home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Space & Astronomy
/
Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso
/
mac
/
TEXT
/
SPACEDIG
/
V16_1
/
V16NO121.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1993-07-13
|
34KB
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 93 05:00:28
From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Space Digest V16 #121
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk
Space Digest Thu, 4 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 121
Today's Topics:
An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Challenger transcript
FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
Gaspra GIFs Available
Launching using Pegasus (2 msgs)
Space Life Sciences programs (was Microgravity Research Today)
Space Station Freedom Media Handbook - 5/18
Well.. (2 msgs)
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:26:52 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1kmr1sINNglb@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>>[...] if we only were to use cheap Soviet hardware, we could do more in
>>>space than we do now for only a fraction of the cost.
>>>If this is true, why didn't the Soviets do it?
>>They did.
>Really? Let me see...two or three times a year, they put two or three guys
>in a capsule and shoot them up to a station, where they trade off with a couple
>of guys there and come back down.
Which is far far more than we can do. BTW, it also means they spend three
to four days in space for every day we do.
Not bad for a backward nation.
>I'm not sure what they do there...
Pretty much the same thing we do; except they can do a lot more. Oh, they
do have a facility which produces commercial semiconductor materials. NASA
has no plans for that for the next 20 years or so.
>My point is that if Soviet equipment is so cheap and wonderful, how come the
>Russians haven't gone anywhere with it?
Largely because they are a poor nation I suspect. Even at their height
in now{turns out that they didn't have all that much.
But the point isn't what they can do, it is what WE can do with intelligent
leveraging. Spending 10% on Russian hardware could save us billions. What's
wrong with that?
>They've been stuck at a low level of activity...
I look at their launch manifests and then look at ours. I think we are the
ones stuck at the low level of activity. They can do this since they
don't pay 10 times what they need to for launches like we do.
>>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs
>>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced?
>Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space
>transport.
Like what?
>Capsules were the first generation, and the Shuttle is the second.
Great! I hope we quit at the second generation. Every new generation
doubles the cost of access to space. We won't be able to launch NASA's
third generation system because it will be too expensive.
YOur putting the cart before the horse here. Raising costs won't get us
anywhere.
>We're already working on the third and fourth, with things like SSTO and
>NASP.
NASA is spending it's SSTO efforts trying to kill the SDIO effort. As for
NASP, NASP is dead. (BTW, those backward Russians are doing more scramjet
testing than we are).
>Listening to you, the Russians should already be all over the...
All I am saying is that we can intelligently leverage our efforts using
some of their hardware. Why is that such a problem?
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| aws@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------133 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
------------------------------
Date: 3 Feb 1993 00:11:53 GMT
From: Stephen Strazdus <sstrazdu@vulcan.intel.com>
Subject: Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
In article <1kh760INN4b@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>
>Can someone who does not insist on remaining anonymous comment on the
>credibility of this?
Something similar to this was posted to one of these groups a year or so
ago. It was taken from the Weekly World News, one of those
tabloid journals. I wouldn't bet my house that it is true.
--
Steve Strazdus sstrazdu@sedona.intel.com
80960 Design (602) 554-3867
------------------------------
Date: 2 Feb 93 17:04:03 -0600
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space
The Technologies described below could be used to power spacecraft, space
colonies, etc.:
FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly. It would
violate the "laws" of physics. All of the "experts" and
"authorities" said so.
For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901: "The
demonstration that no possible combination of known
substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of
force, can be united in a practical machine by which man
shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer
as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any
physical fact to be."
Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright
Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final
word. Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they
crash).
Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are
saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy'
Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science"
and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which
assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law
of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful
energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics"). The physicists do not
know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare
that those things cannot be done. Such PRINCIPLES OF
IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to
cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox
modern theories.
Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a
seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with-
OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT
SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated
pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment.
Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy,
but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by
various forms of induction. UNLIKE solar or wind devices,
they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they
can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed. Solar energy
has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by
clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced
by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and
high latitudes. Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and
often non-existent. Neither solar nor wind power are
suitable to directly power cars and airplanes. Properly
designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations.
For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058,
#3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for
motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly
tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic
field. The first two require a feedback network in order to
be self-running. The third one, as described in detail in
"Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing
Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117,
and front cover), requires critical sizes, shapes,
orientations, and spacings of magnets, but NO feedback. Such
a motor could drive an electric generator or reversible
heatpump in one's home, YEAR ROUND, FOR FREE. [Complete
descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each from the
U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try
getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your
local public or university library's inter-library loan
dept..]
A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray
Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the
unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps ELECTRO-
MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12
cycles per second plus harmonics). They typically have a
'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the
energy in the coils with the energy being tapped. It is
important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of
the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as
'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output.
This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP
at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent
magnet. In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID
CHOKE COIL' around the secondary coil will enhance output
power. ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems",
by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70,
Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245.]
