Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO195.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 32KB | 745 lines

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 05:00:03
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #195
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 18 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
                    *advocate* anonymous postings
                     Anyone killed by meteorite?
             Are Landsat Satellites receivable? (2 msgs)
                  A response from Anonymous (3 msgs)
                          Cassini Fact Sheet
                     HST repair mission (2 msgs)
                  Nobody cares about Fred? (2 msgs)
                     Sabatier Reactors. (2 msgs)
                         SETI TARGETED SEARCH
                         Soviet Launches etc.
                     space news from Jan 4 AW&ST

    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, 17 Feb 1993 04:44:03 GMT
From: Robert Mah <[e-mail]>
Subject: *advocate* anonymous postings
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.crypt

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:

> Now that we've seen that pseudonymous postings are not an unmitigated
> evil by demonstrating their accountability and responsibility, we need
> to go further and to *promote* pseudonymous postings as a positive good.

[some very well written prose extoling the virtues of anon postings deleted]

My view is that anonymous postings will allow for an excess of
name-calling and other non-civil behaviour.  Call me a pesemist.

I really don't see how you can "promote" them as a "positive good".
There is no reward.  There is no punishment.  Both the carrot and
stick are gone.

As for the fears of persecution and cowing of the masses by status.
I really haven't seen much of that.  This media already encourages
frankness and forthrightness.  It already lessens the perceived
authority of status.  Forums such as USENET, by providing a means for
anyone to share their thoughts with millions, already provides a means
for countering the very threats that are imagined.

If you are ashamed of your thoughts, then maybe you shouldn't broadcast
them to millions.  If you just think that it won't be well received,
then be emboldened by the thousands that have fought and died to make
sure you can at least speak your mind.  By doing so publicly, and not
hiding behind the mask of anonymity, you also help to further streach
the bounds of acceptable discourse.

Revolutions are not won by people sitting in a back room plotting and
scheming.  They are won by those that are willing to take personal
risk and publicly speak out against what they deem unjust.

Cheers,
Rob
--
[----------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Robert S. Mah   | Voice: 212-947-6507   | "Every day an adventure,   ]
[ One Step Beyond | EMail: [e-mail] |  every moment a challenge" ]
[----------------------------------------------------------------------]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:35:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Anyone killed by meteorite?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have been asked to check a report from one of our members who says
he read recently of someone(s) being killed by a meteorite (probably
this year) in possibly either Japan or Italy. Did I see somthing thing
about this here recently? (If so just reply in email, no need to bother
everyone else).

Are there any recorded instances of anyone being killed by a meteorite?
I seem to remember reading of a cow being killed, an american lady being
struck on the hip, a meteorite crashing through the roof of a home in
the Netherlands(?) where children were sleeping? Goodness, now that I've
written all this it seems the sort of thing that would be in a FAQ,
I'll feel silly if I post this and there is a FAQ, still here goes...

-Tony Ryan, Hon. Sec., Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1.
newslines (48p/36p per min):    0891-88-1950 (UK/NI)    1550-111-442 (Eire)

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 23:15:37 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are Landsat Satellites receivable?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martin Connors) writes:
>There was also mention made in this thread about Russian space data with
>2m resolution. Can anyone confidently tell me what is the best resolution
>spy satellites can attain in practice in imaging the surface of the Earth
>(near sea level) and in what wavelength bands?

We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you. :-)

Nobody who knows is going to be able to talk about it in public.  The
very *name* of the National Reconnaissance Office was classified until
quite recently, never mind technical details on the hardware they use.

The diffraction limit will make it impossible to do better than a few
centimeters with visible-light optics that fit in current launcher
payload shrouds.  It's not at all implausible that the best spysats are
diffraction-limited.  (There is at least one way to beat the diffraction
limit, but unless somebody's made a breakthrough, there's no way to do
it at any significant distance.)
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:41:23 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are Landsat Satellites receivable?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry Spencer writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martin Connors) writes:
   >There was also mention made in this thread about Russian space data with
   >2m resolution. Can anyone confidently tell me what is the best resolution
   >spy satellites can attain in practice in imaging the surface of the Earth
   >(near sea level) and in what wavelength bands?

   [...]

   The diffraction limit will make it impossible to do better than a few
   centimeters with visible-light optics that fit in current launcher
   payload shrouds.  It's not at all implausible that the best spysats are
   diffraction-limited.  (There is at least one way to beat the diffraction
   limit, but unless somebody's made a breakthrough, there's no way to do
   it at any significant distance.)

