Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO216.TXT

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 05:00:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #216
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 23 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 216

Today's Topics:
                       Aurora (rumors) (2 msgs)
                        Canadian SSF effort ??
                        Crescent moon sighting
         Fred is Dead! Long Live the Space Station! (2 msgs)
                       Galileo CD-ROMs (2 msgs)
                  Getting people into Space Program!
                         Henry Spencer stamps
          How many RPM's around his own axle can human take?
                  Measurement units for SSF and SSTO
                           Micro-management
                  Nobody cares about Fred? (2 msgs)
      Regularly updated Weather images ... help with HDF format?
       Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be dev
                          Return to the Moon
                  Stars in space pictures? (2 msgs)
        Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred?

    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: Mon, 22 Feb 93 18:08:19 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora (rumors)

>Was watching TV the other day (Beyond 2000???), and they had a clip on a
>rumored replacement for the SR-71 called the Aurora. The main gist of the
>report was that the word "aurora" had accidentally surfaced in a MD (or
>was it Lockheed) financial report.  The two incidents noted were an air
>traffic controller ("a friend of mine who is") who had tracked two of
>these supposed aircraft at 10,250 mph  (Yes, that is what they said.).
>Mike Anderson (19 Feb 93 20:11:03 GMT)

Looks a little too fast for Aurora, which is said to fly at Mach 6-8.

>The other was a tremor felt in Los Angeles that scientists said was not
>an earthquake.

The following has been posted by Bob Waterman (8 Dec 92 22:19:48 EST):

>>From Wall Street Journal...
>>
>>Magazine Suggests Aircraft Has Flown Mach 8 for Years
>>
>> [stuff deleted]
>>
>>       The speculation about hypersonic aircraft flying over California
>>has special interest for that state's residents, many of whom have
>>felt what they thought were small rumbling earthquakes for nearly
>>a year and a half - only to be told by representatives of the U.S.
>>Geological Survey that some peculiar unreported aircraft were
>>probably responsible. Scientists have referred to the phenomena as
>>"airquakes" and even described the speed and size of the aircraft
>>that might cause them. The Jane's article suggests that the speed
>>and size correspond to those of the mystery spy plane.

There had been previous articles about that in the Los Angeles Times
(April 17, 1992, "Secret Out On 'Quakes': It's Only a Spy Plane", by
Edmund Newton) and the Los Angeles Daily News (May 17, 1992, "New Dawn
For Aurora? Series Of Sonic Rumblings May Herald Confirmation Of Secret
Lockheed Spy Plane", by Russ Britt). IMHO, these rumblings are the best
indication in favor of the existence of Aurora. However, an hypersonic
SR-71B is used by the NASA in California (AW&ST, February 3, 1992, "NASA
Ames-Dryden Crews Flying SR-71s To Support High-Speed Research Projects")
Could this SR-71 be the culprit ?

>Anyone have any opinions, thoughts, facts, etc. on this?

Other facts have been put forward: a "strange" contrail has been
photographied (but maybe it was just a defective engine ?), a few
"unknown" aircrafts, more or less delta shaped, have been seen by
"reliable" observers. The problem is that when you apply the same
criteria as those applied to UFOs sightings, nothing remains...
There are also rumors that this plane sometimes crosses the Atlantic
and lands at the Machrihanish base (Kintyre peninsula, Scotland).
Finally, it has been conjectured that the loud "bang" which shaked
a part of the Netherlands on August 19, 1992, had been caused by
Aurora.

>My own opinions echo the report I'm referring to:  that the DoD rarely
>phases out anything unless they have something to replace it with.

This also is a serious indication in favor of the existence of Aurora.

