Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO268.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Thu,  4 Mar 93 06:09:07
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #268
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  4 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 268

Today's Topics:
              Alternative space station design (3 msgs)
                           Aurora (rumors)
                         Battery help needed!
                        Getting people into S
       Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
              Low Earth Orbit in a Mars Blimp? (2 msgs)
              Lunokhod and VR (was Re: Mars exploration)
                      Mars exploration (2 msgs)
                      Medicine/EMS/SAR in Space.
                      NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
     Plutonium terror (was Re: Alternative space station design)
        Sisters of Mars Observer (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
                 SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. (2 msgs)
                    Spy Sats (Was: Are La (2 msgs)

    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: 2 Mar 1993 22:08:57 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative space station design
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:
|> * Primary power source---NOT solar arrays!
|>
|>   RTG pallet---known technology...not subject to shadowing problems...
|>       eliminates primary plume impingement problems....eliminates
|> largest flexibility problems, both control and structural....proven
|> safety.
|>  ...
|> This isn't the most lucid description of this I have ever given, but
|> "wadda ya think?"

    I think the Christic Institute and others of their ilk will have a field
day with NUCLEAR REACTORS IN EARTH ORBIT (cough. It's hard to speak in all
caps for any length of time).

    Yeah, they lie through their teeth, but they made a significant effort
to block the Ulysses and Galileo launches. Why give them an even better
forum with RTGs that will be low orbit for decades?

    Jon
    __@/

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

Date: 3 Mar 93 00:54:12 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative space station design
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Jon Leech) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:
>|> * Primary power source---NOT solar arrays!
>|>
>|>   RTG pallet---known technology...not subject to shadowing problems...
>|>       eliminates primary plume impingement problems....eliminates
>|> largest flexibility problems, both control and structural....proven
>|> safety.

>    I think the Christic Institute and others of their ilk will have a field
>day with NUCLEAR REACTORS IN EARTH ORBIT (cough. It's hard to speak in all
>caps for any length of time).

RTGs are not, of course, nuclear reactors.  (I'm assuming you're really smart
and already know both this and the fact that nobody else does :-)

The biggest problem with RTGs wouldn't come from eco-freaks (which I'm not
suggesting is a synonym for environmentalists), but from NASA.  Any reasonable
station is going to require tens of kilowatts of power.  One RTG provides a few
hundred watts if I recall correctly. It doesn't make sense to use scores of RTGs
when a simpler power system would work.  If you want to use nuclear power, use
real nuclear power.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
            In memoria, WDH

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

Date: 3 Mar 93 01:32:01 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative space station design
Newsgroups: sci.space

It sounds sensible: economical and incremental. NASA will
never willingly do it.

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

Date: 2 Mar 1993 20:55:36 GMT
From: steve hix <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora (rumors)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>>Also, it has a strange habit of shouting "Hi folks, I'm coming to
>>>spy on you !". (J. Pharabod)
>
>>More on the order of "Bye, I have just left the neighborhood."
>>(By the time you hear the sound, the aircraft is gone.)
>
>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.

Nobody flies anything anywhere near Mach 3 anywhere near as low as
30,000' (for very long, anyway).  Mr. Physics says it's not good to
do.  Think about airframe heating.

If Aurora exists (I think it's likely), it is not likely to be operating
low enough for anyone to be able to hear it...before, during, or after
the flight.

>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.

You have this fixation on the noise generated by the aircraft.

Find some good description of SR-71 operations and note the altitudes
that it flew at during high-speed operation.  Most of the time, there
will be no audible signal reaching the ground.  When the SR-71 comes
down to drink (being thirsty), it usually spends most of that time
around or below Mach 1...mostly below.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

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

Date: 2 Mar 1993 18:44:10 GMT
From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Battery help needed!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.electronics,sci.aeronautics,sci.chem,sci.engr

In article <1n02n5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>I think I'd look into the sexier battery technologies, like nickel-hydrogen
>>or silver-zinc, first.
>
>And just how does one decide which batteries are "sexy"  :-)

You check out the curves, man, check out the curves.
--scott

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 08:44:00 GMT
From: Roland Dobbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into S
Newsgroups: sci.space

JL>Could that be the vehicle commonly called the flying Bumble Bee, wh
JL>clai to fame in the ordinary world is the vehicle that opened the s
JL>and each episode of the six million dollar man. If I recall correct
JL>was aeronautically considered to be unflyable, but flew anyway and
JL>for a while touted as a great instrument for flight to and from low
JL>orbit. It finally crashed on descent when it touched down and did a
JL>up unfortunately a Helo was in the way and the two collided as the
JL>goes. I think That its prototypes and other s are still on display
JL>the yearly aeronautical show at Edwards airforce base.