For those unfamiliar with optics, the diffraction limit is from a
simple wave property that says your maximum angular resolution is
equal to the aperture divided by the wavelength. Light wavelengths are
around half a micron (5e-7 m), and LEO is 150km (1.5e5 m) and up, so
the product of the spatial resolution and the aperture is around
7.5e-2 m^2. A one metre aperture (a big mirror) will give you 7.5cm
resolution.  Two metre resolution only requires a 4cm aperture (_if_
you can approach the diffraction limit, which is fairly common for
ground-based optics but harder for spy satellites). I might have
missed a factor of two (can never remember whether the limit takes
radius or diameter :->), but you get the idea.

The ways to beat the diffraction limit are basically means of
simulating a larger aperture. One way is by having an array of
apertures, on the same principle as radio-telescope arrays like the
VLA or modern experimental optical telescopes. You combine the
observations with computer-based interferometry. In order for this to
work one needs to know the distance between the apertures to a
sub-micron accuracy. So mounting them on separate sats is hard, but on
a single sat you can have a long boom that telescopes in some way and
can be measured with lasers when in place. Of course it will expand
and contract with temperature .... The other way I know of is to take
several pictures with the same sat in different places, and treat them
as different apertures. This gives you the same problem as multiple
sats (our orbital tracking is not good to sub-micron accuracy).

There are probably some very clever and expensive tricks with
computers to make the interferometry possible if you don't know
precisely where the apertures are (essentially use the redundancy in
your information and your knowledge about what bits of the image
look like to determine the aperture location, then apply that to the
bits of the image you want to enhance). Given that the NSA has the
world's highest density of hot computers (and hot imaging people),
they might be able to do this.

But do you really want better than 3-inch resolution? You need to
read the tanks' license plates?

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 21:20:17 GMT
From: Rob Eitzen <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Mr. Aaron Barnhart) writes:


>Shift to e-mail, however, and the balance needs to be different,
>since the absence of any kind of trail can lead to tremendous abuse
>by poor net citizens.  Real wankers can be tracked down if they use
>ftp; but if anon e-mail were permitted, even that verifiable trail
>would vanish.  The beauty about anon ftp, of course, is you don't
>need to use the log, provided you set up everything correctly, and
>your bounty is truly everyone's to share.  But who will protect the
>recipients of unwelcome and anonymous e-mail?

I don't understand why they need protecting.  What protection is there
for people from snail mail?  If I wanted, I could write a nasty letter
and hand-deliver it to a person's mailbox.  There is no protection
against this.  I don't see it as being needed.  Similarly for E-mail, is
there a need for protection?

--
Judge Dredd                                             +--------+\
[e-mail]                            |   :)   | |
DoD # 268                                               +--------+ |
In case of humor impairment, break glass.                \________\|

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 22:38:28 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In <vpsoc.729897617@manning> [e-mail] (Rob Eitzen) writes:

>[e-mail] (Mr. Aaron Barnhart) writes:


>>Shift to e-mail, however, and the balance needs to be different,
>>since the absence of any kind of trail can lead to tremendous abuse
>>by poor net citizens.  Real wankers can be tracked down if they use
>>ftp; but if anon e-mail were permitted, even that verifiable trail
>>would vanish.  The beauty about anon ftp, of course, is you don't
>>need to use the log, provided you set up everything correctly, and
>>your bounty is truly everyone's to share.  But who will protect the
>>recipients of unwelcome and anonymous e-mail?

>I don't understand why they need protecting.  What protection is there
>for people from snail mail?  If I wanted, I could write a nasty letter
>and hand-deliver it to a person's mailbox.  There is no protection
>against this.  I don't see it as being needed.  Similarly for E-mail, is
>there a need for protection?

No protections other than it being against the law for anyone but the
Postal Service to put something in your mailbox, you mean?  It may be
legal for you to stick something in someone else's mailbox in Canada,
but if you do it down here you can be prosecuted.  I've seen
commercial systems where people were 'letter bombed' by having a few
hoods send them a few thousand pieces of Email.  There are good
reasons to maintain the ability to track this sort of abuse, since it
can make an account unusable through denial of mail service.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:37:50 GMT
From: Damon <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <vpsoc.729897617@manning> [e-mail] (Rob Eitzen) writes:
>I don't understand why they need protecting.  What protection is there
>for people from snail mail?  If I wanted, I could write a nasty letter
>and hand-deliver it to a person's mailbox.  There is no protection
>against this.  I don't see it as being needed.  Similarly for E-mail, is
>there a need for protection?