During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named
Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an
'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after
analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped
waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical
equations to explain it. As described in the book "A
Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson,
1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a
LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a
CRITICAL VELOCITY. The water then IMPLODES, no longer
touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump,
which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC
GENERATOR. The device seems to be tapping energy from that
of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A
TORNADO. [It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY!]
A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock
Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between
a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression
ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and
planetary gears). It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running
by driving its own air compressor. This engine also
generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat
buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large
trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills.
[David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the
automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.]
Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown
in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between
metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of
particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a
common household smoke detector.
One other energy source should be mentioned here,
despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free
Energy. A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph
Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION
reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive
deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities
from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be
converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting
steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power
a house or large enough to power a city. And UNLIKE the
"Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about,
Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power
for every watt put in. ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78,
pages 32-40.]
And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that
have been in the news lately, originally conducted by
University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin
Fleischmann. Some U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake
Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of
chemist Melvin Miles, finally took the trouble to collect
the bubbles coming from such an apparatus, had them analyzed
with mass-spectrometry techniques, and found HELIUM 4, which
PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed take place, and enough
of it to explain the excess heat generated.
There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the two so-called "laws"
of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute". For example, the
late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive
GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
calls the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail
in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The
Universe of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe
has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter
half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing
between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by
thermodynamic "laws". His Theory explains the universe MUCH
BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena
that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching
their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way. Some
Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow,
seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality
energy".
Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat'
and 'Eckankar' teach their Members that the physical universe
is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of
existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV
channels, as described in books like "The Path of the
Masters", by Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key to
Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969. For example,
the next level up from the physical universe is commonly
called the 'Astral Plane'. Long-time Members of these groups
have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and
report on conditions there. It seems plausible that energy
could flow down from these higher levels into the physical
universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given
the right configuration of matter to channel it. This is
supported by many successful laboratory-controlled
experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the world, such as
those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the
Iron Curtain".
In terms of economics, the market has FAILED. Inventors
do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop
and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional
energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their
VE$TED INTERE$T$. The government is needed to intervene. If
the government does not intervene, then the total supply of
energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and
will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and
pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE
EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil
spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue
to increase.
The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development
of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize
private production (until the producers can make it on their
own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of
Free Energy Hardware.
The long-range effects of such government intervention
would be wide-spread and profound. The quantity of energy
demanded from conventional energy producer$ (coal mining
companie$, oil companie$ and countries, electric utilitie$,
etc.) would drop to near zero, forcing their employees to
seek work elsewhere. Energy resources (coal, uranium, oil,
and gas) would be left in the ground. Prices for
conventional energy supplies would also drop to near zero,
while the price of Free Energy Equipment would start out high
but drop as supply increases (as happened with VCR's,
personal computers, etc.). Costs of producing products that
require large quantities of energy to produce would decrease,
along with their prices to consumers. Consumers would be
able to realize the "opportunity costs" of paying electric
utility bills or buying home heating fuel. Tourism would
benefit and increase because travelers would not have to
spend their money for gasoline for their cars. Government
tax revenue from gasoline and other fuels would have to be
obtained in some other way. And energy could no longer be
used as a MOTIVE OR EXCUSE FOR MAKING WAR.
Many conventional energy producer$ would go out of
business, but society as a whole, and the earth's environment
and ecosystems, would benefit greatly. It is the People,
that government should serve, rather than the big
corporation$ and bank$.
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics, UW-EC
------------------------------
Date: 3 Feb 1993 01:53 UT
From: Ron Baalke <baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Gaspra GIFs Available
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
==========================
GASPRA GIF IMAGES
February 2, 1993
==========================
Two more Gaspra images are now available in GIF format. Note that the
images are in GIF89a format, so make sure your display software supports this
format (as opposed to the older GIF87a format). The two images were scanned
in from photographs, and are not the raw data. The caption files accompanying
the images are appended at the end of this message, as well as being embedded
in the images. The images are available using anonymous ftp to:
ftp: ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
user: anonymous
cd: pub/SPACE/GIF
files:
gaspra4.gif Gaspra approach sequence (11 images). P-41383
gaspra4.txt (Caption file)
gaspra5.gif Gaspra, Deimos, and Phobos compared. P-41382
gaspra5.txt (Caption file)
Photographic prints of these Gaspra images can be ordered from Newell Color
Lab listed below. Refer to the P number associated with the images when
ordering.
