Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO172.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 31KB | 800 lines

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 21:17:37
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #172
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
                  Addr: GIANT KILLER ICECAP MELTERS
                     Celestial Mechanics Problem
                              DC reentry
                  Getting people into Space Program!
Hey, BooBoo, let's steal some moonrocks(was Re: hardware on the moon)
                              hilarious
                         Mir mission to Mars?
NASA scientists solve long-standing stellar mystery [Release 93-25] (Forwarded)
                      parachutes on Challenger?
                               Promises
                           Question Help !
             Refueling Freedom/Japanese Business (2 msgs)
                 Supporting private space activities
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (2 msgs)
                         Units and Star Trek
                    Using off-the-shelf-components

    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: 11 Feb 93 13:57:50 EST
From: "Kevin R. Cain" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Addr: GIANT KILLER ICECAP MELTERS

FROM: Kevin

In Space Digest V16 #141 (sorry, i deleted the article part)
Bill Higgins writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Terence Chua) writes:
>> What's the purpose behind this solar mirror that the Russians are
>> putting up? Call it hysteria, but I have this vision of it being used
>> to melt ice-caps...

>Thanks for the invitation, Terence.

>It's hysteria.


>With this knowledge the Russians will be able to build Giant Killer
>Icecap Melters In Space.  Then, next time Saddam Hussein gets out of
>hand, they can threaten to melt his icecaps.  Right.


Bill, Bill, Bill......

You FORGOT to CAPITALIZE the GIANT KILLER ICECAP MELTERS IN SPACE
:-) :-)

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 03:08:58 GMT
From: Matt Healy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Celestial Mechanics Problem
Newsgroups: sci.space

Recently I reread {The Black Cloud}, an SF Novel by
the famous (and controversial) astronomer Fred Hoyle.

Central to the plot is an interesting problem in
celestial mechanics.  I don't know how to solve it;
if anybody out there would like to try it and send
me email I'd be most grateful...

Given: A cloud of gas, total mass 2/3 Jupiter, diameter
1 au, approaching the SUN.  On 17 Jan 1964 center is
at RA 5h 49m, dec -30 deg 16', heliocentric distance
21.3 au, velocity 70 km/sec directly towards the sun.

Find: Perturbation, due to gravitational influence,
on the planets.

In the novel, just before the object is discovered
an amateur astronomer notices the following differences
from Nautical Almanac postions:

Jupiter long + 1' 29"  dec -49"
Saturn  long + 42"     dec -17"

Since Hoyle is a competant astronomer, I assume his
numbers are unlikely to be wildly off.

Matt Healy
"I pretend to be a network administrator; the lab
 net pretends to work!"

[e-mail]

PS: The novel also has some neato things to say
about digital vs analog communication technology,
though those words are not used.  Interesting to
read how one really bright guy saw such things in
the late 1950s...

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

Date: 10 Feb 1993 16:10:24 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC reentry
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>|...allegations that this is the real reason why the DC design is set up
|>|for nose-first reentry -- because base-first with an aerospike offers
|>|McDD nothing to call its own.)
|>
|>But in the DC-10, is there anything that is McDac Proprietary?
|
|No -- not that I know of -- but it's not for want of wishing.  They'd
|certainly be very happy if nobody else could build fuel-efficient large
|airliners.

McDac somehow toughs it out in the Large Airliner market.  My point is
that they can build the knowledge base in human capital for building
spacecraft and get a dominant position over all others.  now they
need to hold onto their engineers,  but if there are real performance
advantages to the aero-spike and a base first entry, they better
do it, or else boeing will and use that as a marketing advantage.

My point was that much of the technology of large aircraft is not
patented, but rather the methods of assembling large objects.
Ships are not real hi-tech, yet very few places are capable of
fabricating ULCCs.

pat

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

Date: 10 Feb 1993 23:45:32 -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] (Robert Fentiman) writes:
:
:>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).

