Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO555.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Wed, 12 May 93 05:04:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #555
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 12 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 555

Today's Topics:
              ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL
                         FAQ and Sky hooks..
                   landing at Edwards vs. the Cape
                            Life on Mars.
                   Mars Observer Update - 05/10/93
              Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment
               Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly? (3 msgs)
                Popular books (was Re: Life on Mars.)
        Refueling GRO (was Re: HST Servicing Mission) (2 msgs)
Safety records, STS & Soyuz (was Re: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape) (2 msgs)
                       Soviet FANAS bulletins?
                    Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
                         Vandalizing the Sky
         Voyager UVS (was Re: April Air and Space Articles.)
                      What does GIRD stand for?
             Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)

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

Date: 11 May 1993 07:53:38 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Adaptation Trainer (PAT).  Dr. Harm here at MSC (oops, I mean JSC)


Now is that an aptly named person or what?

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

Date: 11 May 93 12:51:39 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FAQ and Sky hooks..
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Peter Churchyard) writes:
> Is there are FAQ for this group. Like whats the feasiblilty of an sky hook,
> elevator to orbit? Are modern materials orders of magnitude to weak? or
> is it close?
>
> Pete(I'd rather walk).

There were some intriguing results in the JBIS(*) about ten years ago; a series
of three papers on "Jacob's Ladders" - short skyhooks held up by a braided
aluminium cable going at faster than orbital velocity.  The figures quoted
were that steel wasn't pacticable for a 300km tower, but kevlar would be OK
out to >600km.  Only pure carbon-carbon bonding (flawless diamond - or perhaps
fullerene threads) would do the synchronous elevator.

(*) Unfortunately I don't have the exact references to hand, but scanning thro'
~6 mo of the JBIS isn't exactly onerous.

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

Date: 11 May 1993 00:31:00 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape
Newsgroups: sci.space

>> Space shuttle- more people, more hardware, more trips than any other
>> space vehicle.  Who can argue with the numbers?

> Presumably you are restricting this argument to manned USA space vehicles.
> If not, a brief review of AW&ST 's annual summaries of USSR/Russian
> launch activity over the last decade might modify the above.

: I haven't read the annual summaries of AW&ST BUT I DO remember
: that just after the Challenger accident, Air & Space magazine published
: a poster entitled "Space Explorers", with the photo of everyone that had
: flown in space since the beggining of the Space Age, up to that moment.
: Well,  I decided  to go through the trouble of counting the heads that
: flew in an American spacecraft and in the Soviet spacecraft and I found
: out that more people had flown in an American space ship than in a
: Soviet one. Since then, with the shuttle back to flight, I guess that this
: gap has increased even more but, do not forget, we are talking about
: the number of different individuals, that flew in space...  Also, I
: believe that this  is mostly due to the Shuttle since no other spacecraft
: can carry as many astronauts as the Shuttle does.
:
: Please correct me if I am wrong.
:
: [e-mail]
:
:Claudio Oliveira Egalon


Your statement about more PEOPLE on the shuttle is correct. There have been
164 astronauts flown on the shuttle (including STS-51L). During the same time
there have been only 49 people flown in the Soyuz spacecraft.

However, your statement about "... more hardware, more trips than any other
space vehicle" is NOT CORRECT.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

More hardware have been delivered by several unmanned rockets. For sure by
Soyuz (the rocket, not to be confused with the Soyuz spacecraft) and Proton,
very likely by Titan.

As far as number of trips goes, most unmaned rockets have flown more missions
than the shuttle. That certainly applies to Titan , Delta, Atlas, Proton,
Soyuz, Cosmos, Tsiklon, Molnia and Vostok.
If you limit the comparison to the manned spacecrafts only, then the shuttle
is beaten by Soyuz, which has flown 67 manned missions since 1967, and
at least 5 unmanned missions (possibly more under Cosmos codename). That
compares to 55 missions flown by the shuttle.




Coming back to the number of people flown, I do not think it really matters
how many people you launch. What matters is how long they can be there
and do usefull work. Russians do not launch many, but they keep them up for
longer (actually MUCH longer) then NASA. So far shuttle astronauts accumulated
5.7 man-years in space. During the same time Russian cosmonauts accumulated
20.0 man-years (repeat: 20.0 !).  Shuttle flights, while being very frequent,
are also awfully short.


Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 93 12:00:03 GMT
From: George Hastings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

Ron Baalke ([e-mail] ) writes:
> I've always thought that the Viking experiments were flawed in that they
> were looking for Earth-like life in a non-Earth environment (this being
> my own personal opinion, mind you).  The assumption was that if there is
> life on Mars, then it would be similar to life on Earth.  We really don't
> know if this is a valid assumption.  The difficulty in designing an experiment
> to detect a life form on another planet is acknowledged, but on the same
> token maybe the experiments should of allowed some leeway for the unexpected.

     Gerry Soffen, the project scientist for the Viking
Missions to Mars put it well when he said that we'd LIKE to
design experiements that could give us some assurance that we
could detect life that was very different from Earth-life, but
the fact is, Earth life is the only kind of life we know HOW to
test for!
     During the design stages of the Viking Project at Langley
Research Center, I remember there was a long-running debate
between the scientists and the engineers about what kinds of
life-detection equipment should be installed on the lander and
the weight limitations of the aero-brake heat
shield/parachute/rocket landing system.
     The best they could do on allowing for some leeway for the
unexpected in the life-detection experiments was the inclusion
of that very sensitive gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer,
taking what had formerly occupied an entire room and
miniaturizing it to fit in a box about 12 inches on a side. It
was designed to detect organic (or other) long-chain molecules
down to some incredibly small ppm in the soil samples.
     One has to assume that ANY life form, Earth-like or not,
must carry on complex biological processes, implying complex
molecular structure. The GCMS on the two Viking Landers gave an
unambiguous negative result on finding any trace of organic
molecules at either landing site.
     Had this experiment been done at the most lifeless sites
on Earth: the middle of the Sahara Desert, the Atacama Desert
in Chile where not a drop of rain has fallen in decades, in the
super-cold super-dry snowless valleys of Antarctica, it could
have detected organic molecules blown there on the wind from
other places on Earth.
 ____________________________________________________________
| George Hastings        [e-mail] |
| Space Science Teacher        [e-mail]      |  If it's not
| Mathematics & Science Center     STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   |   FUN, it's
| 2304 Hartman Street        OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |  probably not
| Richmond, VA 23223        FAX:          [phone]   |    SCIENCE!
 ------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 05:15:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 05/10/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>                   MARS OBSERVER MISSION STATUS
>                           May 10, 1993
>
>      The Mars Observer spacecraft again switched into contingency
> mode -- a self-protective default mode -- at about 4:57 a.m.
> Pacific Daylight Time on Sunday, May 9, 1993.  Flight controllers

The Mars Observer is moreorless moving under gravity like say a comet
in the solar system. Although I know we can't see it, I was wondering
if cometary-type orbital elements are available as I'd like to feed them
into astro-packages and have its path amongst the stars plotted for me.
It would be 'nice' to know where the craft is - particularly as Mars
itself is so nicely placed in the Beehive this week.
Can anyone help?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.034%)
                             up another notch as of end April 1993!-----^
Tel: [phone] (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 12:23:49 GMT
From: ellis of lemuria <[e-mail]>
Subject: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education

greg mccolm suggested that math is a good example of the inertia
(silver age) of current science.....

is math really a science? what new has math "told" us recently?
please dont flame me... ive taken no math since 11th grade...
completed BC calc early and go the hell out... is there really
NEW stuff going on?? (im not flaming, but honestly durious...)


