Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO167.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 20:40:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #167
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:
                Antimatter/Atomic Booms for Jettison!
                        Apollo Program photos
             Getting people into Space Program! (4 msgs)
                    hardware on the moon (2 msgs)
                          hilarious (2 msgs)
                 I have a dream! People into Space..
                              man-rating
     Other shuttles (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
              parachutes on Challenger? Ejection Seats!
                 Refueling Freedom/Japanese Business
                          Shuttles! (toher)
                Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
         Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list

    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: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 05:08:30 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter/Atomic Booms for Jettison!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>The concept of criticality does not clearly apply to an antimatter
>engine, since, for one thing, it doesn't depend on a chain reaction
>for its operation.  You might as well say "the reactor's gone
>cinnamon."

Yes, I was referring to the "atomic reactor" part of his question.

>> However, that happens
>> less often in real life than it does on Star Trek.

>While I agree that *Star Trek* has lots of dangerous and undependable
>equipment in evidence, I'm not sure anybody actually uses nuclear
>fission for anything.

????

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 00:10:16 GMT
From: David Breneman <kopachuk!dcb>
Subject: Apollo Program photos
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Gassaway)  writes:
>I am currently researching Apollo-7 for the purposes of creating and
>documenting detailed drawings of the Saturn-IB launch vehicle. This is for
>the purpose of building detailed scale models.
>
Deletions...
>
>Does anyone know of who might have Apollo program videodiscs that have the
>kind of numerous photo stills (with the critically important photo
>numbers) I'm talking about? Or suggest some other NASA branch to ask?
>
Deletions...

How about the Skylab and Apollo/Soyuz missions?  Weren't those also
launched on Saturn 1Bs?


--
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
[e-mail]           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      | "Zinc & cadmium plating stops |  /   ____/ /
CompuServe: <DEAD>        |  rust & acts as a lubricant!" |

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 02:22:28 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>What is this fascination you have with airliners?

An airliner has about the same number of parts as a typical launcher. The
tollerances to which those parts are built are about the same. It takes
about the same amount of fuel to get to LEO as an airliner takes to get
to Australia.

Getting to space should cost no more than a small multiple of the cost
of getting to Australia.

>And, as far as the usefulness bit goes, since the United States government is
>paying for the flight, using my tax dollars, I expect it to get its moneys'
>worth.

How would you know if they whern't?

>Oh, one other thing: if the Shuttle is evil incarnate, as you claim, why is
>every major space organization in the world trying to come up with their
>own?

Like who?

    Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------126 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 9 Feb 1993 21:39:31 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>What is this fascination you have with airliners?

>Getting to space should cost no more than a small multiple of the cost
>of getting to Australia.

Agreed.

If Edward used this explanation, I would understand him.  However, he just
mumbles about the number of launches and the fact that a 747 can hold every
astronaut that ever lived.  It doesn't make sense.

>>Oh, one other thing: if the Shuttle is evil incarnate, as you claim, why is
>>every major space organization in the world trying to come up with their
>>own?

>Like who?

Like every major space organization in the world.  Namely Russia, ESA, and to
a lesser extent Japan.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 04:11:17 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>What is this fascination you have with airliners?  If there's not as many
>launches into space as there are flights of airplanes, it's not right?  I
>don't quite understand what you are trying to say.

I'm not fascinated with airliners.  I think they're quite boring, really,
compared to, say, the SR-71.  But they are handy.  They get where I want
to go.  The Shuttle (like the SR-71) doesn't.


>And, as far as the usefulness bit goes, since the United States government is
>paying for the flight, using my tax dollars, I expect it to get its moneys'
>worth.

Your tax dollars?  That .edu address wouldn't mean you're a student,
would it?  If you're interested in getting your money's worth, why
are you supporting an agency that's spending $36 billion for a space
station that should cost no more than $4 billion even as a government
project?


