Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO487.TXT

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

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 93 05:20:39
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #487
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 26 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 487

Today's Topics:
                            army in space
                         Boom!  Whoosh......
        Drag free satellites (was: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL)
                 Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.
                Gamma Ray Bursters.  Where are they?
                     General Information Request
Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
         HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days (2 msgs)
                         Jemison on Star Trek
                               Level 5?
         PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST (2 msgs)
                   Russian Phobos Mission (2 msgs)
                          Soviet Space Book
                             Space Debris
              Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
                    Vandalizing the sky. (2 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 03:37:00
From: Pat Hoage <[e-mail]>
Subject: army in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

I just got out of the Army. Go signal corps or Intelligence;
photointelligence interpretation. If you go ADA you might get to play with
rockets but space will look pretty far away dug in the mud next to a grunt
protecting the foward troops from low flying objects. Good Luck


 * Origin: *AmeriComm*, 214/373-7314. Dallas'Info Source. (1:124/6507)

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

Date: 23 Apr 93 18:27:00 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boom!  Whoosh......
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
+In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
+++
++Once inflated the substance was no longer
++needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse.
++This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no
++disastrous deflation.
+
+preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain
+a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to
+catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards
+
+The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.

No, you're wrong about this. Give me some time to get my references.


--
Bruce Watson ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 20:57:25 GMT
From: Joe Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drag free satellites (was: Stephen Hawking Tours JPL)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics

In article <1raee7$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> In answer
>>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed
>>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only
>>a concept."
>
>SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?

    I am puzzled by the term "concept." Drag free may already have
been flown. It was the idea behind putting up a spacecraft that would
more accurately respond to motions from the Earth's gravity field and
ignore drag. It was proposed many years ago and involved a ball
floating between sensors whose job it was to signal to little
adjustment jets to keep the ball away from them. The ball itself would
then be in a drag free condition and respond only to gravity
anisotropies, whereas the spacecraft itself would be continuously
adjusting its position to compensate for drag.


Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain
[phone]        FAX [phone] or -0098

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

Date: 24 Apr 1993 15:05:50 GMT
From: "David M. Palmer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

>Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

>Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?

Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) are seen coming equally from all directions.
However, given the number of bright ones, there are too few faint
ones to be consistent with being equally dense for as far
as we can see--it is as if they are all contained within
a finite sphere (or a sphere with fuzzy edges) with us at the
center.  (These measurements are statistical, and you can
always hide a sufficiently small number of a different
type of GRB with a different origin in the data.  I am assuming
that there is only one population of GRBs).

The data indicates that we are less than 10% of the radius of the center
of the distribution.  The only things the Earth is at the exact center
of are the Solar system (at the scale of the Oort cloud of comets
way beyond Pluto) and the Universe.  Cosmological theories, placing
GRBs throughout the Universe, require supernova-type energies to
be released over a timescale of milliseconds.  Oort cloud models
tend to be silly, even by the standards of astrophysics.

If GRBs were Galactic (i.e. distributed through the Milky Way Galaxy)
you would expect them to be either concentrated in the plane of
the Galaxy (for a 'disk' population), or towards the Galactic center
(for a spherical 'halo' population).  We don't see this, so if they
are Galactic, they must be in a halo at least 250,000 light years in
radius, and we would probably start to see GRBs from the Andromeda
Galaxy (assuming that it has a similar halo.)  For comparison, the
Earth is 25,000 light-years from the center of the Galaxy.

>my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
>hyperspace :-)

The aren't concentrated in the known spacelanes, and we don't
see many coming from Zeta Reticuli and Tau Ceti.

>but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
>are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
>if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.

There are more than 130 GRB different models in the refereed literature.
Right now, the theorists have a sort of unofficial moratorium
on new models until new observational evidence comes in.