--
----keep gliding, smiling, and riding that train!
------Ellis of Lemuria  *   [e-mail]
-------- P.O. Box 3240, Charlottesville, VA 22903
** "Sophisticated technology makes the superstitious

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 07:08:07 GMT
From: Jim Kissel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Kissel) writes:
: >
: >I would speculate that "they" will be upright and bi-laterally symmertic
:
:
: Symetry seems to be a natural principal of chemistry,  but why
: upright?  whales and dolphins would never be considered  up
: right by any means.
:
: also  lots of clever mammals  are barely off ground level.
:
: don't be primo-centric.  you hand biased,  thumb promoting bigot :-)
:
: pat
:

;-) Yes I will go along with being a hand biased, thumbed bigot ;-) but
the reason I speculate that "they" will be upright is that they will need
to be tool builders and to be (somewhat) successful at tool makeing you need
to have a free hand or two.  I discount the idea of any "aquatic they" as
the environment is too limiting and fire therefore metal technology is
difficult if not impossible.  Please misunderstand me correctly, whales
and dolphins are great. I just don't think they would become tool makers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kissel                            Telephone [phone]
Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems                 344 850 461 (Direct line)
Systems Development Group             Fax       [phone]
Nixdorf House                         Domain     [e-mail]
Oldbury, Bracknell, Berkshire         UUCP       ....{ukc,athen}!sni!jlk
RG12 4FZ  Great Britain

Noli illegitimi carborundum!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 11 May 1993 07:46:00 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

THere you go again.  MOre thumb promoting, quinto-podal leaning
atavism :-)

I think jane goodal documented basic tool use among the
gombe chimps.  and i think  any sort of  multi purpose
tentacle could also make a highly effective affector.

I agree,  dolphins  are unlikely to become tool using
creatures,  but i believe they are high order
consciences, and our currrent treatment of them is
despicable.  and morally no different then how
societies have treated subjugated societies.

I could visualize some sort of multi-tentacled  land creature,
which  developes a pretty good  tool culture.  it could even
be  amphibious, or aquatic.  something like an octopus,
with a bigger brain.

pat

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

Date: 11 May 1993 07:39:39 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
|In article <1s8cj8$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>the alaskan inuit,  met  westerners and seem to have adapted
|>quite well.
|
|Hardly.  They have tremendous problems with alcoholism and unemployment (among
|other things).

ANy worse then the now native white population?
i used to live in the Great WHite North,  and everyone was unemployed
and a drunk

pat

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

Date: 10 May 93 19:20:55 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Popular books (was Re: Life on Mars.)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <1sk847$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, Larry Zibilske <[e-mail]> writes...
>> Does anyone know
>>where this might be obtained?  (not the polished public press stuff; but the
>>journal article level or orginal pub data)?
>
> The Viking results were published the Journal of Geophysical Research,
> Volume 82, number 28, September 30, 1977.

I realize Larry is looking for professional papers.  However, for the
benefit of everybody else, it's worth mentioning that there are two
pop-level books which go into the Viking results in detail: *The
Search for Life on Mars* by Henry S.F. Cooper, the *New Yorker's* ace
reporter in outer space; and *To Utopia and Back* by Dr. Horowitz, who
was the principal investigator on another of the Viking biology
experiments.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | Bartlett's
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Most Familiar Quotation
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | (according to W. H. Leininger):
Internet:       [e-mail]  | "Say, that's pretty good!
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | Mind if I use it?"

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

Date: 10 May 93 19:58:40 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling GRO (was Re: HST Servicing Mission)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Willner) writes:
> In fact, I'm not aware of any future NASA Astrophysics mission
> planning for servicing.

Ah, but past missions... I recall when I was covering the GRO launch
for Dial-A-Shuttle there was mention that the spacecraft was designed
for refueling on-orbit.  Does anybody know whether there are plans to
gas up GRO on some future Shuttle mission?

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | if properly placed."
Internet:       [e-mail]  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 01:29:54 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling GRO (was Re: HST Servicing Mission)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>... I recall when I was covering the GRO launch
>for Dial-A-Shuttle there was mention that the spacecraft was designed
>for refueling on-orbit.  Does anybody know whether there are plans to
>gas up GRO on some future Shuttle mission?

The current story is "no servicing mission is planned".  The thing *is*
designed for it, and has had some annoying equipment failures that would
be nice to fix, but at the moment the folks involved seem to think that
it will function adequately for a suitable lifetime without a visit.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 May 93 19:51:56 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Safety records, STS & Soyuz (was Re: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Claudio Oliveira Egalon) writes:
>  >> Space shuttle- more people, more hardware, more trips than any other
>>> space vehicle.  Who can argue with the numbers?