>Oh, one other thing: if the Shuttle is evil incarnate, as you claim, why is
>every major space organization in the world trying to come up with their
>own?

They aren't.  The Soviets built their own Shuttleski, flew it once,
and decided it was too expensive to fly again.


>>>Baloney.  Number one, Congress isn't *quite* that stupid, and number two,
>>>NASA has quite a constituency.  Do you have any evidence for you claim,
>>>other than your wishful thining?


>News flash: they didn't cancel the program after Challenger, and they likely
>won't cancel it after the next one, unless there is a *flying* replacement.

Yeah, if you whistle loud enough, maybe nothing will rise out of that
graveyard.  Just keep saying that....


>In addition, we've had more flights since Challenger than before, and it's
>been longer now since the accident than the time from the start of the program
>to Challenger.  One accident every five to ten years is in all likelihood an
>acceptable rate to Congress.

You have no idea how Congress operates.  That is obvious.



>Ed, do you understand what a commercial airline does?  Commercial airlines
>take people from point A to point B.  In case you are unaware, there is no
>point B in space.

Gee, really?  I thought there were lots of point B in space.

>Until there *is* a point B, there's not going to be a
>spaceline and there's not going to be hundreds of launches a day.  Disparaging
>the space program because it doesn't launch enough to suit you is pointless.

You just don't get it, do you?  Air travel didn't develop in this
country because of any aviation program.  It developed because of
the almighty dollar, which you despise, not because of Buck Rogers.
Space development isn't being held back because NASA has too little
money -- industry doesn't give a damn about Tin Can Freedom -- it's
held back because NASA has too much money, and enough political clout
to protect its empire from competition by anyone who isn't satisfied
with the leisurely pace of NASA progress.  We have the technology to
build a real spaceship, not a glorified artillery shell.  A ship that
can fly the 6:15 to orbit carrying anyone willing to pay a few thousand
dollars for the ticket, not just a few superhero pilots and astronauts
travelling at government expense.  A ship that can operate out of commercial
spaceports anywhere in the world, not just a few giant artillery ranges.
A ship that can operate rain or shine, day or not, with the reliability
and flight rates achieved by commercial airliners.  A ship that can be
built for less than the cost of one Shuttle flight and open up the space
frontier for real development.  You may not see the potential of a ship
like that.  Too bad.  Those of us who do are not going to sit back and
see te opportunity squandered for the benefit of shortsighted bureaucrats
and Buck Rogers.

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

Date: 10 Feb 1993 00:42:02 -0600
From: Robert Fentiman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
:In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

:Your tax dollars?  That .edu address wouldn't mean you're a student,

.edu could imply a professor or anyone else who has an account at an
educational institute with internet access.

:would it?  If you're interested in getting your money's worth, why
:are you supporting an agency that's spending $36 billion for a space
:station that should cost no more than $4 billion even as a government
:project?

Keep in mind that the 36 billion is a LONG term budget (NOT what it
costs to just build the thing, but to support it over a number of years
- 4 billion is a GROSS underestimate when it comes to that).

:>Oh, one other thing: if the Shuttle is evil incarnate, as you claim, why is
:>every major space organization in the world trying to come up with their
:>own?
:
:They aren't.  The Soviets built their own Shuttleski, flew it once,
:and decided it was too expensive to fly again.

Not surprising considering the state of their economy.

:>>>Baloney.  Number one, Congress isn't *quite* that stupid, and number two,
:>>>NASA has quite a constituency.  Do you have any evidence for you claim,
:>>>other than your wishful thining?

:>News flash: they didn't cancel the program after Challenger, and they likely
:>won't cancel it after the next one, unless there is a *flying* replacement.
:
:Yeah, if you whistle loud enough, maybe nothing will rise out of that
:graveyard.  Just keep saying that....

