Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO386.TXT

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 05:25:52
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #386
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 30 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 386

Today's Topics:
                                <None>
 Acceptable metric conversions (was Re: Pioneer Venus Last Findings)
       Big research pies (was Re: Stockman, Mark, and Keyworth)
                    Breathing 100 atm. of anything
            Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question) (2 msgs)
                      KRYSTAL in separate orbit?
               Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93 (2 msgs)
           Modulated Directed Tachyons for Commo? (3 msgs)
              Nasa's budget, was what happened to CRAF?
                    Pres. Clinton's E-mail Address
                      Question on Cassini Radar
                           SSF Redesign....
                   Terraforming Venus cheaply? NO!
                        viking cdrom question
                         Why is Venus so hot?

    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, 29 Mar 1993 17:00:47 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: <None>
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 26 Mar 93 22:43:21 -0600, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) said:
BHBJ> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Yee) writes:
> EXPLORATION EFFORT SHIFTED TO OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE
>
>     NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin today announced that the activities
> of the Office of Exploration will be absorbed by the Office of Space Science,
> effective immediately.

BHBJ> Well, so much for THAT little empire.  It was fun while it lasted.

So, does this mean a new set of hats?
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
[e-mail]                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 04:48:36 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceptable metric conversions (was Re: Pioneer Venus Last Findings)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andrew Folkins) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>
>>EVIDENCE POINTS TO OCEANS, LIGHTNING ON EARLY VENUS
>>
>>25 and 75 feet deep (762 and 2286 centimeters).
>>80 miles (129 kilometers) above Venus' surface, it found evidence for
>>structures (1-60 miles in size (1.6-96 kilometers).
>>Pioneer provided data from 80 to 210 miles (129 to 336 kilometers)
>>kilometers) was more than 10 times denser and 2120 F (1,000 degrees Celsius)
[lots of similar examples deleted]
>
> Maybe we should send the PR crew back to Introductory Physics and teach them
> about significant digits, or at least take their calculators away...

Andrew, you have pointed out the problem very well.  Now for your
homework, imagine you are the boss of Public Affairs for a NASA
center.  Write guidelines, in 300 words or less, which will guarantee

that your employees will always produce acceptable English-to-metric
and metric-to-English conversion figures in their press releases.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      [e-mail]  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  [e-mail]  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 17:13:18 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: Big research pies (was Re: Stockman, Mark, and Keyworth)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
            [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>Many people "on the inside" saw SDIO as an opportunity to develop useful
>technologies under the guise of developing a space-based defense system.
>How else could the governmemt of the day be persuaded to fund the develop-
>ment of exotic things like free electron lasers, advanced computer systems,
>and SSTO's?

Exactly the same thing happened when Nixon "declared war on Cancer" in
the 70s and is going on now in AIDS research.  Scientists are very adept
at slanting whatever they want to do to match the hot button issue of
the day (at least the sucessful, big $$ ones are).

>I'm not saying that *no one* believed that SDI would work.

I've never met a scientist or engineer that thought the leakless
"umbrella" that Reagan proposed was feasable.  Therefore, that was the
strawman that the opponents used to knock SDI.

>But I am suggesting that more than a few people bit their lip and took
>advantage of the opportunity to further their own pet interests with, I'm
>sure, the best of intentions.  It's not the first time technical people
>have jumped on such a bandwagon (von Braun did so at Peenemunde) and not
>the last, either.

It's a damn shame the the NSF, NIH, DOD, NASA, et.al. get commanded to
push the agenda of a bunch of clueless politicians that wouldn't know a
bunsen burner from a soda bottle instead of deciding what to do by
semi-rational examination of  independent proposals.

--
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads"
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 18:32:03 GMT
From: Francois Yergeau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breathing 100 atm. of anything
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Loss) writes:
>It seems to me that the major problem, everything else assumed to be OK,
>is that at 100 atm. the viscosity of _any_ gasses is such that a human
>diaphragm will fatigue and cease functioning, causing suffocation
>regardless of partial pressures, etc.


The rubber bible says that for air, viscosity is independant of
pressure up to 40 atm (no data past that).  They also give a formula
for the volume of a viscous fluid escaping from a tube of radius r and
length l:

    v = (Pi.p.r^4) / (8.l.eta),

where eta is viscosity and p is the pressure differential.  Thus to
obtain enough volume for respiration, you need the same pressure
differential on Venus as on earth, if viscosity remains constant.