> Well,  I decided  to go through the trouble of counting the heads that
> flew in an American spacecraft and in the Soviet spacecraft and I found
> out that more people had flown in an American space ship than in a
> Soviet one.

In another thread (Subject: "365 days of the Shuttle flights") Pawel
Moskalik ([e-mail]) posted a nice summary of Shuttle
and Soyuz statistics.  Take a look-- it's probably still on your
newsreader.

Counting only since 1981, the Shuttle is ahead on total people flown
and total number of missions,  the Soyuz is ahead on cumulative days
in orbit and person-years in space.

Getting grim for a moment, and considering the entire career of both
spacecraft, four people have died aboard Soyuz in two missions, and
seven people have died aboard Shuttle in one mission.  Both spacecraft
have had a few safe aborts, but I don't have complete information
handy.

Shuttle:
3(?) pad aborts after main-engine start
1 abort to orbit (STS-51F, 29 July 1985)

Soyuz:
Aborts included Soyuz 18A in 1975 and one in the early Eighties that I
can't locate, which involved the only use of the escape-rocket system.

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 04:12:07 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Safety records, STS & Soyuz (was Re: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>Soyuz:
>Aborts included Soyuz 18A in 1975 and one in the early Eighties that I
>can't locate, which involved the only use of the escape-rocket system.

 The booster for Soyuz T10 caught fire during the final stages of the
countdown in September 1983.  During the launch pad abort, the Soyuz
descent module was lifted to a peak altitude of 950 m (3100 ft) and
landed 2.5 km (1.5 mi) away from the launch pad.

 In the Soyuz 18A abort (April 1975), trouble occurred *after* the launch
shroud had been jettisoned so the Soyuz propulsion system was used to
propel the craft away from its malfunctioning booster...
The crew took 14-15 G's on reentry and landed close to the Sino-Soviet
border.

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 20:00:29 +0000
From: Paul Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet FANAS bulletins?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm looking for information ...

A friend has asked if there's an electronic source of the Soviet FANAS
bulletins.  They contain information about he current and future status
of the Soviet weather satellites.

I'd appreciate any information (are they even produced electronically?)

TIA,

Paul

------------------------------< Who 'zat? >------------------------------
    Paul Wilson, P-and-S Ltd, P O Box 54, Macclesfield, SK10 5EH, UK
     [Email: [e-mail]]  [Phone: +44 (0) 625 - 503150]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 10 May 1993 21:11:02 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

This post is a continuation of the discussion regarding
Shuttle vs. Soyuz comparisions initiated by Pawel Moskalik.

I had originally posted:
> Space shuttle- more people, more hardware, more trips than any other
> space vehicle.  Who can argue with the numbers?

Mr. Moskalik responded:
>It is indeed difficult to argue with numbers.
>More people - yes !
>more hardware - definitely not. This title belongs, I believe, to Soviet
                Soyuz launcher. With over 1000 flights and about 6-7 tons
                placed in orbit each time the total cargo delivered to
                orbit has to be more than 6000 tons.  The total for the
                shuttle is 822 tons. Shuttle total cargo is certainly
                superceeded also by Soviet Proton and by American Titan.
>more trips - definitely not. Soviet Soyuz spacecraft has flown 67 manned
             missions, compared to shuttle's 54.

He later posted some interesting num|bers about| mass to|| orbit and
man-years on orbit.

My point in this debate was my belief that the shuttle has demonstrated
superior payload capability to any other system.  I had said that it
had delivered the most mass to orbit.

Well, I am not sure how we should quantify the amount of mass that
the shuttle or Soyuz delivers to orbit in order to compare the two.
Since the mass of the orbiter is so much larger than the Soyuz, what is
really the way to compare the two?

I would appreciate it if someone would tally the total mass RETURNED
from orbit on a Soyuz vehicle versus the Shuttle.  I should have said
that the shuttle has superior mass return capability.  Although some
may argue that we don't want mass coming down from orbit. I think we
do because we don't have a space station in order to leave material
in orbit.

In further reflecting on this discussion, mass to or from orbit isn't
really the issue.  The real issue is how much are you getting for that mass.
The analogy is that we could have launched UniVac or a TI hand-held
calculator in the 1960Us.  What's more efficient?  Clearly, the lighter
weight is more efficient.  So, the issue is really a technical and
scientific one, not one that can be simplified to raw numbers.

