propellant is
nearly used up, the operators may stretch things by allowing it to
drift north and south out of its "box," making orbital corrections
only sparingly.  They can still sell some transponder time for the
periods when the spacecraft is within its box.  I imagine that
customers who are willing to crank their dishes away from the
celestial equator might get bargain rates on out-of-box time.

(A pal of mine used to do "industrial astronomy" for Western Union's
satellite fleet, which is how I learned about this stuff.)

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 01:47:31 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC damage and operations
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

[He wrote the stuff with >>> or > and I wrote the stuf with >>]

>>>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?

>7 is a few dozen. That yields an 84 foot crater. One city house
>lot.

Okay.  I consider 7 to be at least "several" but I know astronmers who
consider a megaparsec to be "near" (and then convert in their heads to cm :-)
so I won't hold it against you.  Still, we're left with data suggesting that
deadweight V-2 cones cause the same damage as a ton of TNT impacting under
the same circumstances.  This either means that the TNT is ineffective, that it
negates the kinetic effects or that those impacts weren't caused by TNT but by
"dead" Scuds.  Any idea which?  (Oops - I also made the assumption that the
circumstances of impact were similar due to the above.  Never ignore your
assumpitions)

>>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.

>As Mary noted, DC-X isn't an SSTO, maximum altitude is 30,000 feet.

I think a better reading of my reply will show that I know that.  It's true
even if it isn't implied.

>Later,
>not yet funded, prototypes may be SSTO, and a DC-1 may be derived from
>them. It's a long way off, and airliner style spacecraft won't be giving
>Shuttle competition any time in the near future.

We weren't discussing shuttle competition, we were discussing safety.  My point
still stands, but I'll repeat it to see if I can clarify.  We _aren't_
launching test vehicles in areas where they are a public threat.  SSTO has the
potential (maybe) to be safe enough and useful enough to launch from city
type areas in the future.  This will not occur until it has been shown to be
safe.  So relax.

>Now, given that such a SSTO is developed, and that it turns out to be
>both safe and relatively inexpensive *for a space launcher*, it still
>seems ludicrous to ship dozens of 18 wheel tanker truck loads of
>cryogenic fuels into Podunk airport to support the launch of a payload
>that could easily be carried in *one* six wheel truck to a central
>launch facility.

You're either engaging in an ad hominem attack by calling the largest airports
in the country "Podunk" or you're setting up a straw man by suggesting that
people want to launch from everywhere rather than from several significant
sites.  I can easily postulate a situation 20 years from now in which several
(or "a few" depending on your usage) sites are required.

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

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

Date: 7 Dec 92 22:26:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Just the fax?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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


Wait, I heard it was turned of to conserve electricity since they might have to
stay up another day because of bad weather.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 07:35:28 GMT
From: Craig Keithley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir, STS-53 and Galileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Roberts) wrote:
>
>
> -From: [e-mail] (Bruce Watson)
> -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.
>
> -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
>
> Thanks for checking it out. It looks like they'll be too far away for
> useful visual tracking.
>
> John Roberts
> [e-mail]

Anyone care to speculate on the likelyhood of a DoD bird taking a look, and
if so, would it be able to track at the necessary arc sec rate to get a
good image?

Perhaps a better question is: Can a KH-11 follow Galileo and will one be
near enough?  I seem to recall that its already been asked and answered
that Hubble won't be able to get a look.

Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
[e-mail]
Anything not forbidden is mandatory.

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 01:51:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA town meeting question wanted on SSTO's.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>OR:  What is the BEST SSTO question that can be asked of NASA?

I'd try "Given the success of the X-planes in advancing aviation technology,
and how badly we need faster, cheaper, better space launchers, has any
consideration been given to starting an X-launcher series, perhaps beginning
with the SSTO project?"

(If I were being nasty, I'd change "has any consideration been given to"
to "why has nothing ever been done about".)

Actually, I think most any polite question about SSTO will have the most
important effect:  reminding Goldin and his cohorts that people care about
this project and will be watching what happens to it.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 01:10:08 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbit Question?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

[On the subject of statites (stationary satellites)]

>Okay I understand what you are saying about the geo sync orbit, but what if the
>body you wanted to remain over one of the poles was able to produce its own
>electricity (i.e. very large solar array) which would be used to power ion
>thrusters to keep it in place?

Ion thrusters still require fuel their just much more efficient than chemical
rockets.  The only system that can stay stationary over long terms is a solar
sail.  Nature may permit some neat tricks with magnetodynamic tethers but I
can't think of any that would work in this situation.

