Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO450.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 93 05:07:11
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #450
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 11 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 450

Today's Topics:
      Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.
                             Biosphere II
            Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question) (2 msgs)
                   Fireball Reports 15/93 (2 msgs)
                Lockheeds Bus1  as a science platform.
                   Michael Jordan in Space Problem
        Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience]
             Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage (2 msgs)
               The Legislative Intent of the Hatch Act
                  Venus Lander for Venus Conditions.
               Vulcan? (No, not the guy with the ears!)
                 Will the launch be visible from NJ?

    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: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 22:22:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q09m1$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Given how little we know about SSTO,  would it be worth  taking an
>S-II or S-IVB  out of mothballs and rigging them for  technology
>testing?  there should be at least two  still around?  and the support
>gear is still mostly there.

Unfortunately, while there are still Saturn stages around, most of them
are not in what you would call flight-ready condition any more.  They
would need, at least, substantial overhauls.  And while the bigger items
of support gear are still mostly present, the little stuff is not.

Bear in mind, also, that nobody certified those things for a twenty-year
shelf life.  Some of the Saturn IBs used for the Skylab crews, stored for
only a few years between the end of production and the Skylab launches,
needed repairs for problems that had developed in storage.

In any case, there really is very little doubt that we can get a single
stage into orbit.  The big uncertainties are mostly associated with the
return, landing, and turnaround, and demonstrating that kind of thing
with the Saturn stages would require substantial modifications.

A smaller vehicle like DC-X is, on the whole, a better approach to this.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 23:08:18 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q64fv$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>Studying large scale eco-systems are done today by--studying large eco-systems
>in nature!  In the real world, there is nothing like a closed system, and Bio-
>sphere II is not a closed system either.  The closest we get is by studying
>various sized patches of forest left after logging companies have cut around
>them.  (This has been done with old growth forests with the cooperation with
>logging companies).  This way, we can study real world eco systems that
>actually exist, rather than sticking a bunch of ill-equipped people in a
>totally artificial environment.  (By ill-equipped, I mean little things like
>band-aids and anti-biotic were forgotten.)

If you think understanding complex ecosystems the Biosphere method is bad,
how can you even for a second defend doing so by current earth/natural
observation methodologies???  Bio II is orders and orders of magnitude
better controlled and observable than any ecosystem in nature.

Claims that band-aids and antibiotic were forgotten are
a) patently false, and
b) an attempt to distract from the real issues.
If you continue to do stupid argument tricks like that I'll stop debating
you.  I prefer to argue with rational people whose minds aren't made up.

>What about thinking "Creation Science" or "Scientology" is bad science?  If
>you leave your mind open enough, people will throw garbage into it.  Bio-
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>sphere II is more of a media event than an experiment.

That claim, sir, is bullshit.  My mind is open at all times.
That does not prevent me from being able to tell that there
is no scientific merit to "Creation science" or "Scientology";
it just means that I actually listen to what they, and everyone
else, say when they talk to me.  I don't have to believe them,
I just have to listen.

>Like what variables ARE they keeping track of?

Atmospheric composition.  Plant growth, in magnificent detail.  Animal
growth, health, etc.  Chemistry in their little lake.  Have you
actually read anything about the project, or just criticisms of it?
It's not like they sealed themselves in for 2 years and are playing
volleyball to pass the time.

>Who considers Biosphere to be _the_ comparative model?  Any scientists?

I know a whole bunch of scientists who think it's that.
I know a whole bunch more who think it's a total waste of time.

>Agreed.  But Biosphere is not a look even a remotely good overall look.
>Its purpose was to determine the feasability of people living in an enclosed
>environment, not to study a closed environment.  It has totally failed to
>do this, as at least one participant had to leave because of a cut, and
>they've reportedly orderred out for pizza.  Of course, none of this information
>will likely ever be released, since the backers of Biosphere are not
>scientists.

Its purpose was to do both of those, pseudoscientific criticisms aside.
The person who left was ILL, medically ill; if they'd been on a shuttle
flight they'd have brought them down immediately.  If they'd been on
a ship at sea they'd have flown them so shore.  They were in Bio II, so
they cycled them through the airlock. [this from memory, ask Taber for
more details...].

I've not heard any credible claim that they ordered out for Pizza.
If you have a source, let me know.  They claim to not be doing things
like that, and I've talked to them about that.

