Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO229.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 30KB | 729 lines

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 05:00:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #229
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 27 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 229

Today's Topics:
                  Alternative Space Station designs
                       Aurora (rumors) (2 msgs)
                          ESA press release
                         How about Skylab II?
               How to be a councilor at Huntsville...?
                McElwaine disciplined! (somewhat long)
                    Opening up Space to everyone!
                       Regulation Space Tosses
                    Spaceflight for under $1,000?
       SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) (2 msgs)
              Turpedo Tube in Reverse Missle Launchers.
     unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?) (2 msgs)
                           UN Space Agency?
              Vacancy for aerospace research in Ireland

    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: 24 Feb 93 17:33:26 GMT
From: Edward Dansavage Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative Space Station designs
Newsgroups: sci.space

Info request to the net....

I am interested in space station designs not based on the
"power tower" concept as was/is Freedom.  I am interested in
alternative designs such as inflatable structures, geodesic
dome configurations etc.  Could someone please provide a starting
place to look for this information?  Is there a particular NASA
installation I should contact?

As always,
Ed Wright
University of Wisconsin at Madison

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

Date: 24 Feb 1993 16:27:39 GMT
From: "Peter J. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora (rumors)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]> writes:
> Uh, it may be fast and all but, uh, what good is an audible spy plane?

I think I read once that the Soviet Union (when there was one) had
installed auditory sensors at key places along their borders to
listen for the sound of an otherwise stealthy plane entering their
country at low altitude.  Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 15:52:07 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora (rumors)

>Go fast enough and your plane will be LONG gone by the time anyone
>(audibly) detects it.
>Robert Fentiman (23 Feb 1993 15:22:59 -0600)

Suppose Aurora wants to spy on some installation deep inside a big
country. Suppose it flies over the border at 30,000 ft up. Before
it has penetrated 100 miles inside, the whole country may be on
alert. Radio waves, phone calls, e-mail go much faster than any
kind of Aurora.
But maybe Aurora has been designed to spy on little countries like
Panama... However, in that case, the noise would tell the inhabitants
they *have been* spied on.

>It's not like the Aurora flies RIGHT OVER the target, anyway.  According
>to the PS article, it's got this neat-o super-detailed SIDE-looking
>radar system. In other words, when the thing flies by, it could be a
>HUNDRED miles away and still see YOU fine, since it's so high up and
>the radar sytem is so high-res.
>
>It's NOT audible to the target.
>Craig Meyer (24 Feb 93 05:25:47 GMT)

Sounds a little better, but Aurora should keep rather far off the
borders.

>At a 100K+ feet up, it would probably not be audible
>even if it *was* right overhead.
>Dean Adams (Wed, 24 Feb 93 14:02:15 GMT)

Why is it extremely audible in the Los Angeles area? Does it fly at
rather low altitude? If yes, can it only fly at hypersonic speed ?
(it should never land !) Does Aurora hate Los Angeles ?

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Wednesday, 24 Feb 1993 17:14:49 CET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ESA press release
Newsgroups: sci.space

Joint Press Release ESA/EUMETSAT/NOAA Nr.08.93
Paris, 24 February 1993

EUROPEAN WEATHER SATELLITE MOVES
CLOSER TO UNITED STATES

A new era of international cooperation in the sharing of weather
data was marked today when a European weather satellite
completed a move to 75 degrees west longitude at 22,500 miles
(36,000 km) above the equator. The satellite now provides weather
images spanning both East and West Coasts of the United States,
Central and South America.

Meteosat-3 was launched in 1988 and served as Europe's
operational satellite until June 1989. It was developed by the
European Space Agency (ESA) and operated by ESA on behalf of
the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological
Satellites (EUMETSAT). The announcement of its move was made
at a joint news conference by these agencies and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operates the
United States' geostationary weather satellites known as GOES
satellites.

The United States normally operates two meteorological satellites
in geostationary orbit, one each over the East and West Coasts.
However, it has had only one since the failure of GOES-6 in 1989.
A planned replacement satellite was lost due to a launch vehicle
failure in 1986.

