Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO368.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 05:25:54
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #368
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 26 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 368

Today's Topics:
             Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
                      Aurora spotted ? (2 msgs)
               Flame Derby (was Re: Luddites in space)
        Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo (2 msgs)
               In what craft did Glenn orbit the Earth?
              Nanotech (was: Alumnium was available...)
                      plans, and absence thereof
     Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise (2 msgs)
                Robots, intelligence, and luddites :-)
          Rocket clones: reduce risk of introducing new tech
                         Russians  ICBMs -> S
                     SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
                             SSF_REdesign
                STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?)
                      temperature of Lunar soil
                            Time Machine!?
                             UARS status?

    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: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 02:05:32 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David M. Palmer) writes:
>>[e-mail] (The Master) writes:
>>>Funny how at the time it would have cost an enormous amount of money
>>>and now it's so cheap.  It's almost like thinking of people drinking
>>>out of gold Coke cans in the future :)
>>
>>Gold isn't very useful for Coke cans (not strong enough), but diamond
>>will be used for all sorts of things, once nanotech comes in.
>                                            ^^^^^^^^
>
>Has anyone ever defined this term?  I seem to be hearing it an awful lot
>lately.  (By the way, am I right in thinking that this came from Maxis'
>"SimEarth" game?)

nanotech n 1. a buzz word that can be translated as "black magic".
              see also sorcery, hocus pocus, and PT Barnum

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 16:53:01 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora spotted ?

>For example, the SR-71 flying at Mach 3+/85,000 ft. normally took
>about 200 miles to decelerate/decend when coming in for a landing.
>Dean Adams (Tue, 23 Mar 93 07:17:28 GMT):

From Mach 3.5 to speed 0 across 200 miles => mean deceleration a
little less than 0.2 g. Is this a good performance ? How does work
the SR-71 used by the NASA ?

>> "Airquakes" seem not pleasant. (J. Pharabod)
>It does not seem to be that much of a problem. (D. Adams)

Why then these articles in the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles
Daily News? It seems that many people were afraid of a possible
earthquake. And if there were a real earthquake, wouldn't some
people stay home saying "that's just Aurora"?

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 17:33:35 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora spotted ?

Aaron Ray Clements writes (23 Mar 93 07:57:02 GMT):

>       [...]           . The "airquake" thing you mention is misleading.
>What is actually happening is that the sonic boom is transferred to a
>seismic wave by bouncing off of all the buildings in LA.  (You cause the
>buildings to shake, you cause the ground to shake.)  The folks over in
>the seismo lab here have gotten very good at picking out Mach aircraft
>based on the wave signature.  This effect is small at best, but large
>enough to be detected by sensors.

What was written in the Los Angeles Daily News, May 17, 1992, is:
"By clocking the pace at which it tips seismographic instruments at
 points throughout Southern California, its estimated speed is more than
 Mach 3, he said." (he = Jim Mori, a seismologist for the U.S. Geological
 Survey).
Are there buildings all along this path throughout Southern California?

J. Pharabod

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

Date: 24 Mar 1993 20:47:30 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flame Derby (was Re: Luddites in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Nntp-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
|
|   In article <1op22q$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
|   > Nick: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow.
|
|   > Dennis: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow.
|
|   > You two are both smart enough not to have to get into flame wars every
|   > few months...
|
|   Maybe they should both take a break and gang up on Allen.
|
|   What do you think, George, are pat and Steinn promising new contenders
|   in the Flame Derby?
|
|Eek, and here I've been holding my breath for a whole day now!
|Definitely time to stop - no point anyway, I can never equal the
|ideological purity of previous champions ;-)
|
|

I'll have to agree with Stein.  Neither of us even vaguely come
close to Dennis or Nick,  although, I may be close to fred :-)

pat

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

Date: 25 Mar 93 02:54:58 GMT
From: William Reiken <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:
>
> A dearth of funding for planetary science didn't help much either.  As I
> recall, Reagan's "Science Advisor" recommended cancelling ALL funding
>

    Can you please give a name for this quy.

                        Will...

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

Date: 25 Mar 1993 05:29 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William Reiken) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:
>>
>> A dearth of funding for planetary science didn't help much either.  As I
>> recall, Reagan's "Science Advisor" recommended cancelling ALL funding
>>
>
>    Can you please give a name for this quy.
>
That sounds like David Stockman.  David Stockman tried his best
to kill NASA's planetary program altogether.  In 1981, he was successful
in canceling Galileo (this was later reversed
by Congress).  He was instrumental in stripping the VOIR mission down
to what is now the Magellan project.  He tried to cancel the DSN improvements
that was needed to support Voyager 2 at Uranus.  When NASA was considering
a Halley's Comet mission in the early 1980's, Stockman recommended waiting
another 76 years.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | reason it was put up.