Respiration is a little more complicated than a constant flow, though,
because you need to accelerate the fluid, and it is certainly much
denser at 100 atms.  You can counteract that somewhat by using a
lighter gas such as helium.

--
Francois Yergeau ([e-mail]) |  Errare humanum est,
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  perseverare diabolicum
Departement de Physique                  |
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 17:37:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:
[...]
: Scout is rated at 475 pounds to a 300 km orbit. It has lofted as much
: as 522 pounds to LEO.

[At about $12M]

A) How big is the absolute minimum atmospheric re-entry and life
support module for the aspiring low-cost astronaut?  You'd need a
guidance package (GPS, a small computer, and a few gaseous Nitrogen
"rocket" engines come to mind), a space suit, bubble or body bag, and
enough atmosphere and thermal control gear to survive the entry
process.  You'd need a heat shield, a radio, a parachute, and some
darned good life insurance.  Personnally, I'd demand a window.

B) Would it be legally possible for some rich soul to book a Scout
flight for a couple of unmanned tests, then the final manned flight?
Would a "man rating" of the Scout stand in the way?

C) Is this just idle speculation, or the most expensive way I've
ever heard of to commit suicide?

Project Mercury on a shoestring.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy,
      but because it is fun."
    -- John F. Kennedy, as [mis]quoted by
             Scott Brigham, [e-mail],
             in alt.folklore.urban

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 18:48:05 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>From: [e-mail]
>Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 17:37:46 GMT
>Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:
>[...]
>: Scout is rated at 475 pounds to a 300 km orbit. It has lofted as much
>: as 522 pounds to LEO.
>
>[At about $12M]
>
>A) How big is the absolute minimum atmospheric re-entry and life
>support module for the aspiring low-cost astronaut?  You'd need a
>guidance package (GPS, a small computer, and a few gaseous Nitrogen
>"rocket" engines come to mind), a space suit, bubble or body bag, and
>enough atmosphere and thermal control gear to survive the entry
>process.  You'd need a heat shield, a radio, a parachute, and some
>darned good life insurance.  Personnally, I'd demand a window.
>
>B) Would it be legally possible for some rich soul to book a Scout
>flight for a couple of unmanned tests, then the final manned flight?
>Would a "man rating" of the Scout stand in the way?
>
>C) Is this just idle speculation, or the most expensive way I've
>ever heard of to commit suicide?
>
>Project Mercury on a shoestring.
>
>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>      [e-mail]  [phone]
>
>     "We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy,
>      but because it is fun."
>    -- John F. Kennedy, as [mis]quoted by
>             Scott Brigham, [e-mail],
>             in alt.folklore.urban
My recollection is that the acceleration of a Scout is very high. Someone
told me that it has supersonic velocity a few second after launch. I don't
recall what the maximum g a human can tolerate, I recall that they did
research on that subject at White Sands with a rocket sled with chimps and a
man back in the sixites.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 18:35:18 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: KRYSTAL in separate orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

...for those interested, here is a follow-up:

>From: Mike McCants <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: KRYSTAL in separate orbit?
>To: [e-mail]
>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 11:46:08 -0600

>NORAD has always maintained separate orbits for all of the "components"
>of the Mir Complex.
>This means there is always a "small" discrepancy.
>There was recently a reboost of Mir.  Elements that have an epoch before
>the reboost would differ very greatly from elements that have an epoch after
>the reboost.
>The NORAD computers do not understand that a reboost is a momentary impluse.
>They try to smooth out the observations and they determine rather
>significantly erroneous elements for a while after the reboost has occurred.

Mike McCants

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

Date: 29 Mar 1993 17:30 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Fowarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                  MARS OBSERVER MISSION STATUS
                         March 29, 1993

     All spacecraft subsystems and instrument payload are
performing well as the Mars Observer spacecraft begins to close
in on the red planet. Today the spacecraft is about 27 million
kilometers (17 million miles) from Mars, traveling at a velocity
of about 9,700 kilometers per hour (6,000 miles per hour) with
respect to Mars.

     Surplus fuel reserves from good launch conditions will allow
ground controllers to use more propellent after Mars orbit
insertion (on Aug. 24, 1993) and drop the spacecraft more rapidly
into its low-altitude mapping orbit. Consequently, science
operations will start 21 days ahead of schedule, beginning on
Nov. 22, 1993, rather than Dec. 12, 1993.