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

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 01:24:57 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbit Question?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... but what if the
>body you wanted to remain over one of the poles was able to produce its own
>electricity (i.e. very large solar array) which would be used to power ion
>thrusters to keep it in place?

Ion thrusters need fuel as well as power; they greatly reduce fuel needs
compared to those of chemical engines, but hovering against 3-4% of an
Earth gravity will still eat it up pretty quickly.  To make it work, you
need something like a solar sail, needing *no* fuel.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 01:55:38 GMT
From: Tor Houghton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pop in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Peter J. Scott ([e-mail]) wrote:

: In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tor Houghton) writes:
: > I don't know - didn't Coke or Pepsi device special cans for the Space
: > Shuttle crew? :)
:
: Yes, and you can see the Coke device in the Coca-Cola museum in
: Atlanta, GA.  I know it's a tad far for you to go, but some of
: our other readers might be nearby.

  :)

  Do you know how it works?


: --
: This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
: brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

Cheers!


Tor

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
email: [e-mail]           "Then we will wonder if machines
                                       will steal each others dreams."

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 01:53:06 GMT
From: Tor Houghton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pop in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

What if you put an impurity (a crumb, for example) in the middle of the
blob?

Cheers,


Tor
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
email: [e-mail]           "Then we will wonder if machines
                                       will steal each others dreams."

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 01:22:15 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: pre-fire Apollo schedule
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Waisnor) writes:
>Does anybody happen to know what the flight schedule would have been if the Apollo 1 fire
>had not occurred?????

According to "Where No Man Has Gone Before", it was rather fuzzy.  Planning
schedules showed "simulated" lunar missions, which might orbit the moon but
not land, starting anywhere from the third Saturn V flight (scheduled for
Oct 1967) to the sixth (Aug 1968).  The first mission definitely slated to
be a lunar mission, without the "simulated", was the seventh Saturn V, set
for Nov 1968.

In practice, this was *very seriously* optimistic, considering that the
first man-rated LM was not ready for Apollo 8 (Dec 1968) and that Apollo 11
(July 1969) in fact had the very first LM that was light enough to fly
a complete lunar landing and takeoff.  The hiatus after the fire gave a lot
of subsystems, the LM in particular, time to catch up.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 01:04:22 GMT
From: Mike Van Pelt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rush Limbaugh says problems with HST are a DoD hoax!
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.

No he didn't.  Rush Limbaugh stated that there is a *rumor going
around* that, etc., etc.   That's simply a fact.  There is a rumor.
Frankly, I think it's an obviously ridiculous rumor, Weakly (sic)
World News level stuff, and neither interesting nor funny enough
to merit a place on Rush's show.

Does anyone know where this "gem" originated?
--
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
[e-mail]         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 92 02:37:33 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Science use of the Sr-71
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>Has NASA or NOAA or some other group looked at using the Sr-71 for science
>missions?  or does it lack any advantage over the U-2s.  i am sure it
>is much more expensive to operate then the U-2, but i am not sure
>if it has any real advantage other then speed.
>

SPEED -is- the advantage...  It's a little difficult to conduct
Mach 3+ research programs with the U-2 (ER-2)...  :->

FYI, NASA Ames-Dryden FRF operates two SR-71As and one SR-71B
for a variety of high altitude/supersonic flight research projects.

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

Date: 07 Dec 92  08:18:34
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Scud Missile technology
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have yet to uncover exactly what a Scud missile is.

I know what it does. I know that its NATO derivation (SS-1A) is similar to the
earliest Soviet missile, the SS-1 - a V-2 derivative - but the Scud is in no
way a dervivative of the SS-1.

Is the Scud a liquid fuel missile? Is it a solid? If liquid, what fuels does
it use? What is its engine designation? What design bureau created its engine?
What is its specific impulse?


--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 05:48:36 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement/Shuttle Costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edmund Hack) writes:
>Note that a lot of the SSTO supporters are treating their R&D costs
>as well as the site prep costs as sunk costs and not charging them
>against the ops costs...  This is not uncommon in DOD accounting for
>weaposn systems costing.  The cost of R&D and initial tooling is charged
>against the first unit out the assembly line.  After that, the "Flyaway
>cost" is what is looked at.  From a commerical accounting view,this is
>bogus, but from a year-to-year appropriations point of view, it makes a
>twisted kind of sense.