:No, $36 billion is the cost of the station (this week).  Long-term
:operating costs are on top of them.  Nevertheless, we are getting,
:at best, a $4-billion space station, not a $36-billion space station,
:for this price.

Then I gues CBS news better change their figures.

:>(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.

:Well, of course!  No airline would fly a 747 from the US to Tokyo,
:then park it on the edge of the runway so that businessmen can use
:it for sleeping and office space.  That's what God invented Barron
:Hilton for!  Only a government agency like NASA would be silly
:enough to do something like that.


:>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.

:Which is an excellent argument for *not* allowing NASA to stomp
:all over anyone who threatens "their" territory.

Who says they are (besides you, obviously).

:>As for making a vehicle that does all the the shuttle's jobs for less
:>money, I find it unlikely.

:We don't want to "do all the Shuttle's jobs."  We'll settle for
:a reuseable, single-stage vehicle that can passengers into orbit
:for a few thousand dollars a ticket and cargo for <$50 a pound,
:day in and day out, from commercial spaceports all over the world.

:McDonnell Douglas produced designs for such SSTO vehicles in
:the late 1960's.  Vehicles which could have been built with
:technology available then.  Modern technology would make it
:easier today.

:McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed, General Dynamics,
:and Teledyne-Ryan have not only produced designs for SSTO vehicles,
:they have found five different ways to do the job.

Fine.  No-one's stopping anyone from building these things.  It's out of
NASA's relm.  The point I stated was that NASA is NOT in the
transportation buisiness, so blaming them for putting holds on anything
won't fly (no pun intended).  You're talking about a commercial venture,
which should be paid commercially.  It would serve no purpose to NASA.

:>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.

:That's just plain silly.  A transportation system, be it spaceship
:or airliner, shouldn't be designed to stay up as long as possible.
:It should return to Earth as soon as possible so that it can fly
:again.

It is not silly.  It is the TRUTH.  FACT.

Read more carefully: the shuttle is *** NOT *** just a transportation
system.  It is used as a mobile laboratory.  They want to keep it up as
long as possible to get the most results as they can.  Since we can only
spend a limited time in space, you make the best of it.

:>Commercial airlines have lower tolerances in
:>their parts (if you want to equate the Shuttle to that).
:
:Do you have figures to back this up?  Do you have any idea
:what kind of forces a turbine blade has trying to tear it
:apart in a jet engine?  (Granted, the SSME does push tolerances
:pretty close -- close enough to be the only engine to blow up
:on the test stand after being manrated -- but that's just bad
:design, not a defect of rocket engines per se.
:
:>The shuttle has to survive the riggors of both atmosphere and space,
:>both of which can be very damaging.
:
:Well, it doesn't do it very well.  I've flown into Orlando
:Airport in weather far worse than that which keeps the Shuttle
:on the ground.

That's becuase it wont take horrendus amounts of fuel to get back on
course.  Rough weather (IE - high winds), could easily change the
shuttle's course.  Small (unplanned) differences in orbits can easily
result in a tradegy.  Unlike an aircraft, you have to use the same
amount of fuel in space to stop a motion as it took to make it (you cant
use any form of frictional breaking that is reliable anless you're
reentering the atmophere, and then you better be on target for your
landing site.  The shuttle's fuel (as well as any space vehicle's these
days) is very volitile.  I don't think you'd want to rish lightning
strikes with explosive (not just flamable) fuel.

:>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.

:Reentry heating is a lot easier to handle if you don't have wings.
:And because the Shuttle's wings do not produce lift on ascent, payload
:increases if you don't have to drag he damn things into orbit.

But without wings, it also reduces the size of the reentry vehicle and
control of landing.  The shuttle's wings allow it the accuracy of a
plane, thereby knowing exactly where it will land (not just somewhere in
a 20 mile radius in the ocean).  It also affects it's resuability.