     The mission operations team will use a "power in" approach
to speed the spacecraft's descent and ensure that data collection
is well under way before two natural events occur: a December
1993 solar conjunction that will block spacecraft communications,
and the beginning of the Martian dust storm season in February
1994.  Spacecraft descent using the "power in" strategy will take
75 days rather than 96 days, and require seven braking maneuvers
to bring the spacecraft into its 2 p.m. solar orientation.  The
spacecraft will reach its mapping orbit 378 kilometers (249
miles) above the surface of Mars on Nov. 8, 1993.

     The spacecraft will be able to complete one mapping cycle of
the Martian surface -- which takes 26 days -- before the solar
conjunction begins on Dec. 20, 1993.  The conjunction will last
through Jan. 3, 1994 and will create a "command moratorium,"
during which time all commands to the spacecraft will be
suspended.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: 29 Mar 1993 13:40:12 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
|
|     Surplus fuel reserves from good launch conditions will allow
|ground controllers to use more propellent after Mars orbit
|insertion (on Aug. 24, 1993) and drop the spacecraft more rapidly
|into its low-altitude mapping orbit. Consequently, science
|operations will start 21 days ahead of schedule, beginning on
|Nov. 22, 1993, rather than Dec. 12, 1993.
|
|     The mission operations team will use a "power in" approach
|to speed the spacecraft's descent and ensure that data collection
|is well under way before two natural events occur: a December


MY understanding is the Power in is being done because they used less
fuel then planned during the Mid course Burns.

And so they will do the "Power IN" approach to speed collection
because we may get delayed by 6 months as mentioned.

Now what SPace NEws said, is that they are concerned about instrument
failure while waiting for the Dust to settle.   Is this true?
Are they really concerned about instrument failure?

And if that is the case, could they have planned the mission to avoid the
dust season?   ALso,  it seems to me, that fuel is a real precious
resource.  After the mapping is done,  reserve fuel could
be saved for  orbit changes,  or to improve mapping of the moons phobos
and deimos.

pat

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 17:06:34 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modulated Directed Tachyons for Commo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>>Question wierd tho it might be... Is there a way to produce controlled
>>tachyons? and other faster than light particles..
>>
>>Namely find a way to modulate the tachyons and figure out a way to recive
>>them/detect them so that the other end, namely Mars can then detect the
>>modulated tachyon message from earth..
>>
>>Why not use modulated tachyon emissions for communications between earth and
>>mars and farther out... directed that is, can a tachyon be directed into a beam
>>like a laser (not in the same way, but a narrow beam?)..??
>>
>>Michael Adams
>>NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
>
>
>    You seem to skip one minor problem --  There's no evidence that tachyons
>exist at all.  You might as well ask if a UFO could carry your message to Mars.
>They both have equal scientific validity at this point.

Darn- and I was hoping they could develop the tachyon bomb- the bomb
that detonates before it was dropped....

And then of course there are the particles discovered during the
mid 1970's-

TACKY-ONS!!
:-)

Simon

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 18:41:00 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modulated Directed Tachyons for Commo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Question wierd tho it might be... Is there a way to produce controlled
>tachyons? and other faster than light particles..

We haven't ever found or produced a single one.  So they are entirely
theoretical at this time.
>
>Namely find a way to modulate the tachyons and figure out a way to recive
>them/detect them so that the other end, namely Mars can then detect the
>modulated tachyon message from earth..
>
>Why not use modulated tachyon emissions for communications between earth and
>mars and farther out... directed that is, can a tachyon be directed into a beam
>like a laser (not in the same way, but a narrow beam?)..??

This has been extensively discussed recently in sci.physics.  Though tachyons
naively seem to travel faster than light, a complete field-theoretic treatment
of tachyonic fields reveals that things are not so simple, and that
faster-than-light communications is not possible in the way you are
describing.  Essentially, if you make a localized tachyonic wave-packet, it
will travel slower than the speed of light.  Only nonlocalized disturbances
of the tachyonic field travel faster than light.  That is, loosely, they
may travel faster than light, but they are also everywhere at once.  So
creating such a wave to send information superluminally is not possible.