How much scientific and engineering data have the Russians obtained
from their program; and how much scientific and engineering data has
the Shuttle program delivered for the free-world?

Ask yourself this question as you ponder the significance of the
shuttle or the Soyuz program. (It's a rhetorical question...as there
is probably no way to really quantify the knowledge learned in each program.)

Russian readers, please post!!!!

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

Date: 11 May 1993 03:21:25 GMT
From: "David M. Palmer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the Sky
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
>Space advertisement in LOW Earth Orbit is very short term -- on the
>order of a few years before the orbit decays.  (Higher orbits last
...
>Embedded in the foam structure is a small re-entry vehicle, which does
>not burn up during entry.  It contains the electronics and propulsion
>system (which may be refurbished and re-used)

If it keeps going up, then it is NOT short term.  If there are
thousands of these things up there, then it's permanent.
I do not want to be continuously assaulted by the sight
of giant floating tampons (Here's Kuntex after 12 hours,
and here's the competition.  See how much fresher
and less disgusting Kuntex makes you feel!!!)

I still think that counter-measures would be a good amateur
rocketry project, even though it could not be done by American
citizens.  Send contributions to Henry Spencer :-).
Nature groups would be a good source of funding.  The rocket
launch would make good footage on the nightly news:
    Audabon Society Gives Trashsat the Bird.

I think that putting a few kilograms of actual product in a suborbital
trajectory would be a good way to advertise sand.  (AS SEEN IN SPACE!!!,
the miracle material which adds body to concrete and turns an ordinary
box into a preschool play center and litterbox.)  If the sand is
just sitting there in space at low velocity, and a trashsat
crashes into it at 5 miles per second, I think that National Sand and Grit
Inc. has good cause for a hefty lawsuit.  I volunteer for jury duty.

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

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

Date: 10 May 93 20:22:39 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager UVS (was Re: April Air and Space Articles.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1sh355$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>budget wasn't under severe stress as it is today.  The UVS portion of the
>
> What's UVS?

Voyager's Ultraviolet Spectrometer, which sees in the extreme
ultraviolet, and before the launch of Hubble, EUVE, and Rosat, was the
only sensor in space that did.   After the Neptune encounters the UVS
instruments were doing some useful astronomy in looking at nearby
stars.  NASA just closed down that program a few months ago.

Reviewing *Time Trax*: "In this future  | Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey
police have gotten more technical,      | Fermilab
computers have gotten much smaller,     | Bitnet: [e-mail]
criminals have become much cleverer,    | Bitnet: [e-mail]
and matte painters                      | SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
have lost the secrets of their ancestors." --Mark Leeper

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 01:58:24 GMT
From: Sneal <[e-mail]>
Subject: What does GIRD stand for?
Newsgroups: sci.space

A non-networked friend has asked me to inquire about a Russian group that
was doing rocketry experiments back in the Thirties.  The group, which she
says was known by the acronym GIRD, was eventually absorbed by the Soviet
military, and appparently the chief engineer displeased Stalin sufficiently
that he ended his career in a mine in Siberia.  This information comes from
a PBS-type show called "The Russian Right Stuff".  My question, then, is
does anywhere here know what GIRD stood for?

Please reply via email, and thanks in advance.

   -- Steve
      [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 May 93 20:26:28 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
> Innanen) wrote:
>>
>> What is the current status of the DC-X program?  Wasn't there supposed to be
>> a static test firing recently/real soon now?
>
> It was supposed to be a week ago....no word back from the dessert yet......

Come, now, surely the Net can do better than this!

Hey there, Milnet, anybody from White Sands reading this newsgroup?
Don't you have a cafeteria or something where you might run into the
McDonnell-Douglas/SDIO people working on DC-X?  Or perhaps the local
pizza parlors?  Feed us some gossip...

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "We'll see you
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | at White Sands in June.
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | You bring your view-graphs,
Internet:       [e-mail]  | and I'll bring my rocketship."
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | --Col. Pete Worden on the DC-X

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 555
------------------------------