:>In space, you have widely varying temperatures, contant pelting
:>of dust particles (as well as occasional larger space debris)

:Whoa, there, big fellow.  The Space Shuttle can't even stand a
:hail storm without significant damage -- let alone a constant
:pelting of dust particles.

Read a little about space, will ya?!  Earth is bombarded by MILLIONS of
TONS of dust from space every year!  Anything in orbit OBVIOSLY suffers
the same effects.

:>There are also other factors which, due to the lenght of this letter
:>and lack of more specific examples, I will not mention.

:Now I assume you forgot the smiley.

Well, you assumed wrong (did that statement even sound like a joke?).

I suggest you do some reasearch on these matters (I have - a lot over
the years).

    Thanks
    Robert Fentiman

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 06:36:58 GMT
From: Matt Healy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey, BooBoo, let's steal some moonrocks(was Re: hardware on the moon)
Newsgroups: sci.space

> >>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.
> Don't worry.  The chances of a forest fire starting on the Sea of
> Tranquility are extremely remote.

Didn't NASA donate one of the Viking landers on Mars to the
Smithsonian?  Now all they have to do is go pick it up :-)


Matt Healy
"I pretend to be a network administrator;
 the lab net pretends to work"

[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Feb 1993 05:04:16 GMT
From: David A Rasmussen <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey):

  Welcome to the club -- I've had David Rasmussen, of talk.abortion fame
  (or infamy?) actually show up here at Rice looking for me, after his repeated
  demands for my punishment, and his threats of legal action against either me
  or the University (he never could quite make up his mind as to who he was
  going to sue, or what to sue them for), were ignored by my admins.  Of course,
  leave it to him to think that I'd be around in the early afternoon, just
  because I was working nights -- as a result, he got nowhere, and a lot of
  people here had a good laugh.


Is that David Rasmussen guy out doing harm to my name again?  Geez.

I don't think I've ever been to rice. The only time I end up running
around foreign campuses looking for system administrators is to get
internet email access at cities I explore during the long train rides I
take to Useni! I suppose this could alarm people that some tall
cheesehead hacker from the Great White North would want to break into
their network though :-)

So remember folks, next time you think of flaming David Rasmussen, make
sure it's not the one from *.uwm.edu.

By the way, why is this cross posted to sci.astro? Maybe I don't wanna
know!



--
Dave Rasmussen - SysAdm/Hacker/Consulting Supervisor, UWM Computing Svcs Div.
Internet:[e-mail], Uucp:uwm!dave, Bitnet:dave%uwm.edu@INTERBIT
AT&T:414-229-5133 USmail:Box 413 EMS380,Milwaukee,WI 53201  HAM: N9REJ

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

Date: 11 Feb 1993 05:02:05 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir mission to Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
|
|> mission plans I have seen got a boost by a Venus flyby on the return or
|> beginning.
|
|I'm not aware of any asteroids one could rendezvous with on a Mars mission
|without significant fuel expenditure.  And while a Venus flyby might save
|energy it (and the asteroid mission) would prolong the mission substantially.
|That's fine for a robot but the added mass of consumeables required for
|humans and the increased radiation exposure would both be prohibitive tradeoffs.


