Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO198.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 30KB | 712 lines

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 05:00:05
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #198
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 19 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
                    *advocate* anonymous postings
            Antimatter/Atomic Booms for Jettison! (2 msgs)
                  Are Landsat Satellites receivable?
                  FGS Info (RE: HST repair mission)
                         Henry Spencer stamps
   Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?)
           NF-104 (was Re: kerosene/peroxide SSTO) (2 msgs)
                       NOAA, METEOR satellites
                  Nobody cares about Fred? (2 msgs)
           Pressure fuel delivery, ideas regarding (2 msgs)
                          Sabatier Reactors.
                       SETI and Virtual Reality
                             SPACE DAILY
                             VR, Mars Pix

    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: 17 Feb 93 22:22:57 GMT
From: Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: *advocate* anonymous postings
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.crypt

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>Now that we've seen that pseudonymous postings are not an
>unmitigated evil

"What you mean we, white man?" (Misattrubuted to Tonto...)

You may think you've proven that, but the tide of opinion is against you.

>by demonstrating their accountability and
>responsibility

What accountability and responsibility? You haven't been held accountable
yet for disrupting sci.space, etcetera...

>True, a lot of sludge will be channeled by Anonymous.  But
>of far more importance will the occasional Copernican theory
>(still censored in some areas until the early 19th C.) be able
>to surface without intimidation or retribution.

Good grief. This a lot of self-righteous hooey from someone defeinding his
right to repost from the Weekly World News to a scientific newsgroup, and
to do so with patently false and offensive material. If that's your idea
of a Copernican theory, what do you call relativity??
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Support your local medical examiner - die strangely." -- Blake Bowers

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

Date: 17 Feb 93 22:56:45 GMT
From: "David M. Palmer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter/Atomic Booms for Jettison!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>In my Introduction to Nuclear Engineering class, I was taught that
>there are four ways of limiting exposure to radiation:
>  1) Increase the distance between yourself and the source
>  2) Decrease your exposure time
>  3) Increase your shielding
>  4) Reduce the intensity of the source

>If somebody has come up with a new way, please advise.

Let your grad student do it.

--
        David M. Palmer        [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 22:57:07 GMT
From: Michael Robert Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter/Atomic Booms for Jettison!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Andrew Haveland-Robinson ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>In my Introduction to Nuclear Engineering class, I was taught that
>there are four ways of limiting exposure to radiation:
>  1) Increase the distance between yourself and the source
>  2) Decrease your exposure time
>  3) Increase your shielding
>  4) Reduce the intensity of the source
>
>If somebody has come up with a new way, please advise.
>
How about ...
   5) Hire a graduate student to do the job

In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :[e-mail]|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you ever have a world of your own, plan ahead- don't eat it." ST:TNG

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 23:36:06 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are Landsat Satellites receivable?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>The ways to beat the diffraction limit are basically means of
>simulating a larger aperture...

Actually, it is possible to *really* beat the diffraction limit, rather
than cheating by simulating larger apertures... but it's not something
that can be applied to satellite observations.  (Hint:  what are the
assumptions behind the diffraction limit?)

I overlooked optical interferometry because it's cheating -- you really
do need that larger aperture, you just don't have to fill it in completely
or all at once.  Astronomers are just starting to experiment with it.  I'm
sure the NRO has thought about it, but heaven knows whether they're doing it.
--
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 23:52:31 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FGS Info (RE: HST repair mission)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) wrote:

>> Guidance comes from the Fine guidance system.  A series of three banana
>> shaped ccd, which tap light off the WF/PC?  My understanding is the
>> FGS is considered almost a separate science instrument on it's own.

and Kent Reinhard wrote a nice explanation of what the FGS system really
does in article <[e-mail]>

> The Fine Guidance Sensors (FGS) are located in the focal plane structure and
> placed at right angles to the optical path of the telescope.  They have
> "pick-off" mirrors that deflect the incoming light into the apertures.
[remainder of Kent's posting deleted for brevity.]

To correct another misconception that Kent did not address, the FGS's
are not CCD's.  Each FGS uses four photomultiplier tubes to measure the
signal directed to them by the star selector mirrors.  The pointing and
guidance system is independent of the WFPC, and vice verse.