What they HAVE done is
a) ran a CO2 absorbtion system when the CO2 percentage went up (turned it
into carbonates, I think)
b) eventually released some extra oxygen into the system when they started
to have medical problems

They didn't deny a), and have good records of how much CO2 was taken out
when, etc.  They publicized b) pretty well, I saw it in the paper here
at the same time the Bio II people I know started talking about it.
That they failed to keep the system totally closed is not a disaster;
they know what they had to do to correct it, and can document what
they did very very well.  As a pure experiment, it was bad form,
but it's more than just a lab testbed.  It's not like they didn't
keep track of what they were doing when they opened the system a bit.


There are perfectly valid scientific criticisms of Biosphere II, some of which
I don't know how to refute.  As with most experiments, it's not simple
or as closed as it "should" be, and its value in that light is debatable.
I think it is of value, but it's by no means a clear cut issue.

It really peeves me when people use untrue, nonscientific, or slanderous
arguments to try and argue against its value.  You perpetrate the exact
same methodologies you argue against.  Biosphere II has suffered from a
particularly vehement opposition that while based in reasonable scientific
critisisms has gone well beyond them.

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:13:13 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|If memory serves -- and admittedly this was a while ago, and my reference
|for it is lost somewhere in the mess on my desk -- the Gemini suit was
|good for quite high temperatures at one atmosphere, for protection in
|certain classes of launch failures.


WOuld that be because they used Ejection seats,  so the AStronaut/pilot
may have had to eject through  a potential fireball  from the Titan?

That would be a very short duration.  1-2 seconds by gut feel.
Wouldn't that be significantl;y different then riding out a
re-entry?

Also from what i saw, the gemini suit wasn't exactly the wonder suit,
being only marginally better then the mercury suit,  which looked
in the films i saw like a man shaped  high pressure condom:-)

The gemini suit must have been tolerable,  i think on emission
went 2 weeks,  but were they in suits the whole time?

pat

    Oh while we are on the suit question?  Why do the shuttle
astronauts wear a pressure suit at launch,  then switch to the EVA
suits?  Are the EVA suits too bulky to operate the flight
controls,  and then handle the escape contingencies?  Suits in
general can't be that bad,  the Apollo, Gemini and Mercury astronauts
all wore the same suits through the mission.  If they were in orbit,
and took an emergency depress,  would they re-don the pressure suits
and then  make an emergency de-orbit.(Aassuming the bird is
still landable)

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 02:02:21 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>... (some of the NASA suit designs have actually been very good
>>>thermal insulation, good up to remarkably high temperatures).

>>They are good to very high temperatures, but not pressures: Above
>>1mbar they rapidly stop insulating, and by 10mbar they are almost
>>worthless.

>If memory serves -- and admittedly this was a while ago, and my reference
>for it is lost somewhere in the mess on my desk -- the Gemini suit was
>good for quite high temperatures at one atmosphere, for protection in
>certain classes of launch failures.

I'm not sure what sort of insulation the Gemini suits used. The
insulation used in the Apollo and Shuttle suits (the material with
the really impressive insulation properties) is very pressure sensitive.
Possibly the Gemini suits used a less insulative material that
worked even at 1 bar.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 20:03:00 +0200
From: Andre Knoefel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fireball Reports 15/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

      INTERNATIONAL METEOR ORGANIZATION *** FIREBALL DATA CENTER

                     FIDAC e-mail report no. 15/93
                    ===============================

1993 Jan 02  03 26  UT
Magnitude: -5   Zenithal magnitude: -5
Location: Cereste (France)
( 005deg 33'36'' E,  43deg 50'51'' N)
First sighting: alpha=150deg, delta=+44deg
End sighting: alpha=222deg, delta=+19deg
Duration: 4 seconds
Color: bl-wh
Trail: -
Persistent train: short, slightly or
Fragmentation: -
Velocity: very slow
Sound: -
Observer: B. Koch, S. Stapf



1993 Feb 25  09 52 55 UT
Magnitude: -4   Zenithal magnitude: -5
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=075deg, delta=-50deg
End sighting: alpha=350deg, delta=-70deg
Duration: 2 seconds
Color: ye
Trail: -
Persistent train: 3sec
Fragmentation: -
Velocity:  10deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf



1993 Mar 01  08 22  UT
Magnitude: -11   Zenithal magnitude: -13
Location: Koromiko (New Zealand)
( 173deg 58'18'' E,  41deg 20'30'' S)
First sighting: alpha=160deg, delta=+10deg
End sighting: alpha=070deg, delta=+20deg
Duration: 5 seconds
Color: bl-wh
Trail: -
Persistent train: yes, 1sec
Fragmentation: 6 ablates near end point
Velocity:  5deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: D.R. Goodman