Well, I believe NASA's proposal for a manned mars mission involved
2 venus flybys.  I believe it gave shorter travel time.  it was an
aside Zubrin made about how silly their mission was.  they wanted
to reduce space flight time at a real cost to mission stay time.
the window was small at mars and i think it was actually more
energy then a hohmann transfer orbit.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 09:11:49 GMT
From: PFENNIGER Daniel <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA scientists solve long-standing stellar mystery [Release 93-25] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Yee) writes:
|> Paula Cleggett-Haleim
|> Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   February 9, 1993
|> (Phone:  [phone])
|>
|> Diane Farrar
|> Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
|> (Phone:  [phone])
|>
|>
|> RELEASE:  93-025
|>
|> NASA SCIENTISTS SOLVE LONG-STANDING STELLAR MYSTERY
|>
|>      Space scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain
|> View, Calif., believe they have solved an 80-year-old mystery:
|> What unidentified matter in deep space is absorbing certain
|> wavelengths of light from distant stars?
|>
|>      By mimicking realistic interstellar conditions in a
|> laboratory, Drs. Farid Salama and Louis Allamandola have shown
|> that the light is absorbed by unexpectedly large organic
|> molecules spread throughout the vacuum of space.  The carbon-
|> based molecules, shaped like chicken wire, are called polycyclic
|> aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
|>
|>      Their experiments may have resolved one of the longest
|> standing mysteries of 20th century astronomy, according to Dr.
|> David J. Helfand of Columbia University in New York.
|>
|>      For nearly a century, scientists have wondered what causes
|> the unidentified absorption lines in the spectra (range of
|> frequencies or color, for instance the band of color produced
|> when sunlight is passed through a prism, such as a rainbow) of
|> starlight reaching the Earth.  The lines are called diffuse
|> interstellar bands (DIBs) and now number more than a hundred.
|>
|>      An important breakthrough came a decade ago.  Observations
|> of infrared radiation obtained from Ames' Kuiper Airborne
|> Observatory led Allamandola and others to believe that a form of
|> PAHs might be the long-sought matter.  "They could easily
|> withstand the intense radiation environment of interstellar
|> space," he said.
|>

   [distracting stuff deleted]

|>      Although the Ames group suspected PAHs could be causing the
|> mysterious spectroscopic "fingerprints" (DIBs), there was a
|> catch.  "In space, PAHs would be electrically charged (ionized)
|> and very reactive.  This form of matter is extremely difficult to
|> study in the laboratory," Allamandola said.
|>
|>      Salama's experiments successfully reproduced the ionized
|> molecules under the most authentic interstellar conditions
|> possible.  Because the molecules are highly reactive, isolating
|> them from the subtle effects of their surrounding chemical
|> environment was difficult.  Studying them in a near vacuum, as
|> they exist in space, was impossible.  Salama used solid, neon to
|> isolate them at very low temperatures.
|>
|>      The PAHs' spectroscopic visible light fingerprint in
|> Salama's experiments closely matched those from interstellar
|> space.  Independent observations by other scientists -- now
|> knowing what to look for -- support his conclusions.
|>
|>      "These molecules are one of the largest sources of carbon-
|> rich material in the vast distances between the stars.  They
|> account for 5 to 10 percent of all cosmic carbon,"  Salama said.
|>
|>      "Until a few years ago, we would not have imagined that
|> molecules this complex existed in space.  In the whole chemistry
|> of the interstellar medium, we've been lucky to find several
|> atoms bound together," Allamandola said.  "Larger molecules,
|> containing up to about 12 atoms have been found.  The larger the
|> molecules, usually the less abundant they are.
|>
|>      "Then suddenly we find these monstrous molecules, containing
|> between 20-100 carbon atoms.  Larger PAHs must be present as
|> well.  They are spread throughout space and, except for hydrogen
|> and carbon monoxide, they're more abundant than all the known
|> interstellar molecules taken together.
|>
|>      "We think PAHs are the by-product of old carbon-rich stars
|> burning out.  This challenges the traditional view of
|> interstellar chemistry, which assumes that all interstellar
|> molecules are produced in the interstellar medium," he said.
|>
|>      "The experiments had another surprising result," Salama
|> said.  "For years, scientists have observed large amounts of
|> unexplained long-wave (infrared) radiation in space.  Because we
|> found that charged PAHs absorb a lot more ultraviolet and visible
|> radiation in space than expected, we think they may be the valve
|> turning higher frequency waves (ultraviolet-visible) ito longer
|> wavelength infrared.  We think they play a central role in
|> determining the radiant energy balance of interstellar space," he
|> said.
|>
|>      Their results also may influence the theory of solar system
|> formation.  PAHs found in meteorites are thought to be produced
|> by heat from repeated collisions of solid material early in solar
|> system formation.  Now it seems at least some of these complex
|> organic molecules came from interstellar space and were original
|> ingredients in the nebula which produced the sun and planets.