--
        David M. Palmer        [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Apr 93 22:13:44 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters.  Where are they?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <1radsr$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>   What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?
>
> Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
> quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?
>
> Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?
>
> my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
> hyperspace :-)
>
> but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
> are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
> if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.
>
> pat
        Well, lets see....I took a class on this last fall, and I have no
notes so I'll try to wing it...
        Here's how I understand it. Remember from stellar evolution that
black holes and neutron stars(pulsars) are formed from high mass stars,
M(star)=1.4M(sun).  High mass stars live fast and burn hard, taking
appoximately 10^5-10^7 years before going nova, or supernova.  In this time,
they don't live long enough to get perturbed out of the galactic plane, so any
of these (if assumed to be the sources of GRB's) will be in the plane of the
galaxy.
        Then we take the catalog of bursts that have been recieved from the
various satellites around the solar system, (Pioneer Venus has one, either
Pion. 10 or 11, GINGA, and of course BATSE) and we do distribution tests on our
catalog.  These tests all  show, that the bursts have an isotropic
distribution(evenly spread out in a radial direction), and they show signs of
homogeneity, i.e. they do not clump in any one direction.  So, unless we are
sampling the area inside the disk of the galaxy, we are sampling the UNIVERSE.
Not cool, if you want to figure out what the hell caused these things.  Now, I
suppose you are saying, "Well, we stil only may be sampling from inside the
disk."  Well, not necessarily.  Remember, we have what is more or less an
interplanetary network of burst detectors with a baseline that goes waaaay out
to beyond Pluto(pioneer 11), so we should be able, with all of our detectors de
tect some sort of difference in angle from satellite to satellite.  Here's an
analogy:  You see a plane overhead.  You measure the angle of the plane from
the origin of your arbitrary coordinate system.  One of your friends a mile
away sees the same plane, and measures the angle from the zero point of his
arbitrary system, which is the same as yours.  The two angles are different,
and you should be able to triangulate the position of your burst, and maybe
find a source.  To my knowledge, no one has been able to do this.
        I should throw in why halo, and corona models don't work, also.  As I
said before, looking at the possible astrophysics of the bursts, (short
timescales, high energy) black holes, and pulsars exhibit much of this type of
behavior.  If this is the case, as I said before, these stars seem to be bound
to the disk of the galaxy, especially the most energetic of the these sources.
When you look at a simulated model, where the bursts are confined to the disk,
but you sample out to large distances, say 750 mpc, you should definitely see
not only an anisotropy towards you in all direction, but a clumping of sources
in the direction of the  galactic center.  As I said before, there is none of
these characteristics.

        I think that's all of it...if someone needs clarification, or knows
something that I don't know, by all means correct me.  I had the honor of
taking the Bursts class with the person who has done the modeling of these
different distributions, so we pretty much kicked around every possible
distribution there was, and some VERY outrageous sources. Colliding pulsars,
black holes, pulsars that are slowing down...stuff like that.   It's a fun
field.
        Complaints and corrections to: [e-mail] or
post here.
                                                        -jeremy



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

Date: 24 Apr 93 23:34:28
From: "T. Giaquinto" <[e-mail]>
Subject: General Information Request
Newsgroups: sci.space

    I am looking for any information about the space program.
This includes NASA, the shuttles, history, anything!  I would like to
know if anyone could suggest books, periodicals, even ftp sites for a
novice who is interested in the space program.



                    Todd Giaquinto
                    [e-mail]


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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 00:58:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Eric H. Taylor)
>Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
>Summary: Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of relativity?
>Keywords: space, curvature, nothing, tesla
>Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 20:18:04 GMT
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>> [e-mail] (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in
>>>> physics.
>>> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of
>>> string theory?
>>
>>     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other
>>unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list,
>>including the omni-present "black holes."
>>
>>     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory
>>alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature
>>can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied:
>>"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in
>>physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about."
>>At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the
>>existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|-
>
>"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have
>no properties."
>"Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the
>space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved,
>is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
>for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla
>
>----
> ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes."
>----

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

Date: 24 Apr 1993 23:45:04 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

SOmebody mentioned  a re-boost of HST during this mission,  meaning
that Weight is a very tight  margin on this  mission.

How will said re-boost be done?

Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,

unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays,

then return to earth?

My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?

why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be
cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.   that way, now that
they are going to need at least 5  spacewalks,  then they can carry
an EDO pallet,  and  sit on station and even  maybe do the  solar array
tilt  motor  fix.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 06:04:36 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <1rd1g0$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>How will said re-boost be done?
>Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,
>unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays,
>then return to earth?

Actually, the reboost will probably be done last, so that there is a fuel
reserve during the EVAs (in case they have to chase down an adrift
astronaut or something like that).  But yes, you've got the idea -- the
reboost is done by taking the whole shuttle up.

>My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost?
>why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled
>thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost...