1993 Mar 01  08 22  UT
Magnitude: -13   Zenithal magnitude: -15
Location: Waikawa Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 03'00'' E,  41deg 15'48'' S)
First sighting: alpha=140deg, delta=+20deg
End sighting: alpha=090deg, delta=+16deg
Duration: 3 seconds
Color: bl-wh
Trail: -
Persistent train: yes, 5sec
Fragmentation: 3 abl. halfway,3 abl. end
Velocity:  5deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: C. Gittinger,M. Gittinger



1993 Mar 14  09 46 00 UT
Magnitude: -4   Zenithal magnitude: -6
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=255deg, delta=-70deg
End sighting: alpha=255deg, delta=-50deg
Duration: 1.5 seconds
Color: ye/wh
Trail: -
Persistent train: 5sec
Fragmentation: 6 fragments at end point
Velocity:  3deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf



1993 Mar 14  10 48 25 UT
Magnitude: -6   Zenithal magnitude: -8
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 45'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=085deg, delta=-15deg
End sighting: alpha=075deg, delta=+05deg
Duration: 1 second
Color: wh
Trail: -
Persistent train: 3sec
Fragmentation: -
Velocity:  20deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf



1993 Mar 20  11 44  UT
Magnitude: -3   Zenithal magnitude: -3
Location: Descanso, CA (USA)
( 116deg 38'13'' W,  32deg 50'00'' N)
First sighting: alpha=193deg, delta=+36deg
End sighting: alpha=205deg, delta=+46deg
Duration: 0.3 seconds
Color: gr
Trail: -
Persistent train: 10sec
Fragmentation: none
Velocity: medium
Sound: none
Observer: G.J. Zay



1993 Mar 23  14 35 20 UT
Magnitude: -4   Zenithal magnitude: -5
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=180deg, delta=-14deg
End sighting: alpha=160deg, delta= 00deg
Duration: 1 second
Color: wh
Trail: -
Persistent train: 1sec
Fragmentation: -
Velocity:  20deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf



1993 Mar 24  09 43 35 UT
Magnitude: -4   Zenithal magnitude: -6
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=010deg, delta=-70deg
End sighting: alpha=025deg, delta=-55deg
Duration: 0.5 seconds
Color: ye
Trail: -
Persistent train: -
Fragmentation: -
Velocity: -
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf



1993 Mar 26  08 07 46 UT
Magnitude: -4   Zenithal magnitude: -5
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=070deg, delta=-75deg
End sighting: alpha=015deg, delta=-55deg
Duration: 1 second
Color: ye
Trail: -
Persistent train: 1sec
Fragmentation: -
Velocity: -
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf



1993 Mar 26  14 57 35 UT
Magnitude: -6   Zenithal magnitude: -8
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=140deg, delta=-52deg
End sighting: alpha=100deg, delta=-50deg
Duration: 4 seconds
Color: ye
Trail: -
Persistent train: 5sec
Fragmentation: 1 abl. halfway,2 abl. en
Velocity:  5deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf



1993 Mar 26  16 27 00 UT
Magnitude: -4   Zenithal magnitude: -6
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=140deg, delta=-65deg
End sighting: alpha=100deg, delta=-55deg
Duration: 1 second
Color: wh
Trail: -
Persistent train: 1sec
Fragmentation: -
Velocity: -
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf




1993 Mar 27  14 58 30 UT
Magnitude: -4   Zenithal magnitude: -6
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=040deg, delta=-80deg
End sighting: alpha=075deg, delta=-60deg
Duration: 1 second
Color: ye
Trail: -
Persistent train: 2sec
Fragmentation: -
Velocity:  20deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf



1993 Mar 27  16 03 36 UT
Magnitude: -6   Zenithal magnitude: -7
Location: Princess Bay (New Zealand)
( 174deg 47'30'' E,  41deg 21'00'' S)
First sighting: alpha=220deg, delta=-62deg
End sighting: alpha=160deg, delta=-60deg
Duration: 2 seconds
Color: ye
Trail: -
Persistent train: 8sec
Fragmentation: -
Velocity:  20deg/sec
Sound: -
Observer: G. Wolf


erratum:
========
(FIDAC e-mail report 14/93)

1993 Feb 22  22 12 45 UT
Magnitude: -8   Zenithal magnitude: -10
Location: Saarbruecken (Germany)
( 007deg 03'42'' E,  49deg 12'52'' N)
First sighting: alpha=045deg, delta=+40deg    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
End sighting: alpha=055deg, delta=+25deg      <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Duration: -
Color: gr
Trail: -
Persistent train: -
Fragmentation: -
Velocity: -
Sound: -
Observer: P. Schmeer


----------------------------------------------------------------------
       International Meteor Organization * Fireball Data Center
c/o Andre Knoefel, Saarbruecker Str. 8, D - 40476 Duesseldorf, Germany
                    phone: (+49) 211:450-719 (tape)
    e-mail: [e-mail] (Internet)  100114,3235 (CompuServe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

                    FIREBALL REPORTS ARE WELCOME !