See the article on the subject in the sci.physics FAQ for more details.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
[e-mail]         although I have no right to say so, having
                 been a single cell so long ago myself that I
                 have no memory at all of that stage of my
                 life." - Lewis Thomas

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 18:58:49 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modulated Directed Tachyons for Commo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>[e-mail] writes:
>>[e-mail] writes:
>>>Question wierd tho it might be... Is there a way to produce controlled
>>>tachyons? and other faster than light particles..
>>
>>    You seem to skip one minor problem --  There's no evidence that tachyons
>>exist at all.  You might as well ask if a UFO could carry your message to Mars.
>>They both have equal scientific validity at this point.

>And then of course there are the particles discovered during the
>mid 1970's-

>TACKY-ONS!!
>:-)

Recent research has indicated that the scientists who discovered the Tacky-ons
were probably incorrect.  In actual fact, they stumbled upon the fundamental
particle of stupidity - the moron.

>Simon


--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
                     seront capable de la realiser"
             -Jules Verne

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

Date: 29 Mar 1993 13:33:54 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa's budget, was what happened to CRAF?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>To beat a dead horse... maybe the technical difficulties exist because
>the people doing the design aren't held accountable.  Not in the "I won't
>see flak for misdesigns" sense, but in the "Good enough for gov work" sense,
>or, more specifically, "These guys only have one supplier, so we won't
>lose the job of running shuttle and building freedom because of it."
>
>And isn't the justification for NASA's (mis)management the fact that they
>are accountable to Congress?  If so, it seems that Congress' problems with
>the effects of management and managements problems with the influence of
>Congress are intractable.


THe problems are more because of a confluence of factors.   ALlen and Dennis hold
sharply opposed views on these.  But this is my take based upon analysis
of everything i've read.

Each Nasa center commits to maintain constant staffing levels without
regard to annual project funding.

Each Center has a community of contractors who they wish to support and
maintain

Each year only  a small number of science missions are on the boards.

Consequently each center tries to recruit as many science experiments
on it to broaden it's political support.

COnsequently margins get tighter, and instruments nad devices go up
for numerous performance improvements.

THis increases costs, and drives teh mission to the far edge of the
state of technology.

With only one off missions flying,  people don't worry about designing
for reproducibilty or manufacturing ,  just wether the launch window
can be hit.

With lots of people lying around,  they sometimes get shuffled onto the
costs of a program.  NASA also uses manpower intensive mission designs.

essentially,  we have a closed loop system.  Missions fly rarely.
When was the last time we were at Mars, 20 Years.  Mercury same.
Jupiter 15, Saturn 15.

IF missions fly rarely,  get the mostest out of it.  Dont worry about
cost or risk reduction.  Once you are funded, your funding will most likely
increase.  CRAF was anomalous in they cancelled a half built ship.

pat

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 18:26:00 GMT
From: "LINENSCHMIDT, JAMES ROBERT" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pres. Clinton's E-mail Address
Newsgroups: sci.space

I few weeks ago I caught a glimpse of a message that had Clinton's e-mail
address.  Does anyone know what it is, and would you e-mail it to me at the
addresses below.  Thanks

Robb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Linenschmidt            President, Texas A & M SEDS
313 Lincoln St. #72                Students for the Exploration
College Station, Texas 77840-1957        and Development of Space
[phone]
                    Editor, The Pulsar, Newsletter of the
[e-mail]                Texas A & M Association of
[e-mail]                Amateur Astronomers

[e-mail]            If you have any questions about either
[e-mail]                one of these organizations,
                        please feel free to contact me
Texas A & M University                at the above e-mail addresses,
Aerospace Engineering                or at home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People who control their passions, have passions weak enough to be controlled."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 19:10:47 GMT
From: Eric H Seale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question on Cassini Radar
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>Furthermore, I wonder whether a "complete Titan mapping" program
>>will be carried out, since (radar-)imaging can only be done during
>>short fly-by's of this moon. Are we going to see the same kind of
>>pictures as the Magellan ones?
>Cassini will make about 30 close flybys of Titan, and will make a mapping
>swath on each encounter.

Any idea of the specs?  F'r instance,  resolution, % of surface covered, etc.?

Eric Seale
#include <disclaimer.std>

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 17:06:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SSF Redesign....
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:

:     PS DOes anyone have a real solid justification for
: the Alpha gimbbels as opposed to  going solar inertial?
: and placing any earth sensors into a swing boom?