Somebody has to build that thruster module; it's not an off-the-shelf
item.  Nor is it a trivial piece of hardware, since it has to include
attitude control (HST's own is not strong enough to compensate for things
like thruster imbalance), guidance (there is no provision to feed gyro
data from HST's own gyros to an external device), and separation (you
don't want it left attached afterward, if only to avoid possible
contamination after the telescope lid is opened again).  You also get
to worry about whether the lid is going to open after the reboost is
done and HST is inaccessible to the shuttle (the lid stays closed for
the duration of all of this to prevent mirror contamination from
thrusters and the like).

The original plan was to use the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle to do the
reboost.  The OMV was planned to be a sort of small space tug, well
suited to precisely this sort of job.  Unfortunately, it was costing
a lot to develop and the list of definitely-known applications was
relatively short, so it got cancelled.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 Apr 1993 12:17:30 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jemison on Star Trek
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually
>it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would
>have expected a more visible/meaningful role.


Christian  Slater, only gota  cameo on ST6,

and besides.

Maybe she can't act:-)

pat

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

Date: 24 Apr 1993 00:10:21 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Level 5?
Newsgroups: sci.space

WHile we are on the subject of the shuttle software.

what ever happened to the hypothesis  that the shuttle flight software
was a major factor in the loss of 51-L.  to wit,  that during the
wind shear event,  the Flight control software  indicated a series
of very violent engine movements that shocked and set upa harmonic
resonance  leading to an overstress of the struts.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 18:47:51 GMT
From: robert lennips 9209 U <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.aci.planetary,alt.astrology

Please get a REAL life.

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

Date: 25 Apr 1993 02:19:21 GMT
From: David Gordon Empey <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETS STILL: IMAGES ORBIT BY ETHER TWIST
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack Coyote) writes:

>In sci.astro, [e-mail] (David McAloon) writes:

>[ a nearly perfect parody  -- needed more random CAPS]


>Thanks for the chuckle.  (I loved the bit about relevance to people starving
>in Somalia!)

>To those who've taken this seriously, READ THE NAME! (aloud)

Well, I thought it must have been a joke, but I don't get the
joke in the name. Read it aloud? David MACaloon. David MacALLoon.
David macalOON. I don't geddit.

-Dave Empey (speaking for himself)
>--
>Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.  Enjoy the buffet!

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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 22:45:14 GMT
From: Arthur Chandler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian Phobos Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

  Did the Russian spacecraft(s) on the ill-fated Phobos mission a few
years ago send back any images of the Martian moon?  If so, does anyone know if
they're housed at an ftp site?
  Thanks.


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

Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 04:23:37 GMT
From: Tom O'Reilly <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian Phobos Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

Yes, the Phobos mission did return some useful data including images of Phobos
itself. The best I've seen had a surface resolution of about 40 meters. By
the way, the new book entitled "Mars" (Kieffer et al, 1992, University of
Arizona Press) has a great chapter on spacecraft exploration of the planet.
The chapter is co-authored by V.I. Moroz of the Space Research Institute in
Moscow, and includes details never before published in the West. Don't
know of any ftp sites with images though.

Tom O'Reilly
Department of Geology
Arizona State University

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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 22:48:20 GMT
From: "Robert Landis,S202,," <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet Space Book
Newsgroups: sci.space

What in blazes is going on with Wayne Matson and gang
down in Alabama?  I also heard an unconfirmed rumor that
Aerospace Ambassadors have disappeared.  Can anyone else
confirm??

++Rob Landis
   STScI, Baltimore, MD

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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 22:45:44 GMT
From: "Robert Landis,S202,," <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Debris
Newsgroups: sci.space

Another fish to check out is Richard Rast -- he works
for Lockheed Missiles, but is on-site at NASA Johnson.

Nick Johnson at Kaman Sciences in Colo. Spgs and his
friend, Darren McKnight at Kaman in Alexandria, VA.

Good luck.

R. Landis

"Behind every general is his wife.... and...
 behind every Hillary is a Bill . ."

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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 23:24:00 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>... The only thing
>that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
>a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
>of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
>complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
>it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, actually, since they weren't
building spares of the station hardware anyway.  (Dumb.)  At least this
is only one launch to fail.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 93 16:20:52 GMT
From: Srinivas Bettadpur <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Enzo Liguori) writes:
>
>> What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that
>> it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).
>
>No need to be depressed about this one.  Lights aren't on during the day
>so there shouldn't be any daytime light pollution.