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 03:37:06 GMT
From: John Alan Dunning <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora (rumors)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lab Master) writes:
>Was watching TV the other day (Beyond 2000????), and they had a clip on a
>rumored replacement for the SR-71 called the Aurora.  The main gist of the
>report was that the word "aurora" had accidentally surfaced in a MD (or
>was it Lockheed) financial report.  The two incidents noted were an air
>traffic controller ("a friend of mine who is") who had tracked two of
>these supposed aircraft at 10,250 mph  (Yes, that is what they said.).
>The other was a tremor felt in Los Angeles that scientists said was not an
>earthquake.
>
>Anyone have any opinions, thoughts, facts, etc. on this?
>
>My own opinions echo the report I'm referring to:  that the DoD rarely phases
>out anything unless they have something to replace it with.  I also
>believe that the clip I saw was not very well done...
>
>USENET and email welcome.
>
>-Mike Andersson <[e-mail]>

The latest issue of _Popular Science_ (March or April, I think) has a
cover story about "Aurora."  I don't have the article with me, but I
don't think it mentioned anything about an air traffic controller
tracking any fast-moving blips.  It did list a number of sightings by
aircraft-spotting "experts," as well as the tremors recorded by the US
Geological Survey.

More convincing to me than any supposed sightings, however, were the
arguments that the Defense Department wouldn't phase out their sole
spy plane without a replacement.  DoD statements to the contrary, spy
satellites can't do everything a plane can do: their orbits are fairly
predictable; overflights are harder to time to coincide with the
prime picture-taking hours (early morning); their instruments can't be
optimized for every possible mission, while it's easy to change a
plane's instruments; and so on.

It also would have cost relatively little (~200 million -- penauts by DoD
standards) to keep the SR-71s mothballed, as opposed to completely
decommisioning them, in case of a string of spy-sat failures.  Yet the
DoD actually *pushed* for the termination of the Blackbird program,
something which they've never done.  Then again, if they really wanted
to keep the Aurora program a secret, it probably would have made more sense
to keep the SR-71s openly flying a few missions, instead of claiming
satellites could do it all.

John

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 11:33:48 EST
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian SSF effort ??
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Clinton's probably just made some enemies at ESA, JSA, and CSA.  They've
>>been angry enough when previous changes to Fred were made without any
>>attempt to consult them, and now this...
>>Unless this is handled very skillfully indeed, NASA is going to have real
>>trouble lining up international "partners" for future projects.
>Yet another "hidden cost" not mentioned by the chainsaw reformists.

On the other hand, if the result is a station that can actually get *built*,
and if that station can make use of the work done by the international
partners, they may actually be relieved.  You can *bet* they've been skeptical
about Freedom ever actually flying.

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 18:52:11 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Crescent moon sighting

For those who keep records of such things:

6:35 PM EST, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2/22/93.

It was fairly dark by that time, so I probably could have seen it earlier
if I'd been looking for it.

I believe the new moon was on 2/21, so that's a relatively quick comeback.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 15:49:50 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fred is Dead! Long Live the Space Station!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

I wish they would hurry up and decide one way or the other,
but I do think that the rumor/trial-baloon of Clinton killing
Fred as it exists and then mandating a different station is the
right way to go.  In software design the best tack is to oftern
write a first cur at the product, then throw that away and start
over fresh.  This allows you to learn from mistakes, but to not
have to incorporate kludges and work-arounds into the final product.
Same for space station design?

For example, since EVA is clearely a station maintenance/assembly
problem, maybe a $billion or so thrown at the problem of developing
EVA capability would be money well spent.  An easy to use
space-suit/work-pod/whatever might make the space station a few
$billion cheaper to build.

P.S.  I must admit, one thing I have against Fred is the way it looks.
It just doesn't look like a space station.  (Nor does the shuttle
look like a rocket ship).  Over the weekend I went to the
Southern Cross Astonomical Societiy Winter Star Party in the Florida
keys [The Orion nebula through Tom Clark's (not me) 36 inch yard-scope
is amazing].  At the party, Knollwood Books [phone] had a display,
and there was a nice copy of "Across the Space Frontier" by Cornelius
Ryan (1952), a book which I studied very closely as a tyke. It is a
collection of articles by VonBraun, Ley and others.  VonBrauns part was
his magazine (Collier?) articles about his plan for an expedition to Mars.
Nice color paintings of a three-stage shuttle (vertical stack), the
classic wheel space station, and, of course, the Moon and Mars
shuttle vechicles.  Unfortunately, I couldn't justify $40 for the book.

Can some kind soul obtain a copy, scan the images and post them to
alt.binaries.images so the younger generation can learn what space
hardware is supposed to look like?