As I recall, that particular lifting body was called the HL-10, and it
was most certainly _not_ designed *not* to fly . . . .

---
 . Orator V1.13  .  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]


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

Date: 2 Mar 93 22:56:31 GMT
From: Anita Cochran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> >
> >>And if your science mission does succeed,
> >>it's back to square one again (where are the followup missions for Galileo
> >>or Magellan?).
>
> Back to Matt:
>
> > Galileo and Magellan *are* followup missions, to the Pioneer and Voyager
> > series of probes.
>
> Quite true.  I've asked Magellan people about followups, but the data
> set will be so overwhelming that it will be a decade before anybody
> can figure out what to do with *better* radar imaging!  Let's stick to
> talking about Galileo.
>
> > For myself, I'd like to see what Galileo discovers before
> > trying to design a followup to it; there's no telling what we may want on
> > the next probe.
>
> A good point, but Galileo was launched in 1989 and you don't *need*
> its results to start designing a successor.  And it's easy to think of
> many followups, some cheap, some expensive:
>

Lots of good stuff about possible things we know we should do in a follow-on
mission deleted.

The choice of future missions is a combination of good science and politics.
People are certainly thinking about what should come next.  NASA has
had several science working groups and strategy panels working on it.
In addition, there is currently a report being written by
the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX), a standing
committee of the National Research Council (National Academy) which
is a strategy document for the decade and a half from 1995-2010.
The COMPLEX report is a very important part of the planning process

since COMPLEX is not a NASA agency and is more or less independent of
the NASA politics.  Its reports are fully refereed but are not in any
way controlled for input (I am a member of COMPLEX, which is why
I know so much about it).

The purpose of this report is strategy for the future.  The important
thing is prioritizing the best science.  But this is not done in a vacuum.
Politics does play into this.  First, we are characterizing what
we know at different bodies.  As one can guess, our depth of knowledge
is much greater at Jupiter than at Pluto or a comet.  Thus, future missions
to Jupiter or Saturn have to be reasonably sophisticated to add to
our current knowledge base.  In contrast, a simple mission to Pluto
or a comet would add substantially to our knowledge.

Keeping all of this in mind, one has to look back over the past 2 decades
and understand the trends in missions.  Truly large missions occur only
once per decade in planetary exploration.  In today's rough financial
times we cannot expect that to increase.  Additionally, Congress is
looking more carefully at the total costs of the missions.  NASA used
to go to Congress with costs to "launch+30" (what it will cost to develop
the spacecraft and instruments, launch it and run for the first 30
days of shakeout).  Then, they would expect Congress to give them the costs of
operating the mission and "borrow" this money from other programs if need be.
This tactic is changing and it is now expected that NASA should understand
the complete costs through EOM (end of mission).  This is why Cassini
is no longer considered a $1.6B mission but a $4B mission.

So, what is the future?  Well, we can expect no more than 1 big mission
per decade and Cassini is the mission of the 1990s.   There might be one
or more medium class missions ($400M to launch +30).  These might
include Pluto Fast Flyby or MESUR (which is probably a little large for
this class) or Neptune or a comet mission.

The future for more continual access is the Discovery line which has been
proposed.  Note, there is as yet no Discovery line approved but the
first 2 missions are selected:  MESUR Pathfinder and NEAR.  One
could argue with the politics of MESUR Pathfinder but NEAR is a logical
and solid choice.  After these 2, if there is an after, there is
a long list of possibilities.

However, Discovery class missions are unlikely to do much for follow-on
for Jupiter or Saturn.  Why?  Because we know so much about these two
planets that the next mission will need to be fairly sophisticated.
And big antennae and RTGs and the like and long cruise and science phases
will easily drive the cost out of the Discovery range ($150M).

Is this a bad thing?  Well, it is if you want to study Jupiter or Saturn.
But this is where setting priorities comes in.  Yes, we still have a lot
to learn about these planets but it might be more cost effective to
study comets or asteroids instead since we have so little knowledge about
these bodies.  And whereas Jupiter studies tell you a lot about atmospheric
dynamics and this is important for comparative planetology, comets
tell you far more about Origins.