-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 21:39:01 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Henry Spencer stamps
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>
>To be honest, I have no idea what Henry actually looks like, so if he was
>on those stamps, I wouldn't know anyway :-)
>
He probably looks like Elvis.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
|I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything!    |
|                                   <Bart Simpson>         |

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 21:34:02 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars flyby + asteroid rendezvous (was Re: Mir mission to Mars?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>(Upon reading your message I went looking for Mars Trojans in the
>>>*Boys' Big Book of Asteroids* but found nothing.
>>
>>I seem to recall a Mars Trojan being discovered a while back.
>
>There is, indeed, one known.  There may be some more, although it's not
>likely that there are great swarms of them.  They're not easy to spot,
>because they are "Trojans" only in a loose sense -- they wander a long
>way from the actual Trojan points.
>
>There actually isn't much about the Mars Trojan(s) that makes it/them
>particularly useful for future space activities, compared to other
>non-main-belt asteroids like the Earth-approachers.

What's the latest news about the Jupiter Trojans.  I understand that
there are quite a few known (I know that there's at least one with a
name:  Hektor at the leading trojan).  I've often thought that the
potential concentration of asteroids at these points might one day lead
to those points being the most densely populated points in the solar
system off the Earth (in say 500 years or so...).


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding |
| into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes   |
| with plaid is easy."                                           |
|                               <Albert Einstein>                |

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 23:07:38 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NF-104 (was Re: kerosene/peroxide SSTO)
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Sat, 6 Feb 1993 02:56:20 GMT, [e-mail] said:

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

> Also of note were the peroxide monopropellant rocket engines used in the
> NF-104 rocket-boosted aircraft flown by NASA and the USAF, which worked
> quite well and were serviced and fuelled by ordinary USAF technicians.

BG> Isn't that the one Chuck Yeager almost killed himself in?  Seems I recall
BG> somebody saying its flight envelope had more holes in it than a
BG> Tiajuana .... [nevermind].

That's the one immortalized in "The Right Stuff".

Supposedly, that incident (Chuck taking off because he felt like it)
is the reason that Edwards AFB uses the system of ops numbers and
CONFORM.  One gets one's flight put on the flight schedule and an ops
number is assigned.  One then relays this ops number to CONFORM
_before_ taxiing.  Although I'm at a loss to explain how this will
keep the determined from an illicit flight.  Maybe it gives the ground
crews a little longer to block the plane's path with a tug?

BG> I guess what I'm asking is did the engines work well, or the plane as
BG> a whole, or both, or neither?  Maybe Mary can provide some light on this
BG> if nobody else can.

There's some confusion here--NASA didn't fly the NF-104 rocket-boosted
aircraft.  We were flying F-104Ns at that time; these were regular
F-104s without the weapons suite and radar.  I don't really know
anything about the NF-104 project except that it went pretty much as
planned.  (Well, the accident wasn't _planned_ but it wasn't totally
unexpected either; in flight test one frequently assumes that one will
lose the vehicle, which is why we do so much flying over uninhabited
areas.)

One of the NF-104s is on a plinth beside the Test Pilot School down at
the other end of the flightline here and one of the F-104Ns is parked
in the desert at the museum site.

Now, to get back to the original subject, which is H2O2; we've used it
as a propellant in a variety of RCSs (reaction control systems),
including the X-15, various lifting bodies, and (I think) the RCS
YF-104A (see, there's another F-104--we had 11 different aircraft, 6
different models, so they keep appearing).  It's certainly no worse
that hydrazine, better if the amount of training required to walk
through the hangar with it around can be used as a gauge.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 00:22:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NF-104 (was Re: kerosene/peroxide SSTO)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>> NF-104 rocket-boosted aircraft flown by NASA and the USAF...
>BG> Isn't that the one Chuck Yeager almost killed himself in? ...
>
>That's the one immortalized in "The Right Stuff".
>Supposedly, that incident (Chuck taking off because he felt like it)
>is the reason that Edwards AFB uses the system of ops numbers and
>CONFORM...