It also makes sense if you consider the R&D and production to be two
separate programs, the first justified as technology development rather
than solely for feedthrough into the second.  Even commercial accounting,
done sanely, would accord some value to development of new capabilities
that are relevant to future projects too.  (This is not a claim that any
existing company does sane accounting. :-))

>... Allen and I differ on who should develop and manage DC-Y - I
>favor Griffin's office of Exploration combined with Ames/Dryden.

That would be a reasonable combination.  Unfortunately, that's *not* who
would get the job if it were given to NASA.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 00:47:01 GMT
From: Mike Van Pelt <[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] writes:
>Robert Sheaffer may be "Skepticus Maximus", but for the rest of us
>with open minds, please consider the source.

That works both ways -- Hoagland is rather notorious for becoming
wildly enthusiastic about stuff that he's somewhat clue-impaired on.
After all, he's a journalist, not a scientist, though his science
knowledge is definitely on the high end for journalists.  He's also a
fascinating speaker when he gets the bit in his teeth.  Did you ever
see his "Thing in the Ring" presentation?  Decent science fiction based
on a puzzling item in Saturns rings, which turned out to have a more
mundane cause than Hoagland's admitted speculations. Then there's his
"Pyramids of Mars" hobby-horse, which maybe makes a fair Dr. Who episode.

I don't know anything about his latest, but it sounds like part of
a downward slide in credibility.

Like you said, consider the source.

--
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
[e-mail]         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry

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

Date: 6 Dec 92 23:21:20 GMT
From: Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors

[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.  I've been seeing more and
> more things from Oberg lately, and I *never* see this connection
> mentioned, only his NASA ties.
>
> Robert Sheaffer may be "Skepticus Maximus", but for the rest of us
> with open minds, please consider the source.
>
> Barb

    Uh, that's "CSICOP."

    Now, granted, such a gaffe is a strong indication that I'm not going
to get a very substantial answer to my next question, I'll ask it anyway;
since when does association with CSICOP automatically discredit what one has
to say? Frankly, Oberg's credits re NASA and research onthe Soviet space
program are pretty strong, and are certainly relevant-- more so than the
CSICOP info.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  [e-mail]
Servo: "Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard."
Joel:  "Why is my life messed up? Page 74."
Servo: "When will this movie end? Page 155."
Crow:  "How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 85."
                                       "Mystery Science Theater 3000,"
                                       during a volcano scene in
                                       "Hercules and the Moon Men."

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 23:16:53 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 53
1 22259U 92 86  A 92342.35416666  .00052925  00000-0  25599-3 0   157
2 22259  56.9982 151.0910 0010421 273.9963 347.0358 15.82037202   757
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 06:05:11 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: US/Sov space comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>... What I was specifically responding to was the comment that they were
>"not that far behind" in the capability to land on the surface.  Maybe it's
>just a matter of what one considers "not that far."  I personally consider the
>Soviet lunar landing program a complete failure and I was just wondering
>whether Henry had different data then I did.

There's precious little data available on the N-1 as yet, and just about
nothing on the Soviet lander.  However, the crucial thing to realize is
that the Soviet program was indeed a complete failure, but *not* because
of technical problems.  Its primary mission was not lunar science; it
was Getting There First.  They didn't drop it because they couldn't make
it work; they dropped it because there was no point in continuing it once
the US had won the race.  (Much the same way the US dropped Apollo,
actually, only with less TV coverage...)

The Soviets appear to have expected the US to have more development
problems than actually occurred.  Oberg's estimate is that in early 1969,
the Soviets estimated an Apollo landing as most probable in mid-1972.
On that schedule, they were still in the race, or at least they would
have been if Korolev had been alive to run the show.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 8 Dec 92 02:08:48 GMT
From: "Matt J. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager Icon
Newsgroups: sci.space

  A friend of mine is looking for a printout of the DeVinchi "Man in Motion"
(or whatever the name of it is) that was printed on the side of the Voyager
probes (along with the gold record of the sounds of humanity and the other
memorabilia for any casual passers by to inspect.)  Is this picture
on ftp somewhere?

  Thanks in advance,


---
  ##########################################################################
  ##   /   ##               Progress Before Peace!               ##   /   ##
  ##  //   ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ##  //   ##
  ## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
  ##   //  ##        Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN       ##   //  ##
  ##   /   ##           [e-mail]            ##   /   ##
  ##########################################################################

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 522
------------------------------