Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO421.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Tue,  6 Apr 93 05:00:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #421
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  6 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 421

Today's Topics:
                  Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!
                   Biosphere Books Wanted! (2 msgs)
             HLV for Fred (was Re: Prefab Space Station?)
   Keeping Magellan Alive (Was Re: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93)
                   Location of aerospace companies
                          Luddites in space
                            nuclear waste
                          PBS space special
                        Prefab Space Station?
                        Quaint US Archaisms ~
                Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5
                            RL-200 Engines
               Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
                   Space Research Spin Off (2 msgs)
             TIROS APT ir image temperature calibrations
          Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!) (3 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: 4 Apr 93 13:45:43 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
>
>Why can't the government just be a tennant? Private commercial concerns
>could just build a space station system and charge rent to the government
>financed researchers wanting to use it.

Sure they could, but consider that a commercial concern has to retire
capital expenditures, plus interest, has to cover operating costs, and
make a profit. If the government builds it for their own use, they don't
have to make a profit, nor do they have to borrow the bulk of the money
to pay for it, so interest charges are less. In theory, that means the
government could get the required space station cheaper by doing it
themselves. In practice, the government rarely does anything efficiently,
so it is likely cheaper to rent than own.

The sticking point is that the government has to sign a firm rental
agreement in advance of construction that guarantees a certain amount
of rent for a specified period once construction is complete. And that
contract has to have penalty clauses sufficient to keep the landlord
solvent if the government reneges on the contract. This has been the
sticking point. Most government contracts have a termination clause
that basically says the government may terminate at it's convienence.
That leaves the landlord holding the bag. Congress is reluctant to
obligate future Congresses to pay debts that won't come due during
the current term, and any future Congress can nullify a contract by
passing an Act. This makes commercial lenders very nervous. What
Congress would need to do is post a surety bond with the major lenders
to cover premature contract termination. That would then act as part
of the collateral for the station builder. NASA can't do it, because
NASA has no control over the size of it's future budgets. Congress
would have to specifically do it themselves.

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: 5 Apr 93 10:02:27 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere Books Wanted!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>> Is there any books or ? on Biospheres, types, and operation and such..???
>
> Are talking about Biosphere II??? If so, I am aware that the gift shop of
> Biosphere  II have a couple of books about the project.

Below, a draft FAQ and reading list I've compiled on Biosphere 2.

Also note that Taber MacCallum, one of the econauts currently inside
Biosphere 2, can be reached at [e-mail].  He has occasionally
posted to Space Digest, though I suspect some software glitch has
prevented the gateway from sending his messages into sci.space (the
Usenet side).

======================
Biosphere 2 is an attempt by a private company, Space Biospheres
Ventures, to build a completely self-supporting, self-contained
environment which supports plants, animals, and eight humans in a
sealed structure for two years.  Such "closed environment life support
systems" will need to be developed for long-term living in space, so
there is great interest in Biosphere 2 among students of astronautics.
Critics, however, have complained that the project contains more
wishful thinking than science, and is unlikely to produce any useful
research.

The site is near Oracle, Arizona, about an hour east of Tucson.  Tours
are available (but you can't go *inside* the Biosphere while it's
sealed, can you?).

SPACE BIOSPHERES VENTURES
P.O. Box 689, Oracle, AZ  85623
[phone]

The two available books have been written  by members of the Biosphere
group.

*Space Biospheres*  by John Allen and Mark Nelson. Malabar, Fla.
Orbit Book Co., 1987, c1986. (89 pages) [Small book discusses the
history and general theory of the biosphere  and the construction of
Biosphere 2 (not much detail) and future space habitats (a plan for a
growing Mars colony is included).]

*Biosphere 2: The Human Experiment* by John Allen ; edited by
Anthony Blake. New York, New York : Viking Penguin, 1991.   (156
pages) [A recent coffee-table volume with lots of color illustrations
of B-2, ancillary facilities, and the chosen econauts.]

Magazine articles:

Watson, Traci, "Can Basic Research Ever Find a Good Home in Biosphere
2?," *Science*, v.259, p.1688-1689, 19 March 1993.

Dempster, W., *The Journal of Aerospace Engineering*, Jan 1991, pages
23-30.  [Semi-technical overview]

Kosowatz, John J., "Giant Ecological Lab Rises in the Desert,"
*ENR (Engineering News Record)*, Dec. 21, 1989, pp. 34-38.