There is protection in many countries from receiving hurtful of
threatening or obscene materials though the post---it is illegal to
even dispatch them.

I don't want to receive severed horses' heads through the post or the
verbal equivalent (such as once first year undergrad at my uni who sent
``F*** off and die'' messages to random IDs rather upsetting occasional
users already fearful of the computer systems---one mistake was to
forward one to me and I unkindly forwarded it without comment to the
head of department).  He was, thank goodness, eventually expelled for
this and other clever and witty uses of our computing systems.  I only
hope he never discovered USENET  Bv<.  What was worse in many ways is
that the rest of the undergrads were tarred with the same brush.

The even more pernicious thing about unpleasant mail and news is that
the *recipients* pay for it.  I particularly don't want to pay postage
on a large parcel arriving and discover that horse's head with attached
rude note.

Damon
--
Damon Hart-Davis   [e-mail]   London UK                                  [1.40]
Tel/Fax: [phone]======Two jobs:
(1) Parallelogram Editor, (2) Seller of public-access news/mail & cheap Suns.

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

Date: 17 Feb 93 02:19:15 GMT
From: "robert.f.casey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cassini Fact Sheet
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>                     FACT SHEET: THE CASSINI MISSION
>Huygens Titan Probe
>
>     The Huygens probe, supplied by the European Space Agency,
>carries a well-equipped robotic laboratory that it will use to
>scrutinize the clouds, atmosphere, and surface of Saturn's moon
>Titan.
>
>     As the Huygens probe breaks through the cloud deck, a camera
>will capture pictures of the Titan panorama.
^^^
Wonder what steps need to be taken to make sure that the camera
optics do not get "dew" or fogged over in the atmosphere of Titan.
What's to keep whatever is in the clouds from getting on the lens and
ruin the camera's view?

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

Date: 16 Feb 1993 13:51 PST
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Rickel) writes:
>>
>>the old optics grind their teeth.  It'd be nice if NASA would think about
>>Hubble Jr., but that's probably a non-starter.
>
>Given that NASA owns a spare mirror,  hwo much would it cost
>to build a lite telescope, using the mirror, and just a Faint
>object camera and maybe a spare WFPC?

The important point is that ground-based astronomy is now approaching
the resolution of HST.  This is *the* major problem of launching such
an expensive mission.  It took so long for HST to get into orbit that
it was almost outdated by the time they got started.  If you were
offered the chance to spend a ton of money building HST from scratch
today you would never do it.  It is much cheaper to build a sophisticated
ground-based telescope, at least for many kinds of observations.
If HST had launched according to its original schedule, and if it had
worked according to the most optimistic expectations, then it certainly
would have been the only game in town, at least for a while.  But
not anymore.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
[e-mail]         although I have no right to say so, having
                 been a single cell so long ago myself that I
                 have no memory at all of that stage of my
                 life." - Lewis Thomas

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 03:13:26 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> The important point is that ground-based astronomy is now approaching
> the resolution of HST.  This is *the* major problem of launching such
> an expensive mission.  It took so long for HST to get into orbit that
> it was almost outdated by the time they got started.  If you were
> offered the chance to spend a ton of money building HST from scratch
> today you would never do it.  It is much cheaper to build a sophisticated
> ground-based telescope, at least for many kinds of observations.

Fully agreed for _visible_ light observations.  But in the vacuum UV there
is nothing on the ground that will *ever* touch HST's abilities simply
because of the intervening atmosphere.

To continue to the next logical step, we need to build and launch SIRTF.
The IRTF (Infra-Red Telescope Facility) on Mauna Kea will always be
stymied by that same atmosphere.  Using what we've learned from HST we
can build a high quality IR telescope for space observations.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

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

Date: 17 Feb 93 00:34:21 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:

>> As to the changeover to the pre-integrated truss...
>> ...this change was mandated
>> by Congress and not NASA who wanted the truss which didn't work (but kept
>> Shuttle crews busy). Yet this change from an unbuildable truss to a
>> buildable one is decried as micromanagement by Congress.

>The change to PIT came about during NASA's ``90-day'' SSF re-design workshop.
>To the best of my knowledge, Congress' main input to that process was to say,

This isn't correct. NASA was directed to take a number of steps (one was
the PIT) by the Appropriations Committee in 1989. It was part of the
report language associated with the Appropriation Bill.

Congress felt the need to do this because NASA refused to change the
design to one which could be assembled. Not only that, NASA replied to
this report saying that no changes where needed and that the station
was buildable. The contractors (and internal NASA documents) agreed
with the Congressional 'micromanagers' and not the NASA party line.