The remaining operational satellite, GOES-7, was repositioned
midway over the United States. The next GOES launch is projected
for April 1994 with a second GOES launch one year later.
Meanwhile, if GOES-7 should fail, it is technically possible for
Meteosat-3 to move farther west and provide continuing coverage
of the United States, Central and South America.

Meteosat-3 originally operated at 0 degrees longitude over the
equator. It was manoeuvred to a position of 50 degrees west over
the equator in August 1991 to supplement NOAA's GOES system.
It began the journey to its new location of 75 degrees west
longitude 27 January, moving approximately one degree per day
in support of the Extended Atlantic Data Coverage mission.

At 75 degrees west, Meteosat-3 is no longer within the field of
view of the Meteosat station located near Darmstadt, Germany. To
be able to continue the operations from ESA's European Space
Operations Center (ESOC) it was necessary to build a Meteosat



Relay station in Wallops, Virginia. The station, implemented by
European industry under ESA management, is connected with
ESOC's control center through a trans-Atlantic satellite link.

Images from Meteosat-3 are available free of charge and will be
used by weather forecasters in both the northern and southern
American continents and will also be available to European weather
services using already established communications links involving
Meteosat 4.

There is a tradition of cooperation among operators of
geostationary satellites. In 1978, a U.S. GOES satellite was
positioned over the Indian Ocean at the request of the World
Meteorological Organisation, and operated by the European Space
Agency from a ground station in Spain. In 1985, NOAA aided
Europe by repositioning a GOES satellite farther east over the
Atlantic during the loss of the Data Collection System on Meteosat-
2.
                         *
                        * *
          Note to Editors :

Prints of the first image taken on 19 February 1993 by Meteosat-3
from its new location at 75 degrees West, together with some
explanations of the meteorological situation that day, are available
from ESA Public Relations at one of the addresses figuring on the
first page of this press release.




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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 20:52:10 GMT
From: David Pugh <[e-mail]>
Subject: How about Skylab II?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
|> A few?  No, you want to burn Shuttle and buy Soyuz in order to save your
|> taxpaying dollars, remember?
|> ...
|> Rather than trying to cover yourself, why don't you address how much direct
|> unemployment would result from your fantasies?

I don't want to sound too crass, but who cares? NASA's primary mission should be
to develop technology and not to provide jobs. I realize, of course, is not the
way it works in the real world. But using the excuse that the system is busted
to justify not fixing it does not seem to make a lot of sense.

So, for all you Fred fans out there, please tell me what would be wrong with the
following:
    Launch ASAP something like ISF's (?) man tended facility (which was
    killed, I think, due to NASA's opposition).

    Develop and launch a skylab II ... a big can with a docking module
    at one end, life support for 3 people for 6 months. Primary constraint:
    it can be launched fully assembled and tested by a single shuttle flight.

    On the next shuttle flight, launch the crew + an ACRV + any interesting
    science module to attach to the docking module. Make sure Skylab II and
    the man tendended facility are "close" enough that astronauts have
    periodic access to it without using the Shuttle.

    Six months later, replace the crew, ACRV, supplies & repeat. 4 years
    later, ditch the ACRV in favor of another science module since a
    world-wide fleet of 20 DC-1s will make it redundant (I hope!).

    Down the road a bit, use Skylab II as an assembly point for a Fred-type
    station (i.e. something so big it can't be launch in one piece).

Given a serious effort, it doesn't seem impossible to get Skylab II launched
within 4 or 5 years, though I'd like to see some numbers on how expensive
Skylab was and how long it took to design.
--
... He was determined to discover the        David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.        ...!seismo!cmucs!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.    _Mort_,  Terry Pratchett

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

Date: 24 Feb 93 18:36:06 GMT
From: Scott A Koester <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to be a councilor at Huntsville...?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1mf3sc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill) writes:
>I have a friend that wants to be a councilor for the Space Camp at huntsville.
>Does anyone know the proper channels to go through so she can apply?  I guess
>she just wants phone numbers of people she needs to call, and she wanted me
>to ask here.  E-mail replies please.
>
>Thanx in advance,
>
>    Bill


    I am also interested in this, highly actually.  Please send this
information to me in email also if anyone has it.  An email address maybe to
contact?  Thanks....