The way I heard it was that we need gimbals somewhere, either in the
equipment which needs to point toward/away from the Sun (the solar
panels and radiators) or in the equipment which needs to point
toward/away from the Earth (Earth observation gear and deep space
telescopes), so it's better to put the gimbals on the equipment
which needs the least accuracy in pointing.

Since it doesn't really matter much if the solar panels are a few
degrees off, and a few degrees are a big deal for Earth Obs and
astronomy, we decided to put the gimbals on the solar-pointing
equipment.  So the "real, solid justification" is pointing accuracy.

Hey, but don't mind me.  I'm just a Shuttle guy.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as
      the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 17:10:31 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming Venus cheaply? NO!
Newsgroups: sci.space

It's somewhat ironic that it would be easier (relatively speaking) to colonize
planets further out than it would be to attempt colonization of Venus.

(too bad we can't terraform the moon :-) .....)


Simon

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 17:15:00 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: viking cdrom question
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 29 Mar 93 13:07:48 GMT, [e-mail] (Matthew Zenkar) said:

MZ> Can anyone tell me where the pictures of the "face on Mars" and the
MZ> "pryamids of mars" are located in the cdrom library that is on line
MZ> at explorer.arc.nasa.gov.  I would appreciate it if you could tell
MZ> me the volume, directory, picture (raw data picture) number, etc.

There aren't there.  At least not the original raw images.  The raw set
contains images from the survey mission which took place from July 1979
to July 1980.  The two images of the face were taken very early on
in the mission, either before the landers were deployed or during the
Primary Mission.  I believe the former.

You can look up the Cydonia area on the MDIM set of disks, but it's
not sampled at high resolution as far as I know.

The original images, 70A13 and 35A72, were available at another site
a while ago.  Something like uc.ubc.ca I think.  The first two digits
refer to the orbit number, the middle letter indicates which orbiter
took the image, A or B, and the final number is the image number for that
orbit.

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

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 17:29:05 GMT
From: Jeremy Follick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is Venus so hot?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Moroney) writes:
>Callec Dradja <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Aaron Ray
>>Clements) says:
>>>
>>>
>>>There's also a small problem in dealing with an atmosphere that has about
>>>a hundred times more pressure at the surface than at Earth.  (Do you think
>>>you could live in a 100atm environment?  :) )
>
>>This is something that I don't understand. Why couldn't we live in a
>>100atm environment? I understand that too much oxygen is not good for
>>the human body, but let's say that we had a 100atm N2/O2 atmosphere
>>with just enough oxygen for normal respiration. Wouldn't humans do
>>just fine under these conditions?
>
>No, a few atmospheres of nitrogen partial pressure causes nitrogen
>narcosis, kind of a drunken state (Hmmm, maybe humans _would_ do just
>fine!)  Divers to very deep depths breathe a helium/oxygen mix for
>this reason (and to reduce the risk of the bends, which would be a
>problem for astronauts _leaving_ Venus), as a nitrogen/oxygen mix
>would have several atmospheres of nitogen at depth.
>
>>How about a 100atm CO2/O2 atmosphere, does CO2 somehow interfere with
>>the uptake of oxygen by the lungs, or is CO2 basically inert much like
>>the N2 part or our atmosphere. If we were to increase the amount of
>>N2 in Earth's atmosphere would we also need to increase the ammount
>>of O2 in order for people to breath normally? I must admit that I know
>>very little about human respiration.
>
>No, the body uses the abount of CO2 in the blood, not the amount of O2
>in the blood to determine the need to breathe.  100 atm CO2 would really
>confuse the body if not kill you outright (CO2 dissolves in water/blood,
>100 atm would make your blood a real cola drink!)
>
>Because the breathing reflex is driven by CO2 and not O2 a person placed in
>pure nitrogen, argon etc. could suffocate without ever knowing anything
>was wrong.
>
>-Mike

All of which is, of course, irrelevant in this case. One atm is
equivalent to 14.7 pounds per square inch. 100 atm is equivalent to
1470 pounds per square inch. My guess is that you would be squashed
flat long before you would die of suffocation or Nitrogen Narcosis.

Hmm, (a few seconds punching keys on the calculator), 100atm is
equivalent to diving about 3400 ft underwater (on Earth of course).
I would be surprised if divers could get down that far without
a submarine. Come to think of it, most subs in the US Navy couldn't
go that deep.

--
*Jeremy Follick                                   [e-mail]
*
*                       I'm not an expert,
*                    but I play one on USENET.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 386
------------------------------