Robbins, Jim, "Small World," *Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine*, May
31, 1987, p. 8-23.

There have been good pop-science treatments in *Discover* (sometime in
1987? Summer?),  out and *Whole Earth Review* (1990 sometime?) but I
have yet to get the exact references. Side note: Photos suggest that
one reason Biosphere got such a honeymoon with the press was that they
had *really good food* at their coming-out press conference in 1987.
Or at least really photogenic food.

Criticism of Biosphere 2

Marc Cooper of the *Village Voice* has conducted a one-man war on
Biosphere 2 with extensive and detailed articles critical of the
project.  It was after the appearance of his coverage in early 1991
that a wave of Biosphere-hostile stories, usually citing Cooper,
appeared in the press.

"Take This Terrarium and Shove It" by Marc Cooper, *The Village
Voice*,  April 2, 1991

"'When He Hits You, It's a Compliment:' Johnny Allen Rools-- and Cult
Members Knuckle Under by Marc Cooper, *The Village Voice*, April 2,
1991.

"The Martian Chronicles: How the Media Spaced Out on the Biosphere" by
Marc Cooper, *The Village Voice*, April 2, 1991

"Profits of Doom: The Biosphere project Finally Comes Out of the
Closet-- As a Theme Park" by Marc Cooper, *The Village Voice*, July
30, 1991

"Faking It: The Biosphere is a Model of the Earth After All-- It's
Suffering from Runaway Greenhouse Effect" by Marc Cooper, *The Village
Voice*, November 12, 1991

Stewart, Rocky L., "Bubble Trouble," *Harper's*, Vol. CCLXXXIV, No.
1701, Feb. 1992, pp. 29-30.

"Biosphere 2: The Next Generation All the Smithsonian's Horses and All
the Smithsonian's Men Won't Put the Arizona Bubble Back Together
Again" by Marc Cooper, *The Village Voice*, May 5, 1992

[Many thanks to Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano ([e-mail]) for providing
references to the *Village Voice* articles.]


--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 5 Apr 93 01:56:19 EDT
From: Ethan Dicks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere Books Wanted!
Newsgroups: sci.space

CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON ([e-mail]) wrote:
: > Is there any books or ? on Biospheres, types, and operation and such..???
:
: Are talking about Biosphere II??? If so, I am aware that the gift shop of
: Biosphere  II have a couple of books about the project.

I was just there last week.  The literature is mostly 4-color glossies
with a low information content.  The gift shop is effectively for tourists.

I, too, would like some in-depth info on the BiosphereII project.  A book
like the _Space Shuttle Operator's Guide_ would probably do the trick.

-ethan

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 14:30:05 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: HLV for Fred (was Re: Prefab Space Station?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Uhhh may I point out that the current Heavy lift launch vehicle by one of the
>above vendors spends so much time on the pad that they have to hire extra
>people just to clean the rust off.

I believe the instance you refer to happened because of the payload, not
the launcher. But I'll stack Titan performance against Shuttle anyday. The
shuttle has cancled about 5 flights for every time they flew and still
can't launch on schedule.

>Titan IV launches ain't cheap

Granted. But that's because titan IV's are bought by the governemnt. Titan
III is actually the cheapest way to put a pound in space of all US expendable
launchers.

The only difference between Titan III and IV is that the strap-on's for
the IV are a little bigger and the IV is government procurement. They use
the same core engines, same tanks, they are made on the same assembly
lines by the same people.

A large core Titan would lift Shuttle-C payoloads for less than half the
cost (per pound) of Titan III. This makes it an order of magnitude less
than Shuttle.

>and if you take the middling Shuttle cost
>marker, which is appropriate due to the infrastructure that is required then
>the costs are a wash NOW with STS.

Comparing one wasteful government procurement with another doesn't mean
much. Let's compare it to the commercial alternatives which are a factor
of five to ten cheaper.

The large core Titan would be procured under comemrcial rules. The government
wouldn't pay development costs and only pays for services rendered.

>With heavy lift we might as well go with
>the baby Saturn and get some labor savings.