This is not the first time I read a "NASA SCIENTIST discovery report"
phagocytosing without scruple the works of other scientists.
But this time I cannot resist, sorry.

I find this posting particularly pretentious and unfair because
any student of astronomy learns today that PAH molecules have been
proposed and discussed in the numerous papers and review articles by
Leger, Puget, Boulanger and others.  The first paper I am aware of
mentioning PAH's has been published in 1984 by Leger & Puget in
Astronomy & Astrophysics 137, L5.

    Daniel Pfenniger

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

Date: 11 Feb 1993 05:18:55 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I worked with a guy who said he used to train fighter pilots for the navy.
He told a story of being in an F-4? and the student pancked during
a flameout and ejected.  Unfortunately, the crew chief had left the safety pins
in on his seat so instead of leaving, he got to stay behind.  he said
it made for a most interesting next five minutes until he got it landed.

pat

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

Date: 11 Feb 1993 06:12:37 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Promises
Newsgroups: sci.space

John

    the politics of the people is the politics of bread and salt.
My first big challenge every month is Rent.  then food, then medical bills.
Then transportation, then clothes. then vet bills, Professional expenses
next, followed by interests.
    Clinton ran his campaign with one theme "It's teh Economy, Stupid".
    Abortion, Racism, Diversity, Feminism, environment, all came last.

    Your observations of the White House open House only confirmed
the clinton campaign.  He has one huge priority, and one second priority.
Economic growth and Health care reform.  Government workers with nice
steady salaries and nice health care and pension plans somehow lack the
understnading of people out in real america, not Inside the beltway
politics.

    If President Bill can cut unemployment 2% and pass national
health insurance, he'll win re-election even if it turns out he
mainlines heroin in the oval office.  if the economy stays like this.
we'll be looking at president perot in 96.  and he'll look at freedom
and callit a pig in a poke.

    I suggest we get on to supporting fast track light science
projects that can deliver results before freedom sees it's first
orbital element fly.

pat

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 14:53:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question Help !
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi all !
        I don't know if it's just the reference books I have got access to,
but I cannot find any reference of the 'First American Woman to Walk In Space.'

.. Could someone tell me please, as its for a university entrance research quiz and hence REALLY important to me !!!

Also, does anyone know what a JARVIK 7 is ? I don't now if its anything to do with space or not, it sounds like that sort of thing though.

Thanks in advance!

Chris.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 20:33:09 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling Freedom/Japanese Business
Newsgroups: sci.space

>I think the time the Shuttle's been flying is more like one year.
>It's just been spread out over a 12-year period.

   In that case, Apollo flew for about two months (not counting
   time moored at SkyLab.) Soyuz is up around a year and a half,
   a half-again increase over Shuttle despite well over twice as
   long in service.

   Besides, the Shuttle is a shuttle. It's supposed to go to and
   from some place, not linger there for weeks.

   -Brian


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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 20:33:59 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling Freedom/Japanese Business
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Does time in orbit really add up to a year?! That's a pretty
>impressive duty cycle, even spread over five craft.
>Factor out the Challenger moratorium and the inital ramp up
>of launches and it looks even better. Not bad for a prototype...
>
>Sanity check: O(50) missions at 1 week per - yup, that's a year...

   Well, I did a little addition of the Shuttle missions time in
   orbit. All were rounded to the nearest day, but I may be off
   a day or two...

   Columbia:   95 days (13 flights)
   Challenger: 64 days ( 9 flights)
   Discovery:  91 days (15 flights)
   Atlantis:   74 days (12 flights)
   Endeavour:  24 days ( 3 flights)
              --------  -----------
              348 days  52 flights

   That's 348 days in orbit for all Orbiters combined. Shuttle
   should surpass one year in orbit during STS-56 in March/April.