Scott Koester

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 16:43:52 GMT
From: Benjamin T Dehner <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine disciplined! (somewhat long)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

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

>[e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>> [e-mail] (Russell J. Pagenkopf) writes:
>>
>> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>> >>It always worries me when someone is stomped on because of what he says,
>> >>even if what he says is unadulturated gibberish.  Are we so thin-skinned
>> >>that we can't just ignore stuff we don't want to see?
>>
>> >* SOAPBOX ON *
>>
>> >I must agree with you Andrew.  Just because *you* (newsgroups in
>> >general) don't agree with what someone has to say doesn't mean you have the
>> >right to CENSOR him/her.  Yes, I agree that sometimes some of the posts can
>> ...
>>
>> Maybe it's about time a lot of these people learned about
>> a newsreader called 'nn'.

>BRAVO!

>                                                Jason Cooper

    The issue here is not about content, but about volume.  McElwaines
megalithic posted at frequent intervals take up network resources and disk
space wether or not I read them or kill them.  Furthermore, it seems that
McElwaine himself never discussed his posts, but simply reposts and reposts
and reposts; in short, an automated pamphlet mailer, as someone else pointed
out.
    However, if you do want to discuss content, McElwaine's stuff was
entirely tangential, if not irrelevant, to many of the news groups he was
posting too.  Would it be okay if I reposted stuff here from, say,
comp.os.msdos.4dos?  Anybody who says 'no' is trying to violate my freedom
of speech, and I can start crying "help, I'm being oppressed".  Actually, if
I set up an automatic poster to snag random articles from comp.os.msdos.4dos
and post them here, you stil couldn't stop me and violate my 'free speech'.
Irrelevant of the waste of resources this may represent.
    Please remember that with freedom comes responsiblility.  Specif-
ically, responsible use of the resources that the network represents, and
recognition of the discussion purposes for which many of the newsgroups
were established.  I agree that revocation of newsnet access is a serious
matter, and should not be done lightly.  However, it seems in this case that
it was warranted.

Ben

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
[e-mail]       Iowa State University
                      Ames, IA 50011
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
[e-mail]       Iowa State University
                      Ames, IA 50011

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 13:05:31 GMT
From: Marvin Batty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Opening up Space to everyone!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Now that just about every country on the planet seems to have either launched
their own astronaut, or had them sent up by other organisations, time
for a new angle. Why no disabled people in space? If payload weight is all
important, and legs (for instance) are not terribly useful in a low-grav
environment, then why not send up astronauts with no legs? The same principle
holds for deaf or blind people. Visual or aural communication can still be
maintained where one "sense" is disabled, through using computer technology.

Plans have been drawn up for hospitals in space to cure those with "terminal"
burns, or other conditions influenced by gravity. If disabled people are
going to be in space, why just as humanitarian "bagage"? Why not as workers
contributing the same level, (if not higher) of input to the space race?

With equal opportunities legislation, coupled to a good standard of medical
support (not unlike standard life-support!) the presence of disabled people
in space seems a real possibility. There really isn't any need that I can see
for astronauts etc to be predominantly male (white) and square jawed types of
the space-race.

I realise this is a novel concept but, think before you flame!
--
****************************************************************************
                  Marvin Batty - [e-mail]
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like attachment,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 15:50:51 GMT
From: "Brian A.Laxson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Regulation Space Tosses
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Greetings,

For a potential 4th year engineering project I could use your help in
gathering some background infomation:

Does anyone know what/where to find any regulations that exist for
astronauts passing objects around in space?  Do they just avoid doing it
as much as possible?

I could use information for both inside a shuttle/station and outside (EVA
activites).

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 13:20:31 GMT
From: Marvin Batty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spaceflight for under $1,000?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Space travel, and indeed pretty much anything to do with Space
seems to require billion dollar budgets. But is this absolutely necessary?
In an organisation like NASA, or the ESA for that matter, there must be
many people employed (paid) whose jobs have little or nothing to do
with actually building a space-craft and launching it. Long term planners,
financial liasons, Presidential Advisors, caterers, tea-ladies etc, etc.
The list must be endless.