The COMPLEX report is slowly coming together.  COMPLEX has not yet
done any of the prioritization.  We have just catalogued the state
of the knowledge and identified the big and important questions to be
raised.  The timescale is such that the report will be substantially
completed the 3rd week of July, then will go out for refereeing and
will be released sometime in early 1994 we hope.

I may regret this offer but...
Anyway who has reasoned input on priorities for planetary exploration (note
we do not deal with the earth, nor do we deal with specific missions)
please send me e-mail outlining the important issues and priorities in
your mind.  Note also that COMPLEX is writing the report from the orientation
of science.  While we recognize that exploration for its own sake is
important, we are not dealing with that concept but with what is important
in science.

--
 Anita Cochran  uucp:  !utastro!anita
                arpa:  [e-mail]
                snail: Astronomy Dept., The Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712
                at&t:  [phone]

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 23:15:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Low Earth Orbit in a Mars Blimp?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I know this is a wierd idea, but seeing other articles on blimps, what is the
possibility of using a blimp or soem form of it, to get out of earth orbit or
atleast to put yourself into low earth orbit.. I know there is a limit to the
atmosphere, but how far up is it?? If you can build a blimp on Mars and its
atmosphere and such, why not build on on earth to..

If I get flames, okay, but Im just being wierd so I hope you don't mind if I
ignore you..


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 3 Mar 93 01:13:36 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low Earth Orbit in a Mars Blimp?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>I know this is a wierd idea, but seeing other articles on blimps, what is the
>possibility of using a blimp or soem form of it, to get out of earth orbit or
>atleast to put yourself into low earth orbit.. I know there is a limit to the
>atmosphere, but how far up is it?? If you can build a blimp on Mars and its
>atmosphere and such, why not build on on earth to..

There is simply no way you could use a blimp as an orbital transfer vehicle.
There just isn't that much air up there.

You also can't use a blimp to fly into Earth orbit.  You could potentially
use a high quality scientific balloon to get above a respectable fraction of
the atmosphere and launch a rocket from there.  However, the current level
of technology does not allow you to carry large payloads to exceptionally
high altitudes. Therefore this would only be practical for very small
satellites.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
            In memoria, WDH

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 13:31:43 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunokhod and VR (was Re: Mars exploration)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Chum) writes:
>> They  want the human mind to explore
>>the terrain of Mars first before a man actually land there.   By using
>>Virtual Reality, the astronaunt can feel what's it like on the surface of
>>the planet without really being there.  This idea is so marvelous.  Why
>>didn't they use it in the moon first.
>
> In 1969 no one had even heard of VR telepresence. We still don't do it
> very well. One of the larger problems even today is dealing with the
> time lag for feedback.

Yes, but...

Luna 17, which landed on the Moon 17 November 1970, and Luna 21, which
landed  16 January 1973, carried remote-controlled rovers called
Lunokhod 1 and 2.  Five operators sat in a room in the Crimea and ran
them around the lunar surface.  Apparently the job was very demanding,
not so much because of the time lag, but because the panoramic
6000-line TV cameras of the Lunokhods took a long time to build up a
picture.

These guys not only covered a lot of ground exploring the Moon, but
also proved that people could operate machines doing useful work at
that distance.  Now, you may not regard this as "virtual reality" --it
sure ain't no holodeck.  But it was a damn fine feat of  engineering
in a pre-digital (or, at best, semi-digital) era.  Someday I'd like to
learn more about the people who pulled it off.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Based on the antiproton
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | decay, I would estimate the
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | incident occurred
Internet:       [e-mail]  | within the last 4.3 hours."
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  |         --Cdr. Data
(Someone ask Mr. Data if he's checked his vacuum...)

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

Date: 2 Mar 1993 22:16:05 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars exploration
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
|> (Joe Chum) writes:
|> > By using
|> > Virtual Reality, the astronaunt can feel what's it like on the surface of
|> > the planet without really being there.  This idea is so marvelous.  Why
|> > didn't they use it in the moon first.
|>
|> I'm reminded of Heinlein's story of the young astronomer from UCSC who
|> asked him, "Why didn't you just use a computer?" after hearing the story
|> about how Robert and Virginia spent a week solving the elliptical
|> integrals for an asteroid intercept using yards of butcher paper and
|> slide rules in, I think, 1948.
|>
|> The answer in both cases is essentially the same.  It's related to the
|> reason my '66 Fairlane didn't have electronic fuel injection.

    Re my previous response, they did do it without computers. OK, so you
couldn't undergo translational motion, but it was immersive VR nonetheless.