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

Date: 25 Mar 93 13:29:34 GMT
From: Christopher Ruckman <[e-mail]>
Subject: In what craft did Glenn orbit the Earth?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hey space trivia buffs ...

Anybody happen to know the name of the ship in which John Glenn
orbited the Earth in 1962?  Also, exact date/time, other handy
triva about that event?

Please respond by e-mail to [e-mail] -- Thanks!

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 09:50:49 PST
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Nanotech (was: Alumnium was available...)

In Space Digest V16 #363
[e-mail] writes:

>>Gold isn't very useful for Coke cans (not strong enough), but diamond
>>will be used for all sorts of things, once nanotech comes in.
>                                            ^^^^^^^^
>
>Has anyone ever defined this term?  I seem to be hearing it an awful lot
>lately.  (By the way, am I right in thinking that this came from Maxis'
>"SimEarth" game?)

The term "nanotechnology" has been around for much longer than SimEarth.
In his 1986 book, Drexler defined it as follows.

 Nanotechnology: Technology based on the manipulation of individual atoms
 and molecules to build structures to complex, atomic specifications.

Feature sizes for nanotech devices would generally be measured in nanometers,
whereas the feature sizes today are still measured in micrometers.  For
example, typical feature sizes on microchips are getting down to .5 microns
and below.  When they get below .1 microns, or 100 nanometers, will they
then be referred to as nanochips?

But true nanotech devices would not be mere passive features on a larger
device, but independent machines capable of doing what Drexler described
in his definition.

I don't know whether nanotech would be necessary for making diamond films.
Some of the physics faculty here at UTD are leaders in the technology of
diamond film production, by vapor deposition.  Maybe nanotech could create
more complex shapes than that process.

Here is a list of entries on nanotechnology in our library.

Book------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Author:         Drexler, K. Eric.

 Title:          Engines of creation / K. Eric Drexler ; foreword by Marvin
                   Minsky.
 Edition:        1st ed.

 Published:      Garden City, N.Y. : Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986.

Book------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Author(s):      Stuart R. Hameroff.

 Title:          Ultimate computing : biomolecular consciousness and
                   nanotechnology / Stuart R. Hameroff.

 Published:      Amsterdam ; New York : North-Holland ; New York, N.Y., U.S.A.
                   : Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier
                   Science Pub. Co., 1987.

 Description:    xxi, 357 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.

Serial----------------------------------------------------------------------

 Title:          Nanotechnology.

 Published:      Bristol, UK : IOP Pub., 1990-

 Date(s):        Vol 1, no. 1 (July 1990)-

Book------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Author(s):      Drexler, K. Eric.

 Title:          Unbounding the future : the nanotechnology revolution / K.
                   Eric Drexler and Chris Peterson, with Gayle Pergamit.

 Edition:        1st ed.

 Published:      New York : Morrow, c1991.

 Description:    304 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Let machines multiply, doing the work of many,
                     But let the people have no use for them." - Lao Tzu

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

Date: 24 Mar 1993 20:49:49 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: plans, and absence thereof
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

You know instead of watching Nick, and Fred and occasionally
Me Flame around,  I'd really like to see somebody from LPI
Post about what sort of things they are up to.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 01:44:29 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]. (Thomas E. Smith) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>>(Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>     So you increase the wavelength and decrease the frequency.
>>>     It would also seem to me that in such a situations clocks run slow
>>>     'within' the gravitational disturbance.  The two disturbances
>>>     (gravitational and electromagnetic) fly back to the detector,
>>>     and the gravitational disturbance slows the 'clocks' at
>>>     the receiver to effectively increase the frequency
>>>     and cancel the effect.
>
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>If we assume that the gravitational wave is a classical wavefront,
>>and we assume it travels at lightspeed, then your objection only
>>occurs when the Earth, satellite, and source of gravity waves are
>>all lined up. If the gravitational disturbance is arriving from
>>some angle off that line, the EM wave and the gravity wave will
>>only be coincident at one point along the line of sight.
>
>That will affect the doppler shift a little, but still the gravity wave only
>affects the Earth based detector as it passes the detector. A very short
>period of time, and it stays with the EM wave for most, if not all, of its trip
>to the Earth. Though if the wave's travel is perpendicular to the line
>connecting the spacecraft and the Earth, there will be no effect, because
>it will affect both the spacecraft and the earth in the same way. But that's
>what the other two spacecraft are there for.