If this is congressional micromanagement, I say let's have more for now
at least until NASA will design things it can build.

>``You remember how much money we said last year that you could have to build
>SSF? Well, now we've decided that you can't have that much, which puts your
>current design way over our revised budget. Bad management on your part!

First of all, the design which Congress wouldn't fund couldn't be built.
Why should we pay for it? However, what Congress actually said was: "This
project has been hemoraging money for years. Our $8 billion station now
costs $40 billion and it won't even work. Get your house in order and design
something which works and costs no more than $30 billion".

You may call building something which works for a reasonable sum
micromanagement; I call it Congress's job.

>When NASA initially selected the box-truss concept, it seemed to make sense.

No problem. The problem is that it took three years and billions of $$
to find it didn't make sense. That simply isn't good engineering. If
we had good management nobody would be complaining.

>No, there will be integration testing at various levels.

some. The current design is far superior in that respect. However, my
sources are still apalled at the lack of integration tests.

>As spacecraft get larger, pre-integration of the entire structure before
>launch eventually has to be foregone;

You can still fly prototypes and do a lot more test assembly than is
being done.

>SSF will teach us a lot about how to do this.

That is a bit late. You can't use the final product to teach you how to
assemble the final product. You need to learn this stuff *BEFORE* you
try and build it. That way you have time to anticipate problems and
fix them in the early design when its cheaper. This is why Fred spends
billions to find and fix problems which should cost far less.

>As for assembling things in space, much has been learned in water-tank
>practice sessions, and subsequently validated by carrying out corresponding
>experiments in orbit.

too little too late. Recent EVA's seem to have found it is a lot harder
than first thought and what the tank tests say. If there are major problems,
it is too late now to fix them.

>Sure, plenty of unknowns remain, but a >lot< of work is
>being done right now on illuminating these areas of darkness.

So now we can look forward to ANOTHER redesign if a problem is found.

Wouldn't it have been nice if NASA where engaged in a regular program
of EVA years ago? It would have been very cheap to add an evperimental
spacewalk to gain skills and we would have FAR more confidence in our
ability to assemble Freedom.

That NASA hasn't engaged in this work is nothing short of incompetance.
Now before Doug whines about Intelsat, if NASA had engaged in such a
program of practice he would have a point. They didn't and he doesn't.

>> Those of you who think ending Fred will be an end to manned space, think
>> about this. What happens if Fred simply can't be built because of the
>> lack of integration testing and poor EVA practice our astronauts receive?

>I guess that people who oppose SSF, and especially people who oppose manned
>spaceflight, will certainly get a warm feeling from indulging in this fantasy.

As somebody who very much wants to get a station let me assure you I won't
get a warm feeling if and when it happens. Please don't assume that since
I don't like Fred I don't like space stations or manned space. I spend
a lot of time and money promoting it.

>and the vehicle flew. Many of the organizations involved in SSF were also
>involved in Saturn and Apollo; why should their SSF designs be any worse than
>those of earlier projects?

That is easially proven. The fact that they proposed designs which
couldn't have been built and it costed them billions to find out it
wouldn't work shows that their SSF design is worse than previous
projects.

     Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------119 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 17 Feb 93 02:22:23 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>a truss based Mir II. This has been typical of the two
>programs, we occasionally wake up and try to make heroic
>leaps while they just plod along like the tortoise and
>the hare.


You will recall that it was the tortise that won the race.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------119 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 16 Feb 93 13:30:43 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>|In fact, you could
>|*probably* fuel an empty Centaur from residual propellants in the shuttle's
>|own external tank, and dispense with the fuel dump.  [...]

>If people are going to defend the shuttle as this marvelous
>workshop,  then i suggest we see it do some real workshop
>type activities.  Refueling satellites is a very reasonable
>mission,  and it seems beyond the shuttles capacity.

Read what he wrote.  It's not that the Shuttle is incapable of doing it, it's
that NASA doesn't want to try it.  Two different things entirely.

(Do note, however, that "modest unknowns" is Spencer-speak for "we're
clueless"; it's not just a matter of hooking up a pump and pumping away.
We should learn to do it, though...we have to sooner or later.)
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Feb 1993 17:45:31 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|> Could shuttle have carried a empty centaur to orbit,
|>and met up with an orbiting fuel dump?
|
|Not impossible, and such things were proposed.  In fact, you could
|*probably* fuel an empty Centaur from residual propellants in the shuttle's
|own external tank, and dispense with the fuel dump.  However, there are
|some modest unknowns associated with transferring cryogenic fuels in
|free fall, and a fair bit of development work would have been needed
|overall.  NASA is no longer ambitious enough to tackle things like that,
>however valuable they would be in the long run.
>



Note For the Record.  Henry says My Idea, which other people had also
proposed, is not a terribly difficult thing to do.  But that NASA, and
all the other net shuttle supporters ( two people leap to mind)
do not propose this fairly simple engineering task.