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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 22:58:44 GMT
From: _Floor_ <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fireball Reports 15/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

Excuse my ignorance, but just what are these fireballs?

  _____    "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks
 /  ___\  ___  __ ___   ___      _____________   [e-mail]
 | / __  / _ \ | /   \ / _ \     |  physics  |   [e-mail]
 | \_\ \ | __/ |  /\ | | __/     |racquetball|   [e-mail]
 \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/     | volleyball|   [e-mail]
 Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:36:56 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lockheeds Bus1  as a science platform.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Apparently, lockheed is proposing to build SSF using Bus1
a declassified space craft uniform bus,  about 13 ft  by 9 ft
in diameter,  mildly  tablet shaped.   it is pre-wired for
power, comms,  etc  and is shuttle rated.

My question,  would this make a good platform for
planetary missions.  would Galileo or MO  type missions
profit from using this standard bus,  It does seem
larger then a Mariner,  and close in size to galileo.

Granted for outer planets missions, youd toss the solar arrays
for  RTG's,  but does anyone have any comment?

pat

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 93 22:52:16 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Michael Jordan in Space Problem
Newsgroups: sci.space

>   What is the largest body in the solar system on which, if Michael
>Jordan jumped straight up, he would achieve escape velocity?
>

If I get a chance to ask Col. Doug Kirkpatrick, USAF, PhD, AIAA (and
all the other acros that Nike put after his name), I will let you know.
He just recently left our office and is now at the Academy.

>>Note for the clueless:  He was the Doc that explained how MJ overcomes
the earth's gravity through the application of velocity in the vertical
plane (thus producing a low-altitude earth orbit).  Do ya' know?^3

                    Fuzzy.
==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |
=(___)=      |    Space Debris Guru    | "You must be," said the Cat, "or you
   U  ...ack!| [e-mail] |       wouldn't have come here."
==============================================================================

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:19:59 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir 2's planned orbit [was Re: Degrees vs. experience]
Newsgroups: sci.space

Dont the russians have a third launch facility, at kapustin yar??????

what republic is that in?   is it also unable to do proton work?

What's the status of cape york,  is that going up still?

If the russians need leverage,  wouldn't  that work just as well?

CY  should be able to hit 51 degrees  just as easily, or am i betraying
a shocking ignorance of  orbital mechanics.

pat

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 23:00:58 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q76vr$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>Oh sure.  It's not  perfect,  but it'd be nice to scar the DC-X,
>or DC-XA  to fit them  as an option.   ALl C-130's  carry JATO
>scars,  but  i bet  less then 1% of the fleet actually use them.
>
>My point was to draw out some hypothetical  extenions to the
>DC-X  or DC-XA  that may make some positive use  for operational
>missions out of a prototype test vehicle.
>
>Just a little food for thought.
>
    This might work for DC-XA or any follow on.  However,
there is only ONE DC-X cradt as you know.  I think it would be
foolish to scar it now OR later for a possible commercial
venture.  Now would be a wate of time and money, and later
presents its won headaches.  This is going to be a test
vechile that will undergo a lot of stress.  Do we really want
to have to maintain this so that we can try to make some
money on it?
    Think of the Enterprise, it was never flown into
space since it would have cost to much to modify it from
a test article. Rather, Challanger (OV-99) was modified.

If however, you want to take the lessons learned from
DC-X, and build a DC-XA or two, that might make
sense.


>pat
>

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:26:26 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>    Think of the Enterprise, it was never flown into
>space since it would have cost to much to modify it from
>a test article. Rather, Challanger (OV-99) was modified.

If  I have my facts straight,  Enterprise was a flight article,  OV-100.

Just turned out, the vehicle needed more stiffening  excess stress
during the drop tests  showed that,  so they retired Enterprise
OV-100 after completing the initial flight test program.
because the strenghtening would eat up too much of the  vehicles
cargo capacity.

Now what I don't understand, is granted Enterprise would have had
1/2 the cargo load of the others,  but  wouldn't it make sense to go ahead
and fly her,  to run the orbital test program,  and maintain an
ready to go vehicle for rapid reaction missions  or light cargo
runs?