Show me the numbers. I ran numbers for Saturn using NASA provided numbers
(which I assume you trust) and they simply whern't cheaper than the
alternatives. I was a big supporter of re-starting Saturn at first but
I stopped when I saw it simply didn't save any money.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------72 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 13:09:00 GMT
From: David Ward <abdkw@stdvax>
Subject: Keeping Magellan Alive (Was Re: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes...
>team has been reduced as well. The mission is running at a higher risk factor
>with the reduced operations team, by the way.  The emphasis is now on

Thanks for the answers--I had forgotten all of the RADAR image processing.

However, your Ron's response leads me to a few more questions:

1)  How big was Magellan's Flight Ops team?  Please include your
definition of terms (what's included in your team).  I wanted to
see if the Magellan team resembled HST operations here, or if it
is more similar to other NASA spacecraft like GRO, UARS and COBE.

I'm only looking for the people who actually "fly the bird"--no
science team members, no management.  Yes, I do know Magellan requires
a different type of comm support;  the difference between DSN activities
and TDRS activities obviously requires a different philosophy--but how
does that translate into personnel?

2)  What is the size of the reduced FOT?  How has the reduction increased
risk (lack of knowledge in certain subsystems, less than 24 hr coverage,
etc)?

3)  How much more expensive are DSN operations than TDRS operations (_this_
is the comparison of people who _help_ the people "fly the bird"--ie the
guys at White Sands, Goldstone, Wallops, etc)?

Thanks for the help.

David W. @ GSFC

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:02:55 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Location of aerospace companies
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Keith Mancus) writes:
>[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>> I always thought GD's  Fighter plants were in Long Island.
>
>  No, *Grumman's* fighter plant is on Long Island.

GD doesn't make fighters.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
[e-mail]          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:28:24 BST
From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In <[e-mail]> fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
>However, at the bottom line, economics
>ain't programming.  Good sense, experience, and how they 'think' it
>works just don't correspond real well to how things actually work.
  No kidding :-) .Economics is the one field is which you can be
totally and consistently wrong in every prediction you make, and still
be regarded as a serious scholar. It doesn't make a lot of sense to
apply the same criteria for competence as for a mature and
reasonably well understood field.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.

Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] (business) or
                  [e-mail] (private)

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

Date: 5 Apr 93 07:31:42 GMT
From: William Reiken <[e-mail]>
Subject: nuclear waste
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>
> I suppose one could claim evidence for liquid H2O to have once
> existed on Mars, and perhaps inside of Europa, but even that is
> a Hell of a long way from demonstrating the existance of shale.
> And, I suppose, one could call the red-brown goo that covers comets,
> Pluto, and, no doubt, the surface of Titan "oil", but I wouldn't.
>

    Well this pretty much says it.  I have gotten alot of replys to this
and it looks like oil is only on Earth.  So if those greedy little oil companys
who obviously don't give **** about it uses up all the oil then that leaves us
high a dry.

    So anyone want to comment on what the world will look like without oil?
How would this effect NASA technology that currently uses oil-based product for
spaceship parts?

                            Will...

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

Date: 5 Apr 93 10:14:02 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: PBS space special
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
> What I
> didn't like is the atitude that you have to talk down to the target audience.
> My teaching style is to simplify the material under the assumption that people
> just don't know the subject.

Yes... I can't remember an occasion when Josh talked down to us. (-:

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | ASTRONOMY:
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | The early science of the sky.
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | ASTROLOGY:
Internet:       [e-mail]  | How it was paid for.
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | --Michael Rivero

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

Date: 4 Apr 93 13:57:48 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Prefab Space Station?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1pl3f8$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Carol) writes:
>>Since one of the largest expenses of Freedom will be the many trips
>>required to get the pieces up, and the many EVAs required to put
>>the whole thing together, why do they not consider a lesson from
>>SkyLab?
>
>>Build a prefab station module similar to a shuttle in size and design
>>except it will never return to Earth and will not be manned at launch.
>>Because it is never going to land, it does not need wings, landing
>>gear, most avionics etc.  It will be, in effect, a module with 3 large
>>shuttle engines mounted under it which will only get one use.
>
>This is, essentially, the Shuttle-C concept: A idea which was
>fairly popular a few years ago, but which seems to have faded into
>obscurity. The idea was to develop a 75-tonne to orbit launch
>vehicle, using the Shuttle SRBs, ET and two main engines. Some
>studies concluded that Space Station Freedom components could
>be launched in only three or four Shuttle-C missions, plus two
>or three Shuttle missions for assembly. NASA rejected this
>concept, for reasons that would be better suited for
>talk.politics.space...