By the way, someone was looking for "Igntion!".  Knollwood specializes
in astronomy and space books.  Maybe they could find a copy.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 18:06:01 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fred is Dead! Long Live the Space Station!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas
Clarke) writes:
> P.S.  I must admit, one thing I have against Fred is the way it looks.
> It just doesn't look like a space station.  (Nor does the shuttle
> look like a rocket ship).

I follow-up my own post lest you all think me a shallow
appearances-are-everything yuppy. [Also, having been away all week,
I suffer network withdrawal]

I strongly believe that in good engineering, form follows function.
If a device does not look right, then either
a.  it has the wrong function, it does not work as desired, or
b.  it is poorly engineered
  (or both).
To my eye, this reasoning applies to both Fred and the shuttle.
Your opinions may differ.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:43:10 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo CD-ROMs
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,alt.cd-rom

>>>>> On 22 Feb 1993 00:13 UT, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) said:

RB>      Five Galileo CD-ROMs (volumes 2 through 6) have been released by the
RB>Galileo project.  These CD-ROMs contains the raw images taken by the Galileo
RB> spacecraft on its Venus flyby in February 1990 and its first flyby of
RB> the Earth and Moon in December 1990.

Stupid question, but why vol. 2-6?  Is a volume one going to be released
later?

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
[e-mail]                           _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

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

Date: 22 Feb 1993 16:51 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo CD-ROMs
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,alt.cd-rom

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed McCreary) writes...
>>>>>> On 22 Feb 1993 00:13 UT, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) said:
>
>RB>      Five Galileo CD-ROMs (volumes 2 through 6) have been released by the
>RB>Galileo project.  These CD-ROMs contains the raw images taken by the Galileo
>RB> spacecraft on its Venus flyby in February 1990 and its first flyby of
>RB> the Earth and Moon in December 1990.
>
>Stupid question, but why vol. 2-6?  Is a volume one going to be released
>later?
>

Volume 1 was a test version.  It had a lot of errors in it, and will not
be released.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | for anything.

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 07:55:08 EST
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, prb@access (Pat) writes:
>
>Seriously.  My point was that the X-15 was qualifying astronauts
>at a rate that I think the SHuttle only passed recently.

I don't think so.  I believe there were 99 X-15 flights TOTAL.  Not all of them
went high enough to earn the pilot astronauts wings (most did not, I believe --
if the mission was a "speed" rather than an "altitude" mission, it stayed low).
Not every high altitude flight took a new astronaut up.  Going out on a limb, I
bet the shuttle has made more international (i.e. non-US citizens) than the
X-15 made in total.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 16:47:47 GMT
From: Marcus Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Henry Spencer stamps
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:
|> He probably looks like Elvis.
|>
Gee, maybe I'd better spill the beans.  Henry isn't a real person, but rather an
  advanced (and until now *secret*) A.I. experiment running on a highly
  modified PDP-11/34 in the basement of the Ramsay Wright zoological
  laboratories, U of T.......:-) :-) :-)

--
Marcus Leech, 4Y11             Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
[e-mail]                  P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
[e-mail]             Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 18:02:01 GMT
From: "Adam R. Brody " <[e-mail]>
Subject: How many RPM's around his own axle can human take?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.med

[e-mail] (Joni Jarvenkyla) writes:


>I am not sure if this is the right group, but as space technology has
>also studied the limits of human, I'd guess there was somebody who knew:

>How many RPM's around his own axle can a human take?

>Let's take two cases: a human is sitting on a round table, under which
>is an electric motor, and then the same but standing on it?


I have been a test subject in the Man-Carrying Rotation Device here
at Ames.  It is a closed box that rotates a person around his axis.
The rotations are not too bad until you rotate your head.  They I
finally understood what those lectures on Coriolis were about!  I
don't know if there are any phyisological problems about rotating
about one's axis.  The g-levels are small because the moment arms
are short.  The ear (otolith) senses accelerations, not velocity.
Once velocity has been achieved, you do not sense the rotation,,,
until you move your head!