Actually, the subject came up when Mitch Burnside Clapp was talking about
NF-104 peroxide experience at Making Orbit 93, and Mitch said (as best
I recall) that the movie had exaggerated the unauthorized nature of
Yeager's flight.  (I don't know details myself, but given how many other
things the movie exaggerated, I can well believe it...)

>BG> I guess what I'm asking is did the engines work well, or the plane as
>BG> a whole, or both, or neither?  Maybe Mary can provide some light...
>
>There's some confusion here--NASA didn't fly the NF-104 rocket-boosted
>aircraft...

Wups, my fault.  I knew that, too -- don't know why I mentioned NASA
in the original posting.

My understanding is that there were never any serious problems with the
peroxide hardware, and the aircraft systems gave no more trouble than
usual.  However, the F-104 was a notoriously unforgiving aircraft, and
flying a ballistic trajectory using rocket boost wouldn't be exactly an
easy mission even in a better-behaved aircraft.  It worked fairly well
but called for good pilots who never let their guard down even briefly.
--
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 15:23:53 EST
From: Ron McCarty <[e-mail]>
Subject: NOAA, METEOR satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

We have set up a satellite receiving station and are receiving
images from NOAA and Meteor (Russian) satellites. We would like
to correspond with others who are doing this or who are interested
in doing this. We are a branch college of Penn State, located in
in Erie PA. We hope to get some programs going with local elementary
and high schools to get students interested in science at an early
age. We also hope to get our own students involved in some undergraduate
research projects. We have faculty involved from computer science, physics,
biology and geoscience. As I said, we would like to correspond with others
who have like interests so we can pool our knowledge/resources/experiences.
Please respond by e-mail or followup, whichever you feel most appropriate.


Ron McCarty
Division of Science (Computer Science)
Penn State Erie, Behrend College

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

Date: 17 Feb 1993 20:30:10 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>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.

>Wouldn't it have been nice if NASA where engaged in a regular program
>of EVA years ago?
>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.

First you whine about the Intelsat rescue.  "No value," he says, "Cheaper to
send up a new satellite."

NASA (as one of their STATED objectives), conducts the rescue to gain more EVA
experience, based in part on the concern to keep said skills fresh for the
Hubble repair mission this November.

During the course of the mission, they find there ARE some differences between
ground simulations and The Real Thing.

So, NASA adds EVA time whenever it can on future Shuttle missions.

Which, if I might quote you again:

>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.

NASA realizes it has some shortcomings.  It now does EVAs and people such as
yourself start bitching about how useless it is to have two astronauts haul each
other around in the Shuttle cargo bay.

So tell me, Mr. Sherzer, what is the REAL reason why you don't like NASA?
Were you denied a job there?  Astronaut slot?  It is obvious you have an axe to
grind, beause they're incapable of meeting your standards of perfection.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 23:49:02 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Wouldn't it have been nice if NASA where engaged in a regular program
>>of EVA years ago? ...
>>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.
>
>First you whine about the Intelsat rescue...
>NASA (as one of their STATED objectives), conducts the rescue to gain more EVA
>experience, based in part on the concern to keep said skills fresh for the
>Hubble repair mission this November.

This is why it was one of a bare handful of EVA missions scheduled between
1985 and start of Fred assembly?

That wasn't a stated objective; that was a stated excuse.  They were doing
it for PR value, even if a lot of people (including some at NASA) thought
that getting more EVA experience was a damn good idea.  Before the Intelsat
rescue, NASA was deliberately minimizing EVA activity, on the grounds that
there wasn't much to be learned and it was too risky.  Only now, with the
Intelsat experience throwing a good scare into everybody, have *experimental*
EVAs, in substantial numbers, gone back into the plans.

>During the course of the mission, they find there ARE some differences
>between ground simulations and The Real Thing.
>So, NASA adds EVA time whenever it can on future Shuttle missions.