Ok consider the case when the EM wave and the gravity wave lines of
flight are at 45 degrees to each other. Along the line of flight of
the EM wave, the gravity wave is travelling  1/sqrt(2) as fast as the
EM wave. So the EM wave whips through the gravity wave crest (or trough)
at nearly half the speed of light. It's a similar situation to a light
ray from a distant star passing close by the Sun. And the same effects
should ensue, though smaller. The waves don't travel together because
their vector components in the line of flight aren't the same.

>But that brings up a point. What is the relativistic interaction between two
>waves moving at light speed? How do they view eachother?

I wish there were an easy way to pass drawings in this medium. It would
make explanations so much simpler. First lets clear up some differences
in terminology and conditions here. A gravity wave can be viewed, like
a sound wave, as a compression wave in spacetime. It alternately compresses
and stretches the fabric of space (hackneyed term) like a steel ball
rolling on a rubber sheet. Now EM waves are transverse oscillations
of electric and magnetic vectors at right angles to each other and to
the direction of travel. When the EM wave encounters the G wave, all
the EM wave "sees" is a change in path length. I don't know what in
hell the G wave "sees".

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 02:02:42 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In some article (Thomas E. Smith) writes:
>>
>>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>If we assume that the gravitational wave is a classical wavefront,
>>>and we assume it travels at lightspeed, then your objection only
>>>occurs when the Earth, satellite, and source of gravity waves are
>>>all lined up. If the gravitational disturbance is arriving from
>>>some angle off that line, the EM wave and the gravity wave will
>>>only be coincident at one point along the line of sight.
>>>
>
>     My original question was predicated on this situation
>     occuring.  The next question is, if this occurs, why
>     does it not significantly decrease the expected amplitude
>     of the signal for many relevant incoming waves?
>     However, since I'm not sure that what I'm saying is
>     happening anyway, it's probably pointless to discuss the
>     effect on the doppler shift for various incoming waves.

Why would there be an amplitude change? The EM wave is transverse,
the G wave is compressive. The only thing affected is path length,
and that translates to apparent wavelength change, IE doppler shift
of the EM wave.

>>That will affect the doppler shift a little, but still the gravity wave only
>>affects the Earth based detector as it passes the detector. A very short
>>period of time, and it stays with the EM wave for most, if not all, of its trip
>>to the Earth. Though if the wave's travel is perpendicular to the line
>
>     I'm not sure what a short period of time *is* in this context.
>     It would have to be short compared to the 'reception time' of
>     the electromagnetic signal.  I'm not even sure what that
>     means.  Besides, in my situation it is affecting the wave
>     all back the path to the receiver (or the other way around to the
>     transponder on the satellite).

Let's digress to the wave/particle duality for a moment to answer the
"reception time" query. The smallest signal a receiver can theoretically
detect is one photon. The "length" of one photon is one wavelength.
Wavelength and frequency are related by L=300/F where L is in meters
and F is in MHz. If the satellite signal is at 1 GHz, the "reception
time" for one photon is 1e-09 second or the time it takes light to
travel 0.3 meter. If the G wavelength is less than this, we won't
see an effect. If the G wavelength is significantly greater than
this, however, the crest to crest distance between EM waves will
be increased or decreased, and that will be detected as doppler
shift.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 25 Mar 93 03:19:21 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robots, intelligence, and luddites :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

H. Rubin:
>>Robots can be used for operations requiring little intelligence;

>This is circular.  The definition of intelligence has historically
>been upgraded to mean "whatever computers can't do."  They can play
>chess and beat masters?  Well, chess-playing isn't evidence for
>intelligence.  They can calculate with blinding speed?  Calculation
>isn't intelligence.  They can mimic human language and response?
>That isn't intelligence.  They can travel mysterious realms, keep
>track of their position in 7-d and return correctly exposed and
>positioned pictures of wonders never before seen by human eyes?
>That's not intelligence.  So what the hell is intelligence anyway?

In this context, intelligence is the ability to analyse an unfamiliar
situation and make a decision.  Wait.  No, that is intelligence in
*any* situation.  When animals are tested in a lab, they are presented
with a goal (usually food) and weird unnatural obstacles (like a maze,
to borrow from _Flowers from Algernon_).  Smarter, more "intelligent"
animals figure it out and "solve the problem."