NASA has stated that the shuttle design is starting to show it's age.
As I understand it, it is a design meant to last about 20 years at most
(I could be wrong, but I seem to remember coming across this information
when researching for a paper on the Space Station)

:>Ed, do you understand what a commercial airline does?  Commercial airlines
:>take people from point A to point B.  In case you are unaware, there is no
:>point B in space.
:
:Gee, really?  I thought there were lots of point B in space.

(Did you intend a smiley here?  Please excuse the following comments if
you did).  The point, I believe, was that Airlines are in the business
for transportation, while the shuttle is designed to be living quarters
and lab as well.

:>Until there *is* a point B, there's not going to be a
:>spaceline and there's not going to be hundreds of launches a day.  Disparaging
:>the space program because it doesn't launch enough to suit you is pointless.
:
:You just don't get it, do you?  Air travel didn't develop in this
:country because of any aviation program.  It developed because of
:the almighty dollar, which you despise, not because of Buck Rogers.
:Space development isn't being held back because NASA has too little
:money -- industry doesn't give a damn about Tin Can Freedom -- it's
:held back because NASA has too much money, and enough political clout
:to protect its empire from competition by anyone who isn't satisfied
:with the leisurely pace of NASA progress.  We have the technology to
:build a real spaceship, not a glorified artillery shell.  A ship that
:can fly the 6:15 to orbit carrying anyone willing to pay a few thousand
:dollars for the ticket, not just a few superhero pilots and astronauts
:travelling at government expense.  A ship that can operate out of commercial
:spaceports anywhere in the world, not just a few giant artillery ranges.
:A ship that can operate rain or shine, day or not, with the reliability
:and flight rates achieved by commercial airliners.  A ship that can be
:built for less than the cost of one Shuttle flight and open up the space
:frontier for real development.  You may not see the potential of a ship
:like that.  Too bad.  Those of us who do are not going to sit back and
:see te opportunity squandered for the benefit of shortsighted bureaucrats
:and Buck Rogers.

Interesting view.  Unfortunately, I think you are overestimating our
technology, not to mention having a misconception of NASA.  NASA's
entire goal is scientific study, not a commercial venture.  Commercial
ventures in space are comming up, and are the main focus of such things
as the Japanese spage agency.  NASA launches commercial payloads for two
main reasons: 1) To help pay for the program, 2) they get to use data
collected from experiments.  If you're complaining about the cost of the
Shuttle, complain to the builders (not NASA).  They set the prices.

As for making a vehicle that does all the the shuttle's jobs for less
money, I find it unlikely.  The shuttle is designed to get the most
efficient use of space and consumnables as possible so it can stay up an
optimal amount of time.  Commercial airlines have lower tolerances in
their parts (if you want to equate the Shuttle to that).  The shuttle
has to survive the riggors of both atmosphere and space, both of which
can be very damaging.  In the atmosphere, it's very similar to planes,
but must also withstand the heat of re-entry as well as the turbulence
associated with that action.  In space, you have widely varying
temperatures, contant pelting of dust particles (as well as occasional
larger space debris) - and if you don't think those factors are
damaging, ask an areospace engineer.  There are also other factors
which, due to the lenght of this letter and lack of more specific
examples, I will not mention.

    Thanks
    Robert Fentiman

InterNet: [e-mail]
At: University of Minnesota, Duluth


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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 05:04:03 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>Speaking of US hardware on the Moon, it all belongs to the
>Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.  And the Apollo 11
>site has been designated a National Monument, belonging to the
>National Park Service.

:-)

Yeah.  And the nearest Ranger station's only 250,000 miles
away.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 06:10:56 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: hardware on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>And the Apollo 11
>site has been designated a National Monument, belonging to the
>National Park Service.

Does some provision of international law allow this sort of declaration
or was this a "unilateral" declaration by the U.S.?

(Just out of curiosity...)

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 19:04:38 GMT
From: Jyrki Kuoppala <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]>, niebuhr@bnlux1 (david niebuhr) writes:
>I personally don't find anything funny in bone cancer, childhood
>leukemia or a horrifying death.  This person has a very sick mind
>and should be locked away until his/her mental processes are brought
>under control.