  Thanks for these surreal moments....
                                               Srinivas
--
Srinivas Bettadpur        Internet : [e-mail]
P.O. Box 8520, Austin, Tx. 78713-8520, U.S.A.  Tel. [phone]
BITNET : byab314@uthermes

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 22:51:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

>Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
>Subject: Re: Vandalizing the sky.
>
 (excerpts from posting on this topic)

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Enzo Liguori) writes:
>
>>Now, Space Marketing
>>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on
>>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth
>>orbit.
>...
>>... the real purpose of the project is to help the environment!
>>The platform will carry ozone monitors
>
>...
>I can't believe that a mile-long billboard would have any significant
>effect on the overall sky brightness.  Venus is visible during the day,
>but nobody complains about that.  Besides, it's in LEO, so it would only
>be visible during twilight when the sky is already bright, and even if
>it would have some miniscule impact, it would be only for a short time
>as it goes zipping across the sky.
>

(I've seen satellites at midnight - they're not only in twilight.) :o)

>...
>
>From the book "Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla" by John J. O'Neill:
>
>"This remarkable conductivity of gases, including the air, at low
>pressures, led Tesla to suggest, in a published statement in 1914, a
>system of lighting on a terrestrial scale in which he proposed to treat
>the whole Earth, with its surrounding atmosphere, as if it were a
>single lamp....
>The whole Earth would be transformed into a giant lamp, with the night
>sky completely illuminated.  ... making the night as bright as day."
>

Now my comments:

I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly
practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for
research activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I
would complain about is rooted in aesthetics.  Many readers may
never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred -
unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars
as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and
a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time
- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man.
Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men.
Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there
and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief
in an afterlife.

The Space Age changed all that.  The effect of the first Sputniks
and Echo, etc. on this view could only happen once.  To see a light
crossing the night sky and know it was put there by us puny people
is still impressive and the sense of size one gets by assimilating
the scales involved is also awesome - even if the few hundreds or
thousands of miles involved is still dwarfed by the rest of the universe.
But there is still a hunger for the pure beauty of a virgin sky.

Yes, I know aircraft are almost always in sight.  I have to live
in a very populated area (6 miles from an international airport
currently) where light pollution on the ground is ghastly.  The
impact of humans is so extreme here - virtually no place exists
that has not been shaped, sculpted, modified, trashed or whipped
into shape by the hands of man.  In some places the only life
forms larger than bacteria are humans, cockroaches, and squirrels
(or rats).  I visited some friends up in the Appalacian mountains
one weekend, "getting away from it all" (paved roads, indoor plumbing,
malls, ...) and it felt good for a while - then I quickly noticed
the hollow was directly under the main flight path into Dulles - 60-80
miles to the east.  (Their 'security light' didn't help matters
much either.)  But I've heard the artic wilderness gets lots of
high air traffic.  So I know the skies are rarely perfect.

But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't
fouled in some way.  (I mean they've been TRYING this forever -
like, concerning Tesla's idea to banish night, - wow!)  I don't watch
commercial television, but I can imagine just how disgusting beer,
truck, or hemmorrhoid ointment advertisements would be if seen up so high.
If ya' gotta make a buck on it (displaying products in heaven), at
least consider the reactions from those for whom the sky is a last
beautiful refuge from the baseness of modern life.

To be open about this though, I have here my listing of the passage
of HST in the evening sky for this weekend - tonight Friday at
8:25 p.m. EDT it will reach an altitude of 20.1 degrees on the
local meridian from Baltimore vicinity.  I'll be trying to see it
if I can - it _is_ my mealticket after all.  So I suppose I could
be called an elitist for supporting this intrusion on the night sky
while complaining about billboards proposed by others.  Be that
as it may, I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid,
even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved.

Regards,
Wm. Hathaway
Baltimore MD

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


Received: from CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa06744; 24 Apr 93 20:05:27 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:61246 sci.astro:34985
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!digex.com!digex.com!not-for-mail
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.
Date: 23 Apr 1993 23:58:19 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt MD USA
Lines: 16
Message-Id: <1radsr$[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?

my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering
hyperspace :-)

but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they
are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered
if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 487
------------------------------