>>AI is highly overrated, and the so-called "intelligent" programs
>>just carry out a massive number of pre-programmed operations so
>>as to get results by brute force.

>That sounds darn similar to the way most humans behave.  Brute force
>or not, what do you want besides a correct answer in reasonable time?

In space, if we want "intelligent computers" they will have to deal
with unanticipated situations and make decisions without human input
that will enable them to minimize spacecraft damage and still achieve
their mission goals.  Hopefully as time passes the mission goals will
be more than the obtaining of information.

It is unreasonable to assume that we can predict all situations and
program a robot accordingly.  We couldn't even get Dante to do it
without leaving the Earth's surface.  I am always amazed that Viking
didn't encounter more problems.

I didn't quote the rest of the post...but I am mostly talking about
using robot in dynamic situations such as asteroid mining, which has
been discussed extensively in the past.

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 02:30:47 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Rocket clones: reduce risk of introducing new tech
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>As witness Pegasus, it *is* possible to create a new payload class with
>>>a new launcher.
>>
>>Scout, and Ariane multiple satellite launch systems, had already created
>>the Pegasus payload class...
>
>Then why weren't any being launched?  The number of *small* satellites
>carried up on Ariane to date can be counted on your fingers, and the
>number of launches carrying them can be counted on your thumbs.  Scout is
>moribund if not dead.  Pegasus's order backlog already exceeds the total
>number of such payloads flown in the last decade.
>
>When people plan for such missions, the nominal launcher is almost
>invariably Pegasus.  Once in a while somebody mentions Scout.  Launch
>opportunities for small payloads on Ariane are scarce as hen's teeth.
>It was Pegasus that made this payload class real.

Pegasus has launched two payloads, to wrong orbits. Ariane has
launched 16 of the 23 amateur radio sats, six at once on the last
launch. Almost every Ariane launch is a multiple payload launch.
You must have a lot of fingers. :-)

As of 1988, Scout had successfully put 95 Pegasus sized payloads
into orbit at $10 million each (1988 dollars). Recently Scout has
launched Macsat, Salt, USAF-1, Small Expl-01, Small Expl-02, and
CRRES-01. Work is underway by the Italian space agency to couple
Ariane SRBs to Scout, making a Scout II with double the payload
capacity. The Italians fly Scout out of San Marco. NASA has 8 Scout
launches scheduled between now and the end of the decade. At less
than half the cost of Pegasus, Scout can, and has, reliably delivered
lightsats to orbit for 33 years.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 24 Mar 93  15:49:00
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Russians  ICBMs -> S
Newsgroups: sci.space

U >Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
U >From: [e-mail]
U >Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
U >Newsgroups: sci.space
U >
U >[e-mail] wrote:
U >: Are any details on the design of former Soviet ICBMs available now?
U >
U >No.
U >
U >-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
U >      [e-mail]  [phone]


Actually, this was a bit of a trick question - certainly details
on some very old former Soviet ICBMs are available, such as the
SS-6 and the SS-9, both now used for satellite launching. However,
since the breakup of the Soviet Union, it would be probable that
information on other obsolete systems, such as the SS-7, would
now be available.

On the other hand, it is the norm for folks at JSC to simply ignore
all information on non-JSC programs as "Not Invented Here".


___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 02:30:05 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Wed, 24 Mar 93 02:07:25 GMT, [e-mail] (Bob Combs) said:

Bob> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>On Mon, 22 Mar 93 19:04:14 GMT, [e-mail] (Bob Combs) said:
>>cess.digex.com (Pat) writes:>
>Bob> So are Congressmen, and other high level beauracrats.  When I was
>Bob> stationed at Beale Air Force Base working on the SR-71 as an
>Bob> electrician, There was a list of congressmen and other
>Bob> beauracrats that took a ride in the SR-71.  AT $1,000,000 a
>Bob> shot!!! The list had about 30 people on it.
>
>Then was then, now is now.  Control your resentment.  We've even put
>off the Administrator of NASA.
>
Bob> Good Luck with the Administrator!

You'll notice I say that we've put him off--not blocked the idea
forever.

Bob> I want to apologize if I sounded resentful.

No, you can't--I get to apologize for not making it clear that I
meant the plural you here, or that I'm part of the group.  So there!

I should have written "We have to control our resentent."  I'll also
say that resentment was the wrong word for this--jealousy is probably
better, at least for me.