    Computers are great and we shouldn't go back - but I think it's sad to
lose the kind of innovations engineers came up with before so many problems
could be solved by throwing cycles at them. Take the electromechanical
tracker and the mechanical mirror support system developed for the Palomar
200" in the 1930s, for example (see _First Light_ for a nice description of
the latter).

    Jon
    __@/

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

Date: 3 Mar 93 01:04:51 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars exploration
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Timothy Banks) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>In 1969 no one had even heard of VR telepresence. We still don't do it
>>very well. One of the larger problems even today is dealing with the
>>time lag for feedback. Round trip speed of light time to the Moon is
>>on the order of 2.5 seconds

>    Unfortunately I don't have a reference handy, but wasn't the
>    Lunikhod (spelling?) remotely controlled?

Yes.  And the console was pretty primative looking (sorry, forget where I saw
the picture).  However, its top speed wasn't very fast and the terrain, at
least from the pictures I've seen, wasn't especially challenging.  Remote
control isn't terribly difficult for the Moon if you go slowly. The hard part,
which was mentioned at the end of the sentance you trimmed, is that every other
body in the solar system is much farther away.

I saw the hardware (not the real thing obviously) at an exhibit in St. Louis
last fall.  Pretty impressive collection.  The guide said (and you can trust
this however much you want) that the control delay was something like six
seconds.  I'm not completely sure I believe that, but remeber that such things
are controlled not only by the laws of physics, but also by the laws of
management which may want to double check what commands are going to an
expensive piece of equipment.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    You only live once.  But if you live it right, once is enough.
            In memoria, WDH

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 01:49:27 GMT
From: Adrian Hassall Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Medicine/EMS/SAR in Space.
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Steve Jenkins) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Question how do you do an IV (Interveneous) in space? What about other gravity
>>related procedures?

>Nothing about an IV *requires* gravity;  raising the IV bag is just a
>convenient way to overcome the venous pressure (6 mmHg or so).

>There are occasions where docs want to place an arterial catheter.
>Here the pressure is so high that gravity is impractical, so you just
>pressurize the bag externally using a sleeve much like a blood
>pressure cuff.  The same thing would work for an IV in space.

>Keeping bubbles out of the line would be a trick....

    As long as they are small, bubbles don't matter.
(I can personally confirm this, having been on an IV and having a
supprisingly large number of quite large air bubbles injected into
me)

ajax

>--
>Steve Jenkins                  [e-mail]
>Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory    [phone]

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 08:44:00 GMT
From: Roland Dobbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS
Newsgroups: sci.space

CO>
CO>From: [e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
CO>Newsgroups: sci.space
CO>Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SSF effort ?? )
CO>Date: 20 Feb 1993 19:44:50 GMT
CO>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
CO>Reply-To: [e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON)
CO>
CO>> Aerospace Daily also reports that NASA research
CO>> on advanced subsonic and supersonic transport aircraft would
CO>> get a big increase under Clinton's budget plan, with $550
CO>> million more programmed in fiscal years 1994-97, and another
CO>> $267 million scheduled for FY '98.
CO>
CO>What about NASP???
CO>
CO>

Errr . . . that _is_ NASP.

It's SSX I'm worried about . . .
---
 . Orator V1.13  .  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]


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

Date: 2 Mar 93 12:56:00 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plutonium terror (was Re: Alternative space station design)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon Leech) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:
> |> * Primary power source---NOT solar arrays!
> |>
> |>   RTG pallet---known technology...not subject to shadowing problems...
> |>       eliminates primary plume impingement problems....eliminates
> |> largest flexibility problems, both control and structural....proven
> |> safety.
>     I think the Christic Institute and others of their ilk will have a field
> day with NUCLEAR REACTORS IN EARTH ORBIT (cough. It's hard to speak in all
> caps for any length of time).

Puzzling.  Posters on sci.space are the only people I have run into
who are afraid of the Christic Institute, a group that has been
*notably* ineffectual in protesting the use of space  RTGs (and met
with at best mixed success in their other endeavors).  Here is Jon,
with Doug Mohney joining him, saying that the CI is something to worry
about.

>     Yeah, they lie through their teeth,

I think you'll find that most of the distortions went out under the
signature of the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice, not the
Christic Institude, and even they didn't pretend that RTGs were
reactors.  (I could be wrong.)

> but they made a significant effort
> to block the Ulysses and Galileo launches. Why give them an even better
> forum with RTGs that will be low orbit for decades?