Hmm, does anyone have orbital mind-control lasers to spare?

>Better yet, why not ignore anything from anon.penet.fi regardless of whose
>name is given.

Better yet, why not nuke anon.penet.fi - no, wait, let's nuke all of
Finland out of the face of the planet.

//Jyrki

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 05:59:55 GMT
From: Bill Stewart [phone] <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (david niebuhr) writes:
   Better yet, why not ignore anything from anon.penet.fi regardless of whose
   name is given.

Kill files will take care of that for you quite nicely.

While they were primarily intended for killing off discussions and
articles reposted by broken gateways, you could always do
    /anon.penet.fi/h:j
if you use rn or the equivalent for your favorite other newsreader
if you feel that way.
--
#                Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 [e-mail] AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ

#         ... counting stars by candlelight

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 05:50:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: I have a dream! People into Space..
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

As the President has asked what sacrifices are we the US propulation willing to
make. Well maybe it is our dependence on the FED that is one of the
sacrifices.. Namely in the area of Space related research. Mayeb what is needed
is to dismantle much of NASA, more commericalisation/private area research
(including non-profit organizations).. To go for less costly but just as
effective ways for space research. USe royalties from NASA and other US
government reseacrh to help defray costs of the Space Programs (such as NASA)
work on Space Development and not Space Programs..
Work on a clearer direction and course for Space usages..
Catch the common peoples imagination, and give them a reason to want to support
the space research of the Federal Government. Get the individual states of the
union involved..
More pan-national space projects.. Better ties with other space agencies,
private corporations and non-profit space related organizations..
Maybe better cordination of non-profit organiations and co-operation between
eeach other.. Watch out for to special interest groups/lobbying groups..

We need to sell the dream to the next generation of US population/citizen.

We all need to keep an open mind about new/old reused technology..
So something did not work 50 or so years ago, that does not mean it will not
work now..
So an idea sounds "crazy" but that does not mean that it will not work!
I liek the idea of a lottery for a future space mission. Why do I liek it,
cause it gets the normal on the street person a chance to be part of the
development of space. If we leave the common people out of the clique of space,
all we get is an apathetic population who care little about wether we even have
a space program..
We need to work on ways to let the people of the US to know what the benefits
of Space research are, after all they who vote are the ones who give the Space
establishment the money to do that same research.. I have a call so I must
leave now..
Quyanna for your time..

Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]
Living on the Last Frontier is a fun time!
Nome, Alaska..

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

Date: 9 Feb 1993 15:03:47 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: man-rating
Newsgroups: sci.space

Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

That rule was waived for the Shuttle.  amidst some controversy.

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

Date: 9 Feb 1993 21:12:02 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Other shuttles (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Leech) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>|> Oh, one other thing: if the Shuttle is evil incarnate, as you claim, why is
>|> every major space organization in the world trying to come up with their
>|> own?

>    Seems to me that the Russians came up with their own and decided it was
>too expensive, and ESA basically decided the same for Hermes. Perhaps
>they're better able to analyze the costs and benefits when they don't have a
>huge sunk investment to justify to their political masters?

Well, the Russians are still planning to launch their shuttle again (I forget
the date, unfortunately) so I'd say it's not dead.  As I understand it, the
original batch of problems they had were technical, and since then the breakup
of the USSR has caught up with them.

Hermes is still on, although there's political infighting going on over it.

>    I don't think there *are* any other major space organizations. I guess
>HOPE could be considered to be based on the shuttle, but you don't see NASDA
>incredibly committed to the project. Did you have anyone in mind other than
>Russia, Europe, and Japan?

HOPE is indeed a shuttle program, although unmanned.  There's also at least
some consideration being given to a manned shuttle, although it's not a
priority at all.