Some of the problems with Shuttle C are political, but there are
other issues as well. The sticking point is the cost of SSMEs.
They're too expensive to throw away on an expendible launch.
To get around that, the Shuttle C proponents wanted to use SSMEs
from Shuttle that had reached the end of their rated life. Two
problems with this. The first is that engines at the end of their
rated life may no longer be reliable. The second is that to cut
costs, NASA has repeatedly increased the rated lifetime of the
Shuttle SSMEs, and has reduced Shuttle flight frequency below
previously planned rates. So there just aren't any SSMEs available
for Shuttle C.

A possible way around this problem is to design the Shuttle C
so that the SSME module can be easily undocked and loaded into
a Shuttle bay for retrieval on a manned flight to the same
destination. For Freedom assembly, this would be a reasonable
plan. For launching other payloads, there may be no reason for
a manned Shuttle to go to the same vicinity. Thus too small
a market for Shuttle C.

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: 5 Apr 93 02:08:56 EDT
From: Ethan Dicks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms ~
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) says:
>
>May I humbly point out that the English system has standard sizes in
>an exponential distribution (1/2", 1/4", 1/8", etc.) while metric
>sizes tend to be anything.  An old American car can be serviced with
>about 5 wrenches.  A proper metric wrench set has lots of sizes,
>typically 3 to 25 millimeters in increments of 1 mm.

When working on my Volkswagens (a Bug and a Bus), I use 2 wrenches for
over 80% of the bolts and nuts: 10mm and 13mm.  4 17mm bolts hold the
engine in place and a few places (mostly in the vicinity of the carb.)
I need an 8mm.

The distribution of socket size in an American wrench kit is not just
1/2^n.  It is more like a range of 1/16" to 3/4" by 16ths (1/16", 1/8",
3/16", 1/4", 5/16", 3/8", 7/16", 1/2", 9/16", 5/8", 11/16", 3/4") for
a total of 12 wrenches for a basic SAE set.

In most metric socket sets I have ever owned, 4mm to 19mm is all I ever
got.



ObMetricOutrageousProposition: require a metric proficiency test for
driver's license renewals.

-ethan

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:38:13 GMT
From: "Garret W. Gengler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5
Newsgroups: sci.space

In sci.space you write:

>Try the ENVIRONET database at GSFC. FTP to envnet.gsfc.nasa.gov or
>128.183.104.16, or call [phone].  They have data on STS, Ariane, Titan,
>Atlas, Delta and Scout launch environments.

Howdy.  Thanks for the info.

I tried "anonymous" FTP there, but it didn't work.
I also tried telnetting to the same address, but it asked for a login
and password, although there was a note saying that the new username for
environet was "envnet".

Anyways, do you have any idea what else I should try?

Thanks,
Garret

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 13:37:57 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RL-200 Engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:

>If the worst happens and DCY doesn't get funded, will the
>RL-200s be developed anyway for other uses?

At the moment, no.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------72 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 10:07:58 GMT
From: David Woodsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jo writes:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> the first man on Venus is a "little person."  (Hey, what's the
> Politically Correct name for this, anyway?)

I believe the politically Correct term is "vertically challenged".

:-)

David

--
David Woodsworth                   |     [e-mail]
Vancouver, BC, Canada!             |                -  or  -
Mind Link!  or  Victoria Freenet   |      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 13:32:00 GMT
From: David Ward <abdkw@stdvax>
Subject: Space Research Spin Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related
>research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see..
>
>==
>Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked
>

This challenge may already be answered--but I'll add a couple of good
examples:

1) Comsats--"live via satellite" wouldn't mean much without space research
2) Weather sats--probably save lots of lives every time a hurricane
comes around

OK, these are obvious.  But I'm suprised how often these simple things are
forgotten when people mention space (perhaps too easily taken for granted).

April 4, 1993--10th Anniv. of 1st Challenger launch, TDRS-IUE tumble, and
               NC State Men's B-Ball Championship (OK, so that didn't
               belong here)...