They made a half-baked effort to stop Galileo which didn't stand a
chance in court.  The following year they folded up like a wet noodle
when Ulysses was launched.

Bill Higgins                           | Sign in window of
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Alice's bookstore:
Bitnet:      [e-mail]       | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS?
Internet:  [e-mail]       |     YOU SHOULD!"
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | Gee, I hope it doesn't become
                                       |   *compulsory*.

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 13:42:34 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sisters of Mars Observer (was Re: Refueling in orbit)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
[lost attribution here]
> |     I don't think there's room in the payload bay for a Centaur and
> |     two payloads. Maybe someone else can say for sure. Besides, there
> |     are no  "sister birds" of MO.
> |
>
> Not any more.  MO was supposed to be one in a whole series of mars craft.
> look at it's name.  Mars Geoscience and CLimatology spacecraft.

Also, for a while the spare Mars Observer bus was supposed to be built
into a similar Lunar Observer which would carry a multidisciplinary
instrument load.  In the current we-hate-SEI, F.C.B. climate, LO
doesn't have a snowball's chance.

Anybody got a use for a spare RCA, I mean GE, I mean Martin Marietta
comsat bus?

Bill Higgins                      | "[Theatregoers], if they did not
                                  | happen to like the production,
Fermi National                    | had either to sit all through it
Accelerator Laboratory            | or else go home.  They probably
                                  | would have rejoiced at the ease
                                  | of our Tele-Theaters, where we
Internet:  [e-mail]  | can switch from one play to
                                  | another in five seconds, until we
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | find the one that suits us best."
                                  | --Hugo Gernsback predicts
Bitnet:      [e-mail]  | Channel-Flipping in
                                  | *Ralph 124C41+* (1912)

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 23:20:03 GMT
From: Larry Wall <[e-mail]>
Subject: SOLAR gravity assist? Yup.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Shoot, I thought VEEGA was bad enough.  Now it's only a matter of time
before someone proposes doing TAU with a VEEJSGA trajectory, or some such...

Larry Wall
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:26:46 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: SOLAR gravity assist? Yup.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Wall)
writes:
>Shoot, I thought VEEGA was bad enough.  Now it's only a matter of time
>before someone proposes doing TAU with a VEEJSGA trajectory, or some such...

Well, we're currently doing HAU with a JSUNGA trajectory...  :-)

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: 2 Mar 93 08:44:00 GMT
From: Roland Dobbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spy Sats (Was: Are La
Newsgroups: sci.space

DA>Actually, I thought they had most of the basic stuff down pretty we
DA>although some was certainly exaggerated at least a bit.  Advanced K
DA>are supposed to have "near real time" imaging capability, but that
DA>does not translate into the continuous view they portrayed.  The BI
DA>however was that their operation was at NIGHT, and these satellites
DA>placed into sun-synchronous polar orbits to optimize their daylight
DA>I do not believe they have a significant nighttime imaging capabili
DA>
........
DA>That report has been around a while...  DoD's GROUND based tracking
DA>were certainly used and perhaps even one of their airborne platform
DA>it may just be the press jumping to conclusions to think any satell
DA>involved.  KH-11 orbits are not all that much higher than the shutt
DA>would make an intercept pretty tight, and besides the optics are ob

KH-11 is neither the latest nor the greatest "real-time" platform up there.

---
 . Orator V1.13  .  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]


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

Date: 2 Mar 93 08:44:00 GMT
From: Roland Dobbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spy Sats (Was: Are La
Newsgroups: sci.space

DA>
DA>Newsgroups: sci.space
DA>From: [e-mail] (Dean Adams)
DA>Subject: Re: Spy Sats (Was: Are La
DA>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
DA>Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:37:53 GMT
DA>
DA>In article <[e-mail]> roland.dobbins@the-matr
DA>>DA>That report has been around a while...  DoD's GROUND based trac
DA>>DA>were certainly used and perhaps even one of their airborne plat
DA>>DA>it may just be the press jumping to conclusions to think any sa
DA>>DA>involved.  KH-11 orbits are not all that much higher than the s
DA>>DA>would make an intercept pretty tight, and besides the optics ar
DA>>
DA>>KH-11 is neither the latest nor the greatest "real-time" platform
DA>>
DA>
DA>The ADVANCED KH-11 is... we currently have 2-3 of them up.
DA>
DA>OR, are you talking about Lacrosse or Aurora?
DA>

Yes, among others . . .

Although those two are primarily ELINT/SIGINT.
---
 . Orator V1.13  .  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]


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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 268
------------------------------