I believe Allen's point was that differences between simulations and the
real thing were absolutely predictable, but NASA was ignoring the issue.
The addition of EVA time wasn't a small change to existing plans based
on unexpected minor problems; it was a 180-degree reversal of policy,
based on getting a big nasty surprise on what was supposed to be a
showpiece mission.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Feb 93 20:00:07 GMT
From: Craig Meyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pressure fuel delivery, ideas regarding
Newsgroups: sci.space

Is it agreed upon that pressure-feeding fuel to engines is very advantageous in
terms of complexity (no pumps), but disadvantageous in terms of
wieght (thicker tanks to contain pressure)?

If so, I'd like to suggest a couple ways to possibly make pressure-feed
lighter, and see if you think they hold any water:

1
Use a high-pressure gas to deliver the fuel in the same manner as
a perfume atomizer.

2
a. Transfer fuel from thin-walled main tank to theoretical smaller, thick-walled
   secondary tanks by *light* pressure-feeding.
b. Close valve between main tank and secondary pressure tanks.
c. Pressure-feed fuel from secondary pressure tanks.
d. Depressurize pressure tanks, refill, and return to step a.

-----------------------------------------------
about standard pressure-feed systems:

I've read of a aluminum natural gas tank (for a bus) being wrapped with
carbon-fiber to hold a great deal more pressure.  I suppose the same technique
could be applied to non-cryogenic propellant tanks (Or is it common practice
already)?

How formiddable is the weight of the pressure-gas system itself, which
no scheme can reduce?

Thank you for your time,

CM
--
       Craig Meyer                 [e-mail]
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 00:01:19 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pressure fuel delivery, ideas regarding
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1993Feb17.150008.15241@bsu-ucs> [e-mail] (Craig Meyer) writes:
>...I'd like to suggest a couple ways to possibly make pressure-feed
>lighter, and see if you think they hold any water:
>
>Use a high-pressure gas to deliver the fuel in the same manner as
>a perfume atomizer.

This is a pump, of a type known as an ejector.  The problem is that you
need vast amounts of gas.

>a. Transfer fuel from thin-walled main tank to theoretical smaller, thick-walled
>   secondary tanks by *light* pressure-feeding.
>b. Close valve between main tank and secondary pressure tanks.
>c. Pressure-feed fuel from secondary pressure tanks...

This is a reciprocating pump of a slightly unusual type.  Gas consumption
should not be significantly higher than for a straight pressure-fed system,
but it's not clear to me why it has much of an advantage over a reciprocating
pump powered by a turbine or something on that order.  You've got much
of the same complexity (valves etc.), and all the weight of large amounts
of pressurization gas.

>about standard pressure-feed systems:
>I've read of a aluminum natural gas tank (for a bus) being wrapped with
>carbon-fiber to hold a great deal more pressure.  I suppose the same technique
>could be applied to non-cryogenic propellant tanks (Or is it common practice
>already)?

Filament-wound pressure tanks are routine practice in modern space hardware.

>How formiddable is the weight of the pressure-gas system itself, which
>no scheme can reduce?

Substantial, unfortunately.  You just plain need large amounts of *gas*,
which amounts to a fair bit of weight in itself, and storage is also a
headache.  The lightest gases, hydrogen and helium, are particularly
painful to store.
--
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 21:12:55 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>(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.)

Hmm... in my copy of the Oxford Spencer-Speak Dictionary, "modest
unknowns" doesn't totally equate to "clueless." It means we don't
know how to do it now, but we do have lots and lots of ideas on how
to do it, many of which might work, we just haven't bothered to
try any of them.

It's a fascinating book, BTW; apparently !attcan!utzoo!henry
originated in the transliteration into English of the battle cry
of a branch of an African nomadic tribe from British Guyana that
was living in the swamps south of New Orleans...

>Matthew DeLuca
>Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
>Internet: [e-mail]

--
Phil Fraering         |"...drag them, kicking and screaming,
[e-mail]|into the Century of the Fruitbat." - Terry Pratchett,
                       _Reaper Man_

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 20:09:22 GMT
From: Ata Etemadi <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI and Virtual Reality
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tim Thompson) writes:
|>    In response to an earlier query, I am quite confident that the NASA SETI
|> program has nothing to do with virtual reality. Remember, communication with
|> any possible aliens is definitely NOT part of the NASA SETI project. It is
|> strictly a radio search for extraterrestrial signals of an intelligent nature.
|> Detection of such a signal is the project's sole purpose, responding to any
|> such signal has never been considered as part of the NASA SETI project. Of course,
|> I suspect that if such a signal is detected, someone will become interested in
|> the communication aspects.