   Note that Columbia is the flightime leader despite having flown
   two fewer missions than Discovery. The three longest Shuttle
   missions to date (STS-9, STS-32, and STS-50) were all aboard
   Columbia. Columbia also flew the two shortest successful
   missions (STS-1 and STS-2).

   -Brian


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

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

Date: 11 Feb 1993 05:39:32 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supporting private space activities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|>
|>Any reason why the shuttle doesn't have a similar mechanism?
|
|I think it was just awkward for other reasons to have a tall tower on
|the mobile pad.  There is a lightning-rod system in the external tank's
|nose cap, but presumably they prefer not to trust it with live SRBs
|involved.
|--

Given NASA's love of high tech solutions, why didn't they develope
a high tech lightning rod.  They could have paid rockwell a cool
10 million to develope one.  I know there were proposals to
use lasers to create ionization paths to attract lightning.
How about microwaves,  or electron guns?  Simpler, how abou;t
some chaff launchers,  or balloons dragging wires.  You could
deploy the balloons near the roadway, to provide continous protection.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 02:50:20 GMT
From: Matt Healy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space

In my opinion, the real tragedy of Challenger is not

that 7 good people died, but that their deaths were
NOT a result of "pioneering" or any such noble bs.

They died because the administrators refused to pay
attention to the engineers!  The engineers knew about
the problem, and strongly advised against launching
in cold weather.  The administrators overruled them.

LET'S NOT DIGNIFY MANSLAUGHTER WITH ALL THIS EXPLORATION
BS!

Also, the decision to use the shuttle for satellite
launches, which can be done better, cheaper, and safer
with robotic rockets, was another example of criminal
negligence in my book.  By all means send people out
where people are needed, but don't risk their lives
when nothing is being accomplished.  Launching a
communications satellite with the shuttle is not
"exploring space", it is stupidity.

Matt Healy
"I pretend to be a network administrator; the lab
 net pretends to work!"

[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 15:01:13 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Does anyone know the Jean Micheal Jarre song that R.Mcnell (forgive me if I've got his name incorrect) was going to play sax to, live from orbit ?

  Listening to it now and directly after the accident (I don't remember the track name) I always get a sad errie feel.  This song 'suits' the 'mood' of the accident, if you see what I'm getting at, almost as if it had been written
AFTER the accident and not before.

Wierd.

Lets hope things go well and we avoid further disasters.
We remember the Challanger and crew.

Chris.

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

Date: 8 Feb 93 03:17:44 GMT
From: Bill Gripp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Units and Star Trek
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Geiser) writes:

>Note that these devices have almost no steering,
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>only a slight course correction capability, and so must be carefully aimed.
>The parallel to ancient submarine weapons was so close that the term "photon
>torpedo" became permanently attached to these deadly implements of celestial
>combat, which in the ST:TNG era are capable of as much as 10 to 15 minutes
>travel at speeds approaching warp 9.9.

Well they did a pretty good job of steering one in ST6:TUC.  =B^)

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 02:55:31 GMT
From: Matt Healy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using off-the-shelf-components
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have worn hearing aids for most of my life.  Since
I also have an engineering degree, I have learned
quite a lot about the technology over the years.

Most reputable hearing aid makers have specifications
for shock resistance, humidity, and vibration which
are considerably stricter than NASA's.  Dropping a
little tiny hearing aid from 6 feet onto a hard
surface (which _will_ happen) produces a truly
astonishing "g" force.


Matt Healy
"I pretend to be a network administrator; the lab
 net pretends to work!"

[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 17:41:03 EST
From: [e-mail]

Paris, 11 February 1993
ESA PR internal info Nr.04-93

First firing of Ariane 5 booster

The first test firing of the Ariane 5 solid rocket booster is planned
for 16 February 1993 in Kourou, between 13h00 and 16h30, Kourou
time (i.e. 17h00 - 20h30, Paris time).

The booster was transferred from the Booster Integration Building
to the Booster Test Stand on 8 February.



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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 172
------------------------------