David W. @ GSFC
NC State '89

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 03:07:58 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Research Spin Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 4 Apr 1993 20:31:10 -0400, [e-mail] (Pat) said:

Pat> In article <[e-mail]>
Pat> [e-mail] writes:
>Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related
>research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see..

Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think.  I think they also pushed Hi Tech
Pat> Composites for airframes.  Look at Fly by Wire.

Swept wings--if you fly in airliners you've reaped the benefits.
Winglets.  Area ruling.  Digital fly by wire.  Ride smoothing.
Microwave landing systems.  Supercritical wings.  General aviation
air foils.

--
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: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 11:55:18 GMT
From: morten myrvold <[e-mail]>
Subject: TIROS APT ir image temperature calibrations
Newsgroups: sci.space

Dunno if this is the correct newsgroup to post this msg. to, but here goes:

Does anyone know of an algorithm for computing the temperature that each pixel
in the image represents? I have an algorithm at hand, but it requires the
use of logarithmic graphs (I don't know how to convert this to a formula).
It makes use of the data contained in the wedges 1-16, space data, backscan
data and black body radiator data. (ref. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 44:
Educator's Guide for Building and Operating Environmental Satellite Receiving
Stations).


--  Morten
______________________________________________________________________________
  Project D1493 - Weather Satellite Data Processing and Display:
    A Motif application for processing the digital images received
    from the NOAA and METEOSAT satellites.

   Snail:                             Email:
   Kongsberg College of Engineering,  Roger Aas           ([e-mail])
   Dept. of Computer Sciences         Morten Myrvold      ([e-mail])
   Frogs vei 42, N3601 KONGSBERG      Martin F. Kraugerud ([e-mail])
   (tel.:[phone])

  If it was easy, the hardware people would take care of it.



------- cut here :->

  To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer.
  A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.
  Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
  Any program which runs right is obsolete.
  Brain fried -- core dumped.
  "Machine-independent":  Does not run on any existing machine.
  If a program is useful, it must be changed.
  If a program is useless, it must be documented.
  If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.
  LISP:  To call a spade a thpade.
  Old programmers never die; they just branch to a new address.



--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Morten Myrvold                          # If we knew           |
|   Kongsberg College of Engineering,       # what the hell we     |
|   Dept. of Computer Sciences              # were doing,          |
|   Frogsv. 42, N3600 KONGSBERG             # then it wouldn't     |
|   Email: [e-mail]             # be research!         |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 04 Apr 93 19:31:54 CDT
From: Victor Laking <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan?

All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at
drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's
orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.

Does anyone know anything more specific?

(Yes, this happened LONG before Star Trek and is apparently where they
got the reference for the "guy with the ears".)

[e-mail]
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

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

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 14:52:09 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Victor Laking) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Victor Laking)
>Subject: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)
>Date: Sun, 04 Apr 93 19:31:54 CDT
>Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan?
>
>All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at
>drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's
>orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.
>
>Does anyone know anything more specific?
>
>(Yes, this happened LONG before Star Trek and is apparently where they
>got the reference for the "guy with the ears".)
>
>[e-mail]
>The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607
Probably the best place to look is in books on the history of astronomy.
If my memory serves me correctly an object was seen near the sun during
a total eclipse of the sun sometime during the past century. This object
was thought by some to be a planet inside the orbit of Mercury and it
was named Vulcan. There were attempts to confirm the existance of the planet
and it was a controversial subject for some time. As we now know there is no
planet inside the orbit of Mercury. As far as I know the original observation
has not been explained, but I could be wrong about that.

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

Date: 5 Apr 1993 14:53:31 GMT
From: CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Before Einstein came along with his General Theory of Relativity, the Newtonian
Theory of Gravitation could not explain some deviations in the orbit of Mercury so,
because of it, astronomers started postulating an inner planet, christened Vulcan,
with a mass sufficient large to account for the perturbation of Mercury's orbit. Well
that was untill Einstein formulated his theory and since then the General Theory of
Relativity has been able to explain the observed "precession" in the orbit of Mercury
around the Sun. No need for a Vulcan planet... In the same way that classical
mechanics fails to predict  what happens to a particle whenever it starts to travel
with a velocity close to the ligth,  Newton's theory of gravitation does not predict
accuratly the orbit for planets too close to the Sun.

[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 421
------------------------------