The point I am getting at, I would say, is that with the sole exception of the
Russians, nobody is considering using disposable capsules for their manned
access to space, and the Russians themselves are or were trying to get away
from it.  Seems like everyone's trying to forward, except for certain elements
here in the U.S.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 05:24:08 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger? Ejection Seats!
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Wow Astronauts have lost alot of clout over the year.
>If Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had not had some way to see
>and get down to earth safely they would have made
>the designers create one.. (Window they did)..

     ...above edited for legibility...

     Keep in mind that the astronauts did not have much faith in
     the Gemini ejection seats. In fact, Wally Schirra chose to
     ride out a very dangerous engine shutdown rather than punch
     out.

>Maybe what is needed is to have astronauts to organize and bsically say, you
>design the next shuttle with a ejection module or something, or we will not
>fly!!

     John Young essentially did, but don't hold your breath waiting
     for Shuttle Mk.II.

     Please see the previous post regarding Hermes and the view taken
     by its potential astronauts.

     -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 05:22:23 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling Freedom/Japanese Business
Newsgroups: sci.space

>I know the japanese they don't do anything part way or overly rash.
>They think the long term.. They don't get much into quicky deals (atleast not
>in the business area).. So basically Im saying is that they have lost
>confidence in the shuttle and think it just might be a flash in the pan..
>and not an item for the long term..

>Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth [e-mail]

   Your basic argument is sound, but I wouldn't use "flash in the
   pan" to describe the Shuttle. For all its faults and failures,
   its been flying for nearly twelve years. Thats no flash in the
   pan.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 00:28:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttles! (toher)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Seems liek what is needed is two shuttles.. One for crew replacement and the
other for large cargo..

Basically a space plane and a heavy lifter (probably not a space plane device)

The current shutle does not seem to be able to adiquatly fill both areas..
There is other areas that a device can be used, how about a remote device that
does the recovery work..

==
Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 20:14:44 GMT
From: David Breneman <kopachuk!dcb>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>In article <5=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sean Michael Gallagher) writes:
>
>                          The teachers let us watch the launch live (My
>   teacher was a teacher-in-space candidate.)  We spent the whole afternoon
>   trying to figure out what happened, and the flag was lowered to half-staff
>   that day and for the following week.  I can't believe they wouldn't let you
>   discuss one of the most tragic events in recent history.
>
>Oh, give me a break. Seven trained people, flying a brand-new,
>more-or-less untested vehicle? They knew the risks. How is this even
>comparable to massive tragedies like the famines in the Horn of
>Africa, or the Azerbaijan earthquake, or even to the Lockerbie
>bombing? To any airliner crash? There are even highway pileups which
>kill more.
>
>Sure, it's a tragedy. But don't go blowing it out of proportion.
>

So does there have to be a big pile of bodies for something to count
as a tragedy?  The space program is one of the few really noble,
inspirational things government does and that accident nearly killed
it off, mainly due to the reaction of ingorant formerly-disinterested
observers.  It left NASA crippled, that's for sure - and to this day.
I'll never forget that pompous ass Senator Ernest Hollings jumping on
TV before the embers had cooled with his Glaghornesque puffery about
how Congress has to look into this whole thing (the notion of space
flight) and make sure these sneaky scientists aren't wasting our money,
that Congress knows better than them how to run this operation and
should get more involved, etc.  I happened to be home that day (don't
remember quite why but I was just out of college - probably one of the
Discouraged Unemployed) and turned on the TV seconds after it happened.
I stuck a tape in the VCR & recorded the coverage of it for two hours.
I've never watched the tape, though.  Still, I remember clearly that it
was not one of Broadcast Journalism's Finest Hours.

--
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
[e-mail]           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      | "Zinc & cadmium plating stops |  /   ____/ /
CompuServe: <DEAD>        |  rust & acts as a lubricant!" |

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

Date: 9 Feb 1993 21:19:10 -0500
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to '[e-mail]'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 167
------------------------------