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 17:31:32 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Measurement units for SSF and SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven J. Edwards) writes:

>As has been reported before, all of the previous incarnations of Space
>Station Freedom used the old English measument system instead of SI
>(metric).  Is the new design incarnation still going to be measuring
>both force and mass in pounds?  Is the truss (if present) still going
>to measured in feet?  Will the perigee and apogee still be given in
>nautical miles?  (Sailing, sailing, over the bounding main ...)  I
>have heard that NASA has thought that teaching SI to the current
>astronaut corps is "too demanding".  Golly, if it meant a chance at
>going into space, I'd learn Sumerian clay cuniform notation if it were
>needed.  If NASA is worried about contractor upgrade and conversion
>costs, the questions are "if not now, then when?" and "if not the US
>contractor community, then who?".

Well, golly, then what's the problem with using feet, inches, etc.?
Can't all those 'advanced' folks in the rest of the world convert to
keep up with the backward country that is footing the majority of the
bills?

>Some of the SSTO documents posted to this newsgroup also gave
>specification measurements in units of pounds and feet.  I hope that
>this isn't what's on the blueprints.

Why?

>If the above projects are intended for the 21st century, then it seems
>doubtful that they should use a measument system that is already out
>of date now in the 20th century.

It may be out of date elsewhere, but it's not showing a lot of signs
of going away here anytime soon.

>If the above projects are intended to be used by the international
>community, then it seems doubtful that they should use a measurement
>system employed only by old timers in a single country.  This is
>doubly true if hardware contributions are also expected from other
>countries.

Again, why?  Seems like the country putting in the majority of the
money is the one to be deciding this.  And it's not like there isn't
at least some precedent for it; just look at international aviation.

[Some of us get a little bored with the constant rants from SI bigots.
I can use all this stuff interchangeably -- why can't you?]

--
"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: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 16:29:09 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Micro-management
Newsgroups: sci.space

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


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

>Actually, Congess' job is writing laws that protect our rights.  Spending
>money taken from us against our will is called 'violating citizens
>rights', or 'robbery', as long as there are those who don't support
>that taking and spending.

>If you take it as given that Congress must work this way, fair enough,
>just call it what it really is.

We are.  You are not.  Please see your local copy of the U.S.
Constitution regarding the duties and powers of Congress.  You will
find taxation and spending of said revenues among the powers.  It's up
to the voters to hold them accountable for how much they tax and just
what they fund with it, but calling taxation and spending "violating
citizens rights" or "robbery" is a losing strategy; it merely makes
you look like 'lunatic fringe' material and people stop listening.'

--
"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: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 11:19:17 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>This is at least the fifth time I've seen you accuse someone of accusing
>you of being a liar this week;

Actually, it is the second time I accused Dennis.

>the fact that someone doesn't believe you
>doesn't necessarily mean they think you are lying, they may just think you
>are plain incorrect.  Your persecution complex is showing.

I point out that several Freedom engineers agree with my assessment
of the project but keep their names in confidence because they ask
me to. Dennis strongly implies that I fabricated the letters or they
never existed.

That goes beyond disagreement and calls into question my honesty.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------113 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 15:18:29 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:
>  There is a great
> deal of difference in just being up there to fly the flag and going up there
> to do real work and real research.

What is "real reasearch"?  I recall that during last summer's FRED budget
battles, several scientific societies (after much soul searching, no
doubt) recommended that FRED be cancelled since it did not provide the
sort of capabilities they needed for their research.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 05:06:28 GMT
From: tommy pickles <[e-mail]>
Subject: Regularly updated Weather images ... help with HDF format?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology

Howdy!
    Thanks, Milo.  Can't wait to try this out.  I have
a <dumb?> question about HDF files.  What are they?  I know
our NCAR Graphics package has some hdf filters for the
ftrans and ctrans routines -- can I feed your HDF files
to the NCARG stuff?  Also, we have a few "hdf2xxx" conversion
programs on our Sun 4/470.  Can I use these on your HDF files?
Lastly, are there any other <free?> programs on the net
for manipulating HDF files?  Thanks for the help.
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pat Hayes, Meteorology, Texas A&M University...<whoop!>[e-mail]
O&M 1008, TAMU, CS, TX 77843-3150....days:[phone] fax:[phone]

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 04:55:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be dev
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes...
>[e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>
>>Do they already have a date for deployment of SSF II???
>
>No.  They don't even have any money.  Just wait a few months and see what
>happens.
>
>

Not only do they have no money they have no plan. This whole business is no
more than a repeat of the recent pitting of manned space against unmanned
space by politicans who are a whole lot smarter than space advocates when it
comes to defeating a competing philosophy.