If, therefore, a company got together for the sole purpose of building
and launching one rocket, presumably the costs would be considerably smaller.
But does anyone have an idea what would be the minimum cost of putting one
man in orbit? Presumably the main costs are launchpad, fuel, lifesupport
and rocket. I heard somewhere that the latest Space Shuttle has five
computers which combined have less memory than a good PC. Is this really true?

Is it really possible for a small organisation to launch a man into space, if
that is all it intends doing? I know this has shades of "The Mouse That Roared"
but the possibility intrigues me. Ray Bradbury wrote, in The Martian Chronicles
of families building their own rocket to get to Mars. James Blish wrote
"welcome to Mars", about a boy who gets to Mars by himself.

Any serious possibilities?


--
****************************************************************************
                  Marvin Batty - [e-mail]
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like attachment,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 18:27:30 GMT
From: tomas o munoz 283-4072 <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:


|> The above is an opinion and should not be considered by the reader as
|> gospel.  What about Titan IV ? Admittedly Titan IV's record is not
|> stellar, but in the event of a problem the Air Force has 41 of them and
|> they could be used in the event of Shuttle stand down due to disaster.

There are a couple of problems to this recommendation:
Titans can't deliver/retrieve humans if the scenario occurs during
permanent manned operations [although the ACRV is already there].
How do you perform the actual payload transfer from the expendable
to the SSF if the SSF is unmanned? - You really need IVA for this
operation.  The number of logistics elements/carriers in the program
are limited - you don't want to lose one with a less than stellar vehicle.
etc......

|> Also the Station is primarily gravity gradient stabilized in order to
|> preserve the microgravity environment. There could be many methods
|> implemented to help reduce fuel use in case of trouble.

The SSF is in a TEA during most of its life.  Depending on the circumstance,
you may want to use all your propellant and reboost as high as you can
in order to gain as much orbital lifetime as possible.

|> In addition, it is my understanding that the primary reason for the
|> Fuel on SSF is not for attitude control but for reboost. Now certainly
|> they could live without reboost for a few months or even a year or two.

This is true at almost any place along SSF assembly.  In the PMC
phase, you have the ability to fully feather the PV arrays and have
orbital lifetime ranging up to ~1.5 years.

--
========================================================================
Tom Munoz     |   [e-mail]

Thought for the day [plagiarized from someone else]:

Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
========================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 18:42:26 GMT
From: tomas o munoz 283-4072 <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

|> >In addition, it is my understanding that the primary reason for the
|> >Fuel on SSF is not for attitude control but for reboost. Now certainly
|> >they could live without reboost for a few months or even a year or two.
|>
|> A few months yes but not a year. About 180 days after missing a firing
|> (and there is one every Shuttle flight) it will re-enter.

Again, during PMC the SSF can fully feather its arrays and have up to
~1.5 years.  During assembly, the MB2 configuration has like 700+
days of lifetime to re-entry [defined to be 150 nmi].  These numbers
assume an 11-year solar cycle length with a +2 sigma solar flux.

The 180 day number is the minimum lifetime the SSF will have
under nominal operations.  In case of a Shuttle grounding, you
can feather your PVs or you can reboost as high as you can and
gain lifetime that way.

--
========================================================================
Tom Munoz     |   [e-mail]

Thought for the day [plagiarized from someone else]:

Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
========================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 17:27:52 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Turpedo Tube in Reverse Missle Launchers.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Idea for a way to deploy a missle without having to have hard points or a
>"bombbay"..

>Have a "bombbay" that opens to drop off the missle. Kind of like a torpedo
>tube on a submarine in reverse.

>The missle would get its lock from the airplanes sensors..

>Im not sure how to describe my idea.. So tell me what it sounds liek and Ill
>say yes or no..

It sounds like a lot of problems to me, if you're talking about doing
this at speed.  When you open your hatch, you totally change the
aerodynamic behaviour of the vehicle.  In addition, all that area is
probably going to have to be hardened due to shockwave patterns that I
would expect to develop around such a 'hatch'.

I guess the lesson is that the aerodynamics of the whole plane
(including the back side, if I'm picturing this right) are quite
important.  You can't just spit something out back there.