I remember about 10-15 years ago some organisation (I though it was SETI)
gathered together teams of top graduates and set them a puzzle to do with
communication. Basically the teams were given some hundreds of pages of
computer printout with 1's and 0's. This represented a "signal" from an
alien. The teams were given the job of decoding it. The idea was to use the
methodology they developed to "listen" for aliens. Hence why I mentioned it.
Sounds like a fun thing to try on the net..

    regards
        Ata <(|)>.

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 00:20:49 GMT
From: CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE DAILY
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am aware of a publication entitled Space Daily which is published daily (as
the name says) and I was wondering if this thing is available in the NET.
Does anyone know anything about that?

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 13:40:46 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube x554)
Subject: VR, Mars Pix

Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Virtual Reality research at NASA
> VPL also coined the current term of virtual reality.

They copyrighted it, too.  That's why you
see an alternative term "Virtuality".

Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Pictures of Mars wanted
> >>>>> On Sun, 14 Feb 1993 17:40:57 GMT, [e-mail] (Robert Chenina [Chemie]) said:
> RC[>     I'm looking for some pictures from the Viking mission. The pictures
> RC[>     are details obout the region called _Cydonia Mensae_ (approx. 40.9N,
> RC[>     9.45W) and referenced as:
> RC[>          35A72, 70A13, 673B56, 753A33.
> 35A72 and 70A13 can be found at:
>     cs.ubc.ca under pub/local/image/mars
>     phoenix.oulu.fi under pub/ufo_and_space_pics

Is this the reference for the "Face" ?

--
* 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: Thu, 18 Feb 93 17:22:20 EST
From: [e-mail]

Press Release Nr.05.93
Paris, 17 February 1993

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE SERVICING MISSION
JOINT ESA/BAE UK TECHNICAL PRESS BRIEFING
Wednesday 10 March 1993

On Wednesday 10 March 1993 astronauts from ESA and NASA will
be at British Aerospace Space Systems Limited, Filton, Bristol,
UK, training on the replacement set of solar arrays which they are
scheduled to fit to the Hubble Space Telescope at year end.

You are invited to attend a technical briefing on that day, which
will be given by senior representatives of the European Space
Agency and British Aerospace. The briefing will include details of
the design modifications and status of the solar arrays, together
with a brief overview of the scientific results already achieved by
the teams of astronomers using the telescope. There will be an
opportunity for interviews with the mission specialists in the crew
of NASA's Space Shuttle flight STS-61, who will be carrying out
the servicing mission for the Hubble Space Telescope in a series
of "Extra-Vehicular Activities - EVA' (space-walks). Five
astronauts are expected : Story Musgrave, Colonel Tom Akers,
Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Kathryn C. Thornton from NASA and Claude
Nicollier from ESA. There will also be a chance to view the solar
arrays in the British Aerospace clean room area where the
astronauts are working on their familiarisation programme.

The briefing will take place on Wednesday 10 March 1993 at British
Aerospace Space Systems, Filton, Bristol, UK (on the northern
outskirts of the city of Bristol). The event will begin at 10h30
a.m. and end with a buffet lunch running from approximately
01h30 p.m. to 02h30 p.m.

In order to assists with arrangements for travel to and from
bristol, British Aerospace proposes to run a free coach from and
to London Victoria Coach Station - if there proves to be sufficient
press interest. This coach would depart from London at
approximately 07h50 a.m. and arrive back at around 05h30 p.m.
Further details will be available on request when numbers are
known.

In order to gain access to the site and the briefing it is essential
that all attendees are expected and their names are provided in
advance. Please let us know by returning the attached fax form as



soon as possible and by Friday 26 February at the latest if you or
a colleague will be attending this briefing.




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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 198
------------------------------