If people are going to defend the shuttle as this marvelous
workshop,  then i suggest we see it do some real workshop
type activities.  Refueling satellites is a very reasonable
mission,  and it seems beyond the shuttles capacity.

I would view this example as a reasoonable argument that the
shuttle is a lousy workshop.

pat

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

Date: 17 Feb 93 02:55:22 GMT
From: Tim Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI TARGETED SEARCH
Newsgroups: sci.space

There is/is not an official list of stars which will be observed in the
Targeted Search.  The easy answer is the original list, which is comprised of
those which are found in the Wooley catalog of F,G,K stars within 25 pc of
the sun. This list is being extensively revised/improved by members of
the SETI IWG, taking into account more recent data.  The improved list
is not yet releasable to the public.  The Wooley catalog is public
knowledge.

------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Earth and Space Sciences Division, JPL.
Assistant Administrator, Division Science Computing Network.
Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
Member, BOD, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.

INTERnet/BITnet:    [e-mail]
NSI/DECnet:         jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet:          YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet:             118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 13:30:51 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: Soviet Launches etc.

"Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
>
> Subject: Have anybody data about Soviet rocket test launches in 1945-1992?
>
> [e-mail] (Voevodin S.A.) writes:
> >      Please send me any data about Soviet rocket test launches in 1945-1992.
> >
> >Sergey A. Voevodin
> >8 Okruzhnoy proezd 11-2, 156014 Kostroma, Russia
>
> I'm not sure why you posted this to "world" domain.
> Wouldn't someone in Russia be in a better position
> to find out about all this than someone here in the US?

Not when you recall that the best street map of Moscow
was the one done by the CIA, and that even the Russians
themselves asked for a copy because it beat what they had.

I'm sure the poster faces formidable difficulties finding
anything on paper that could *ever* have been considered
"sensitive".   "Need-to-know" and all that rot.

Perhaps Mr Voevodin could tell us something about his
difficulties finding information.

--
* Fred Baube GU/MSFS      * "Leave aside the brush, because the
* Optiplan O.Y.           *   government has supplied the sprayguns."
* [e-mail]       *     -- Hoxha-era Albanian saying
* #include <disclaimer.h> * > Where is the PGP follow-on found ? <
* Nymphs vex, beg quick fjord waltz (27 letters)

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 23:03:10 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: space news from Jan 4 AW&ST
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>... However, Lockheed does its own satellite testing
>>horizontally, and has experience with what it calls "ship and shoot"...
>
>How did Lockheed get this experience?

This was not made clear.  Military programs are the obvious possibility.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 17:07:36 EST
From: [e-mail]

Joint Press Release ESA/CNES Nr 06.93
Paris, 17 February 1993

FIRST OPERATIONAL TEST ON ARIANE-5
SOLID BOOSTER GOES WELL

The first test on the P230 solid booster for the European Ariane-5
launcher took place on 16 February 1993 at 1721h Paris time, on its
teststand at the European spaceport at Kourou in French Guiana.

The first indications are that the test went well; an initial report
will be issued by 22 February, after the booster has been
thoroughly inspected.

The test was carried out with the booster in "battleship"
configuration, i.e. with a heavier structure than it will have in its
flight version;  it was the first of a series of eight that will be
needed to qualify the launcher.  The next test will be run once the
results of the first have been analysed, and will then be done in
"flight" configuration.

The Ariane-5 launcher will be fitted with two P230 boosters, each
30 metres high and containing 237 tonnes of propellant grain in
three segments.  Each booster has a thrust equal to that of the
most powerful Ariane-4 (the A44L version), which makes it the
most powerful booster ever built in Europe.

This first test was run under the responsibility of Europropulsion
(a firm owned jointly by Difesa e Spazio, of Italy, and the French
Societe Europeenne de Propulsion) and CNES (the French space
agency).  CNES designed the teststand, and was in charge of
carrying out the test.

The P230 solid booster forms part of the European Space Agency's
Ariane-5 Programme, the prime contractorship of which ESA has
delegated to CNES.

Television channels wishing to obtain a Betacam cassette of this
test (4 minutes duration) should send a fax to 33.1.42.73.76.90.




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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 195
------------------------------