Newell Color Lab
221 N. Westmoreland Avenue
Los Angeles CA 90064
Telephone: (213) 380-2980
FAX: (213) 739-6984
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
gaspra4.txt
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
PHOTO CAPTION GALILEO
December 1, 1992 P-41383
TOP GLL/GA6
This montage of 11 images taken by the Galileo spacecraft as
it flew by the asteroid Gaspra on October 29, 1991, shows Gaspra
growing progressively larger in the field of view of Galileo's
solid-state imaging camera as the spacecraft approached the
asteroid. Sunlight is coming from the right. Gaspra is roughly
17 kilometers (10 miles) long, 10 kilometers (6 miles) wide.
The earliest view (upper left) was taken 5 3/4 hours before
closest approach when the spacecraft was 164,000 kilometers
(102,000 miles) from Gaspra, the last (lower right)at a range of
16,000 kilometers (10,000 miles), 30 minutes before closest
approach.
Gaspra spins once in roughly 7 hours, so these images
capture almost one full rotation of the asteroid. Gaspra spins
counterclockwise; its north pole is to the upper left, and the
"nose" which points upward in the first image, is seen rotating
back into shadow, emerging at lower left, and rotating to upper
right. Several craters are visible on the newly seen sides of
Gaspra, but none approaches the scale of the asteroid's radius.
Evidently, Gaspra lacks the large craters common on the surfaces
of many planetary satellites, consistent with Gaspra's
comparatively recent origin from the collisional breakup of a
larger body.
The Galileo project, whose primary mission is the
exploration of the Jupiter system in 1995-97, is managed for
NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
gaspra5.txt
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
PHOTO CAPTION GALILEO
December 1, 1992 P-41382
TOP GLL/GA7
This montage shows asteroid 951 Gaspra (top) compared with
Deimos (lower left) and Phobos (lower right), the moons of Mars.
The three bodies are shown at the same scale and nearly the same
lighting conditions. Gaspra is about 17 kilometers (10 miles)
long.
All three bodies have irregular shapes, due to past
catastrophic conditions. However their surfaces appear
remarkably different, possibly because of differences in
composition but most likely because of very different impact
histories.
The Phobos and Deimos images were obtained by the Viking
Orbiter spacecraft in 1977; the Gaspra image is the best of a
series obtained by the Galileo spacecraft on October 29, 1991.
Galileo is scheduled to add the detailed view of another asteroid
when it flies by Ida in August 1993.
The Galileo project, whose primary mission is the
exploration of the Jupiter system in 1995-97, is managed for
NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.
#####
___ _____ ___
/_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
| | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab |
___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never yell "Movie!" in a
/___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | crowded fire station.
|_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ |
------------------------------
Date: 2 Feb 1993 23:51:05 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Launching using Pegasus
Newsgroups: sci.space
There are some talk in the Brazilian community that the Brazilian
satellite, which is scheduled to be launched from a Pegasus rocket,
does not have any insurance. I am wondering if any one here in the
NET could coment on that whether it is true or not. It seems kind of
dumb not insure this satellite since Pegasus was used only twice in
the past and in the second mission did not work very well. In this
case the insurance would have to be provided by Orbital Science Corp.
(the builder of Pegasus) or it is responsability of the Brazilian Space
Agency to insure the satellite?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:41:13 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Launching using Pegasus
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1kn1d9INNg45@rave.larc.nasa.gov> claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
>Subject: Launching using Pegasus
>Date: 2 Feb 1993 23:51:05 GMT
>There are some talk in the Brazilian community that the Brazilian
>satellite, which is scheduled to be launched from a Pegasus rocket,
>does not have any insurance. I am wondering if any one here in the
>NET could coment on that whether it is true or not. It seems kind of
>dumb not insure this satellite since Pegasus was used only twice in
>the past and in the second mission did not work very well. In this
>case the insurance would have to be provided by Orbital Science Corp.
>(the builder of Pegasus) or it is responsability of the Brazilian Space
>Agency to insure the satellite?
>
>
It was my understanding that the underwriters would not insure payloads
on launch vehicles with less than the minimum nuber need to estimate
the risk. I do not know what the minimum number is, but I bet it is more
than two.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:17:02 GMT
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Space Life Sciences programs (was Microgravity Research Today)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1km8kmINN926@rave.larc.nasa.gov>,
claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
> Huntsville, of course... On the other hand, if it is Life Sciences, the
> real place to be is JSC, Houston.
Would anybody care to comment on the Space Life Sciences program at the
University of Colorado? I've heard of a group associated with the Aerospace
Engineering department that does a lot of the man/machine interface sort of
research that is, if I recall correctly, called BioServe Technologies.
My understanding was that it was a good place to work if you wanted to do
some significant things associated with the manned space flight program.
Thoughts, comments?
-Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 00:53:47 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca>
Subject: Space Station Freedom Media Handbook - 5/18
Newsgroups: sci.space
From NASA SPACELINK:
"6_10_2_5_3.TXT" (3683 bytes) was created on 10-15-92
Program Description
Work Packages
In 1987, NASA let competitive procurements for the major space
station contractor work called "Work Packages." Four NASA Centers
were selected to manage the contractor work.