Bob> And I think the public should have the opportunity for review of
Bob> government programs.  There is too little accountability in the
Bob> government in general.

Part of the problem is that no one who knows the answer is anywhere
near the Net.  I know that we get about 100 million a year but I don't
know how much JPL, for example, is giving us to fly their instrument,
or how much DoD sends for the AFTI/F-16 and the X-31.

Bob> If a per-flight cost is ever available, I would be curious.

Costs are very difficult--we've seen that with the SR-71.  The Air Force
probably did spend that much money IF you add everything in, but they
had more airplanes, so they had more overhead.  For example, their life
support technicians were charged to the SR-71 because that's all they
worked on.  Here at Dryden, our four life support techs work on all the
planes and there's no incremental cost to add an airplane or two.

The worst thing about real life is that it isn't simple, only this is
also the best thing.
--
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: 24 Mar 1993 20:53:25 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF_REdesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

Well, Faget, is off the list.  He is considered to be in conflict
with his role as Chairman of SI,  and their role in proposing
numerous station ideas.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 02:47:14 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
>>> >>When you can tell me who the PRIME CONTRACTOR is for your "ufos",
>
>YoYoDyne Propulsion Systems, a division of YoYoDyne Aerospace.
>--

Well, YPS makes some nice engines... but for ships,
its hard to beat the Utopia Planitia Yards!

:->

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 03:52:32 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: temperature of Lunar soil
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russ Brown) writes:
>>(This is why we can separate day-night variation from steady-state
>>temperature.  The day-night variation is zero at the depths in question.)
>
>The measurements above 1.5 m were subject to the constantly changing
>surface conditions.

You're overestimating this greatly.  The temperature variation at a
depth of 0.5m is only a few degrees, and it tapers off to zero at
maybe 0.8m.  (These are directly measured results from the Apollo 15
and 17 ALSEP packages, not extrapolations or theoretical speculation.)
The regolith is a *really* good insulator.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 01:46:52 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Time Machine!?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Lai) writes:
>Hi netters,
>
>    I remember from my youth, I've been thinking of a time machine
>which can go back to the past.  I heard from some other people say that
>scientists are doing researches and that has something to do with, say,
>magnetic fields or magnetic related things.  I'm wondering whether there
>is actually ANY scientists doing research on time machine?  And if so,
>how's the progress?

Ah, Tipler machines and shuttling wormholes. The former is too large
to contain in a galaxy, and the latter is killed by quantum evaporation.
Anybody got a Tardis manual handy?

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 22:11:00 GMT
From: David Ward <abdkw@stdvax>
Subject: UARS status?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lee Matheson) writes...
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>From: [e-mail] (Lee Matheson)
>Subject: UARS Status?
>
>Is there anyone who can bring me up to date on
>the status of the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite?
>
>I understand that it is providing great (!!) science.
>Is this still true?
>
I believe so...GSFC's Director's Weekly's haven't reported any
catastrophic failures since the prime solar array problems last
summer.  As a matter of fact, I believe I read that UARS was the
first satellite to have mapped the Mt. Pinatubo cloud.
>
>What sort of results have been obtained from the Satellite's
>Instruments?  Occasionally one hears results about JPL's MLS,
>but there are 9 other instruments!
>
I believe a study of the (possible) north hemisphere ozone hole
is currently high on the study list.
>
>For all Instruments (I believe, although ACRIM may have been
>a separate case) the Science Data Processing Production Software
>was supposed to produce results in reasonable time.  Has that
>indeed taken place?
>
Apparently so, since a layman like me can give you this info
in an understandable format.
>
>Is there any word on how the British Instrument (ISAMS) faired
>with some of the difficulties they had?
>
I think ISAMS is currently not working, after two cycles of failures
and restarts.
>
>And finally, is there any truth to the rumours about some
>difficulties with the satellite's batteries?
>
Unfortunately, I hear similar rumors down the hall.  The problem is
similar to GRO's, evidenced by increasing differential voltages.  I
think this is eveidence of premature battery aging.
>
>Lee Matheson
>Ottawa
BTW, thanks for your interest.  I was beginning to think that
Goddard wasn't a place where we built things that went into space.
It's good to hear that someone remembers that we do work here (and
have successes and failures like the rest of you).

Also, thanks for the last two week's conversation.  As a new poster,
I can't wait to see the subjest "Clueless Wardisms"

David Ward
Guidance and Control Branch
NASA/GSFC
[e-mail]
What's a disclaimer?

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 368
------------------------------