There is no concrete plan from the administration about what, when, where and
how of a SSF II. And since first element lauch is no more than three years
away for SSF, I do not think that a completly new station will be in the
air before the present one. Do you?

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 17:54:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Return to the Moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

            Return to the Moon Campaign Launched
-
San Diego L5, a chapter of the National Space Society, announced
the kick-off of the Return to the Moon campaign, an effort to
resume lunar exploration by the United States. The key to
the campaign is the enactment into law of the Lunar Resources
Data Purchase Act (also known as the Back to the Moon bill).
-
Informational kits for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act (also
known as the 'Back to the Moon bill') are now available.
Individuals or organizations wishing to *participate* in the effort
to regain America's lead in lunar science, please e-mail your
U.S. postal service address for a copy of the info packet.
-
The packet contains the first draft of the Act, the rationale for
the bill, Congressional strategy and tactics, and information
on the SeaWIFS program, wherein NASA is purchasing ocean data from
the private sector.
-
The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act, to be introduced in the 103rd
Congress, will jump start the U.S. lunar exploration program by
authorizing the government to purchase lunar science data from the
private sector. Providers of the data, which may include private and
non-profit entities, will be selected on the basis of competitive
bidding.
-
For more information, please call San Diego L5, a chapter of the
National Space Society, at 619/295-3690, or leave E-mail. Please
note that non-US responders will be sent the information in digital
form via E-mail.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 14:07:26 GMT
From: Scott Harris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stars in space pictures?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In every space picture I've ever seen, like the ones of Earth, the Moon, the
various planets, etc., I have never seen *stars*.  Shouldn't there be millions
of stars showing all around in space?

Scott

--
===============================================================================
 Scott E. Harris                    phone:  [phone]
 Bell Northern Research, Inc.                FAX:    [phone]
 705 Westech Drive
 Norcross, Georgia 30092  U.S.A.            email:  [e-mail]
===============================================================================

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

Date: 22 Feb 93 18:35:34 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stars in space pictures?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Few (no?) cameras have the dynamic range of the human eye. Pictures
which show foreground bodies lit by the Sun will almost always be
severely underexposed for stars. Pictures which show stars will almost
always be severely overexposed for foreground objects.

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 04:51:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Cain) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Ivan) writes:
>>|>
>>|>   It seems to me that having a earth to moon shuttle would be a far more
>>|> suitable use of resources. Something that could take a few people and cargo
>>|> out to the moon and back to earth orbit.  Okay, I know that somebody will
>>|> argue that a space station is needed in between.
>
>    NASA an most others agree that a space station is virtually
>useless as a staging point between the Earth and Moon or Mars. I
>brought this point up with one of the people in Goldin's entourage in
>Tampa in December. He told me that getting them in the proper position
>on a return is almost impossible. They thus have no plans to use a
>space station as an intermediate stop to or from any planet.

That is funny. Dr. Von Braun's early ideas all hinged upon having a space
station in Low earth orbit as a staging ground for the moon or Mars. His
rational was that this was a cheaper approach than having a single large
vehicle such as the Saturn V go there directly. This idea remained active
until the full up Saturn was considered a go from a funding and schedule
perspective. Dr. Von Braun did not think that the Government would go for
the 26 Billion that Saturn would cost. Due to the cold war mentality of the
race to the Moon the Space Station idea was dropped due to the schedule slip
involved.

By the way Aerobraking is a wonderful way to match velocity between a
returning lunar mission and the space station. Then after offloading you
then could either refuel and resend to the moon, or via a tether de-orbit
the returning lunar stage without using precious Space Station fuel or
having to do fuel transfers.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

PS look for the upcoming Truss tutorial and why it is better than a spam
in the can approach.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 216
------------------------------