--
"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: 24 Feb 1993 17:05:58 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>However, the initial point stands.  Mr. Sherzer will not be happy until every
>>stinkin' burrrreo-crat in NASA is unemployed and out on the street, so America
>>(waive flag for knee-jerk reaction) can once again
>>assume it's manifest destiny in the Universe.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hmmm.... A few months ago I was the enemy of all Loyal Americans because I
>was out to destroy the US aerospace insustry and give it to the Russians
>by buying a few Soyuz's.

>$5 to whoever can tell me just when I changed sides (Doug will be the judge
>since he seems to be the only one who knows). Boy this New World Order sure
>is confusing!

A few?  No, you want to burn Shuttle and buy Soyuz in order to save your
taxpaying dollars, remember?

Whatsammatter Allen, haven't you accused enough people of calling you a
liar today?

Rather than trying to cover yourself, why don't you address how much direct
unemployment would result from your fantasies?

Oh, I'm sorry.  You don't think those sorts of things out.



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 18:35:36 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

 >>However, the initial point stands.  Mr. Sherzer will not be happy until every
 >>stinkin' burrrreo-crat in NASA is unemployed and out on the street, so America
 >>(waive flag for knee-jerk reaction) can once again
 >>assume it's manifest destiny in the Universe.
 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Hmmm.... A few months ago I was the enemy of all Loyal Americans because I
>>was out to destroy the US aerospace insustry and give it to the Russians
>>by buying a few Soyuz's.

>A few?  No, you want to burn Shuttle and buy Soyuz in order to save your
>taxpaying dollars, remember?

Oh my God! I have gone back to being an agent of Soviet Communism; and
in less than 24 hours yet.

My $5 offer still stands for my first transition but since I performed
this second about face in less than 24 hours it doesn't seem fair to
offer it for both times I changed sides.

Again, Doug will be the judge since he is so good at finding out that
I have changed sides.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------111 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 24 Feb 93 10:44:20 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: UN Space Agency?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> Is there a UN Space Agency
>
> They have the Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS)

Sometimes known (according to Arthur Clarke) as the Committee on the
Useful Pieces of Outer Space.

Bill Higgins                           | "I shop at the Bob and Ray
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Giant Overstocked Surplus
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | Warehouse in one convenient
Internet:       [e-mail]  | location and save money besides
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | being open every evening until 9."

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 20:26:51 GMT
From: Joe Desbonnet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vacancy for aerospace research in Ireland

********************************************************************

Vacancy for Engineer/Physicist/Computer Scientist:

We require a postdoctoral/industrial researcher with experience in
real-time signal/image processing and pattern recognition (particu-
larly using AI methods) to work in the FLAME consortium. The
post is vacant immediately.

FLAME (Future Laser Atmospheric Measurement Equipment) is a
major 2-3 year avionics project, funded by BRITE-EURAM, headed
by Sextant Avionique. It is intended to produce an airborne
instrument which can detect aircraft wake vortices, windshears
and microbursts - all of which are potential causes of aircraft
crashes. We are responsible for the signal processing work
package.

We can offer an attractive salary commensurate with experience.

For more information contact (before 20th March 1993) either:

Dr M. Redfern,  Dept of Physics,
University College Galway, Ireland
EMail: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] ext 2717

or

Dr John Eaton, Aerospace Engineering Research Unit,
University College Galway, Ireland.

Phone: [phone] x2769
FAX:[phone]

********************************************************************

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


From: M Bartos <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Medical information
Summary: Any sources for medical effects of space?
Keywords: space medicine
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Feb 93 16:22:56 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 13
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

I'm quite interested in the prolonged effects of space and generally
other medical matters pertaining to spaceflight. Would anyone have some
sources they'd recommend for further reading? I'm studying medicine so
technical depth is not a concern, also I'm contemplating what to do with
my elective study time - some portion of my 16wks spent investigating
space medicine abroad would be quite interesting. (Erm, I wasn't thinking
of space - I was being serious... though come to think of it ;-)).
Ex-Soviet sources would also be of interest. (I've no objection to learning
some Russian.)

Best regards,
Martin Bartos
([e-mail] - or uk.ac.ed for those in the U.K.)

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 229
------------------------------