Keep her in the VAB  tipped up with a canadaarm, and ready to go,
or  in the OPF  ready for a cargo mission.

pat

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 93 16:24:05 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: The Legislative Intent of the Hatch Act

A lot has changed since the Hatch Act was enacted in the late '30s.

The huge federal budget has made "special interests" the "partisans" of
modern politics as they battle for their piece of the federal budget.
The fact that we now call many of these partisans "contractors" rather
than "civil servants" and their particular pork-barrel bureaucracy
"projects" rather than "political parties" is little more than a
semantic fig-leaf.  The positive feedback loop of political power
is making the rape of the American people increasingly difficult to
hide.

The burgeoning failures of our society and the blurring distinction
between Republicans and Democrats can be traced, in large measure,
to these new special interest political parties which disguise
themselves as government programs.

Proper interpretation and enforcement the Hatch Act by the judicial
and executive branches of the federal government could reverse our
downward spiral without any intervention by the Congress, which is
now totally controlled by these government-funded political parties.

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:33:23 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Venus Lander for Venus Conditions.
Newsgroups: sci.space

it is probably easier to make the skin of the lander,  not reactive.

Diamond or teflon coatings.  that sort of thing.

pat

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

Date: 10 Apr 1993 22:16:32 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vulcan? (No, not the guy with the ears!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <stephens.734028064@ngis> [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
|>... Vulcan was supposed to have been
|>observed by a somewhat dubious 'gentleman' astronomer who kept
|>his notes on a plank of wood, and used plane as an eraser.


Don't  mistake the crudeness of surroundings  for the quality of
one's scientific venture.  Raman  developed his form of spectroscopy
using a small telescope aimed at the sun, because they couldn't
afford lasers.  ( I think it may have even pre-dated lasers).

Ramanujan  did all his work while  a govt clerk,  and Einstein was
just a miserable patent clerk.  And Ovoshinsky,  did his work in
his basement.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 00:24:44 GMT
From: "maurice.r.baker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Will the launch be visible from NJ?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Egan) writes:
>>
>>2. after the main engine cutoff....i was VERY surprised to see the
>>very bright white beacons it flashed at about 2-3 second rate.
>>look like on on the back and one front. (or was I hullicinating ??)
>>
>>anybody know about these ?????
>>

Shhhhhhhh....those are the strobe lights on the COSMOSPHERES.  They turn them
on after the Shuttle has been grappled.

More seriously, where are the abort landing sites for the Space Shuttle after
a launch which essentially takes it up the east coast of the U.S. ?  Seems
as though there must be some equivalent of TAL, etc.  Do they station teams
and equipment at them ahead of time, or send crews, etc. out if an actual
landing occurs ?  How would the shuttle talk to the control tower -- do they
have VHF or UHF aircraft radios on board [121.5, 243 Mhz., etc.] ?

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

Newsgroups: sci.space

From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 19:00:59 GMT
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <dxb105.734155421@aries+ <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: Net News <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 145.1.146.43
Lines: 41
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>+In article <dxb105.734155421@aries+, dxb105@aries (David Bofinger) writes:
>[e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:
>++
>++> [The Soviet Union] could have beaten us if either:
>++> * Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back,
>++
>++Didn't they lose their top rocket scientist in a car crash or....
>+
>+... His death was due to natural causes,
>
>Zhores Medvedev says that Korolev, 60, died on the operating table January
>14, 1966, after a botched operation for hemorrhoids. Pravda said
>he died of "cardiac insufficiency" after a cancer operation.

It was an operation to remove a tumor from the duodenum. According to
the plan the operation was not serious but rather unpleasent. During
the operation apparently another tumor was discovered and complications
set in. Korolev apperently never regained consciousness. There are old
rumors that the surgon, Petrovskiy (Minister of Health), was drunk.
The operation was to last minutes, but instead took more than 5 hours
and Korolev's heart could not take the strain. Korolev had suffered many
health problems over the years including low blood pressure, head aches,
etc.. Korolev's daughter (a doctor) speaks about it in a Canadian
documentary about Korolev made in the last year or so.

I will only comment breifly on the original subject. In recent talks
with Georgi Grechko a lunar team cosmonaut, it is his impinion that
the N-1 could have been made reliable after some more work (and it is
unrealistic to believe it would have preformed any better than it did
in its first flights). The biggest problem in his impinion was the
lander. It was to primitive and while it COULD have worked the risk
was to high and the losses were projected not to look good in
comparison to the highly successful Apollo landings. So the project
was stopped while they were still 'ahead' in the publics eyes, for
it would only have gotten worse.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 450
------------------------------