The Work Package Centers are responsible for:
1) design, development, testing and evaluation;
2) operation of hardware and software systems; and
3) integration of element evolution, engineering support and user
operations
Work Package 1
The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, and
its prime contractor, Boeing Defense & Space Group will design and
manufacture the Habitation Module; the U.S. Laboratory Module; the
logistics elements; the resource node structures connecting the
modules; the Environmental Control and Life Support System; and
the Thermal Control and audio-video systems located within the
pressurized modules. In addition, MSFC is responsible for operations
capability development associated with Freedom Station payload
operations and planning, laboratory-support and ground-support
equipment.
Work Package 2
The Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas, and its prime
contractor, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, will
manufacture: the integrated truss assembly; the propulsion
assembly; the mobile transporter system; the outfitting of the
resource node structures provided by Work Package 1; the Extra-
Vehicular Activity (EVA) system; the external Thermal Control
system; the attachment systems for the Space Shuttle and
experiments packages; the Guidance, Navigation and Control System;
the Communications and Tracking System; the Data Management
System; the airlocks; crew health care systems (CHeCS); and user
accommodations. It is also responsible for the technical direction of
the Work Package 1 contractor for the design and development of all
manned systems.
Mission Operations Project Office (MOPO)
The MOPO, also located at JSC, is responsible for:
* Operational capability development for the Space Station
Control Center (SSCC) and associated operations support systems,
* Operational capability development for the Space Station
Training Facility (SSTF) and associated training support systems,
* Flight crew and ground controller training,
* Integrated planning of real-time operations and utilization
activities,
* Integration of SSF and Shuttle real-time operations,
* Management of space systems operations, and
* Overall operational command and control.
Work Package 3
The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland, and
its prime contractor, GE Astro-Space, originally intended to
manufacture: the servicing facility, the flight telerobotic servicer, the
accommodations for attached payloads, and the U.S. unmanned free-
flyer platforms. However, in 1991, these elements were either
terminated or transferred to other NASA organizations and this work
package was dissolved.
Work Package 4
The Lewis Research Center (LeRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, and its prime
contractor, the Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International, will
design and manufacture the Electrical Power Systems.
Kennedy Space Center (KSC)
Although not a Work Package Center, KSC is responsible for:
* Launch sites,
* Launch site common ground support equipment,
* Launch site facilities to support pre-launch/post-landing
processing, payload processing, and logistics,
* Management and operations of integrated logistics systems,
and
* Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF).
These areas of responsibility are more thoroughly discussed in the
KSC section.
The above Work Package Centers will be supported by other NASA
Centers in fulfilling their responsibilities.
The material above is one of many files from SPACELINK
A Space-Related Informational Database
Provided by the NASA Educational Affairs Division
Operated by the Marshall Space Flight Center
On a Data General ECLIPSE MV7800 Minicomputer
SPACELINK may be contacted in three ways:
1) Using a modem, by phone at 205-895-0028
2) Using Telnet, at spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov
3) Using FTP capability. Username is anonymous and Password is guest.
Address is 192.149.89.61.
--
Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 23:44:35 GMT
From: Kevin Scruggs <scruggs@zeus.franklin.edu>
Subject: Well..
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
In article <uLgByB2w165w@gilligan.tsoft.net> bbs.maddox@gilligan.tsoft.net (Otto Maddox) writes:
> How long would it take a ship traveling at Warp 1 to get to a
>planet that is 60 light years away?
60 years... from the formulas I've seen...
Warp 1 = c...
>
> I have a an answer in my head but I wanna see if I am doing this
>thing
>right.
>
>
>Otto Maddox
>[ bbs.maddox@tsoft.net ] [ maddox@west.darkside.com ]
--
||| ...Your future hasn't been written yet.
/ | \ No one's has. Your future is what
=Mysh+Krysa= you make it...
-Emmet L. Brown-
------------------------------
Date: 3 Feb 1993 00:23:43 GMT
From: nicolas produit <produit@ux5.lbl.gov>
Subject: Well..
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.misc,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Lets get it straight and make the experiment like that:
Someone (A) leave the earth at speed c (warp 1 relative to earth)
and go to a planet 60 light year away from earth.
When he is there he explode an atomic bomb.
1-Someone on earth has to wait 120 year to see the explosion.
2-If you are A then the time you will register between starting
from earth and exploding the bomb will be zero (this is not a typo
I mean 0)
So it is a very dangerous experiment to do and it is why nobody made
it yet.
The chance is that the guy A make a vanishing small timing mistake
and he blow the earth instead of the other planet.
By the way for A the experiment is not dangerous at all, when the
bomb explode he is already light years away....
Nicolas
------------------------------
End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 121
------------------------------
