Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO591.TXT

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 93 05:18:12
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #591
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 19 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 591

Today's Topics:

                  About the mercury program (3 msgs)
                           Adaptive Optics
                    Interesting DC-X cost anecdote
      Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere (3 msgs)
                         Mir flights 1993-95
                       murder in space (3 msgs)
          Oh yeah? Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
                    Questions for KC-135 veterans
                 Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
                 Space Marketing -- Boycott (2 msgs)
                 Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
             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: Tue, 18 May 1993 17:43:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joseph Dagastine <[e-mail]>
Subject:

    Just wondering what the latest discussion was about.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 17:20:05 GMT
From: "William C. Gawne" <[e-mail]>
Subject: About the mercury program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tb0uo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
[... lots deleted and ...]
>Also there were 7 mercury astronauts, but i believe only
>6 flights.  I think slayton didn't fly.  Why was his flight cancelled?

Deke got into a NPQ (Not Physically Qualified) flight status for a while
after a routine flight physical by the USAF detected a "heart murmur."
The NASA physicians never found this murmur, but for as long as Slayton
retained his USAF commission he couldn't fly with the NPQ on his record.
Seems I recall he finally resigned his commission to get back into a
good flight status, thus making him the first civilian astronaut.

Now how this tied in with the lack of a 7th Mercury flight is not
just crystal clear to me, and there was likely more involved than
just the man's health.

Perhaps a prayer to the Oracle at Toronto will elicit a response?
That silly twit at Delphi just inhales fumes and mumbles nonsensically.

-Bill

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 19:52:38 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: About the mercury program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tb0uo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>
>a few questions.
>
>    When Glenn flew in Friendship 7,  he spotted a large
>cloud of "fireflies".  What were they?

The fireflies were simply particles of water ice (frost) that had flaked off
the exterior of the capsule.  On the next flight, Aurora 7, Scott Carpenter
was able to "create" clouds of the "fireflies" by pounding on the wall of the
capsule.

>Also there were 7 mercury astronauts, but i believe only
>6 flights.  I think slayton didn't fly.  Why was his flight cancelled?

Slayton was supposed to fly the second Mercury orbital flight but was
replaced by Scott Carpenter because of concern regarding his (occasionally)
erratic heart beat.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 20:23:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: About the mercury program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William C. Gawne) writes:
>The NASA physicians never found this murmur, but for as long as Slayton
>retained his USAF commission he couldn't fly with the NPQ on his record.

The way I heard it was that Slayton knew he had a slight heart irregularity,
but it had never bothered him as a test pilot.  Nobody knew what it would
do in free fall, so they disqualified him from spaceflight, and the
repercussions of this bounced around to the point where the USAF said
he wasn't allowed to fly single-seat aircraft any more!  He resigned his
commission to stay with the space program, and was eventually requalified
for spaceflight after heart surgery.

>Seems I recall he finally resigned his commission to get back into a
>good flight status, thus making him the first civilian astronaut.

No, leaving the USAF didn't affect his flight status.  And I'd have to
check the dates, but I don't think he was the first civilian astronaut;
Neil Armstrong was a civilian test pilot before he became an astronaut.

>Now how this tied in with the lack of a 7th Mercury flight is not
>just crystal clear to me, and there was likely more involved than
>just the man's health.

I don't think there was any particular connection.  Slayton was originally
slated for an earlier Mercury flight, I think the second orbital one, and
there were several qualified people available for a seventh flight.  My
recollection is that, as others have mentioned, Shepard had been pencilled
in for it.  The seventh flight had never been more than a proposal, and the
eventual decision was that it wasn't worth the trouble -- Gemini would do
better long-duration flights within a year or two anyway.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 May 93 18:14:26 GMT
From: Robert Hearn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Adaptive Optics
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark
Elowitz) wrote:
>
>
> Instead of using natural reference stars, could lasers be used
> by scattering the beam off of the sodium layer in the upper
> atmosphere, etc. , to act as an artifical reference star?
>
>

I thought that was how professional adaptive optics systems worked.
Could someone familiar with the techniques please post a general
description of them?

There's actually an adaptive optics system available to amateurs: the
AO-2.  It steals half the light going to the eyepiece with a beam-
splitter, and adjusts the angle of a lens or prism to keep the
brightness equal in all four quadrants, thus keeping the image of
a planet or bright star centered.  Doesn't work for deep-sky objects,
though.  Also, I get the impression that it doesn't really correct for
atmoshpheric turbulence, just telescope instability.
Is anything better than this available to amateurs?  Do more powerful
systems require larger telescopes to get more light from reference
stars, or just more $$$ ?


Bob Hearn
Spartacus Software

Opinions expressed here are those of my employer, since that's me.

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

Date: 18 May 1993 18:01:52 GMT
From: Chuck Shotton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
>
> A staffer just told me an interesting story about DC-X. An Air Force
> costing team just looked at the DC-X (now called the DC-X1 BTW) and
> gave an estimate on how much it would cost the Air Force to build it.
> It cost SDIO $70M to build and it would cost the USAF:
>
>
>
>         $320 million or four and a half times as much.

I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the cost difference could be
accounted for by the AF's requirement for superfluous 2167 documentation, 5
or 6 huge requirements and design reviews, travel expenses flying personnel
around to meetings, and over specifying the hardware. I doubt that the
actual fabrication cost in materials and labor would be very different from
SDIO's costs.

Of course, this is my cynical opinion based on years of watching the
government procurement process try to cover up a lack of creativity and
innovation with reams of documentation. ;)

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 17:00:57 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>    NASA's Magellan spacecraft will dip into the atmosphere of Venus
>beginning May 25 in a first-of-its-kind "aerobraking" maneuver, lowering the
>spacecraft's orbit to start a new experiment.

Well, second-of-its-kind, since Hiten did it last year.  (Note how, later
in the press release, they're careful to say that it's never been used
before on a *NASA* mission?)
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 May 1993 18:29 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>    NASA's Magellan spacecraft will dip into the atmosphere of Venus
>>beginning May 25 in a first-of-its-kind "aerobraking" maneuver, lowering the
>>spacecraft's orbit to start a new experiment.
>
>Well, second-of-its-kind, since Hiten did it last year.  (Note how, later
>in the press release, they're careful to say that it's never been used
>before on a *NASA* mission?)

You're thinking of the Earth maneuvers Hiten did two years ago.   I
don't think this qualifies as an aerobraking maneuver because the closest
Hiten got to Earth during these maneuvers was something like 20,000 miles.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 20:29:58 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>>... first-of-its-kind "aerobraking" maneuver...
>>Well, second-of-its-kind, since Hiten did it last year.  (Note how, later
>>in the press release, they're careful to say that it's never been used
>>before on a *NASA* mission?)
>
>You're thinking of the Earth maneuvers Hiten did two years ago.   I
>don't think this qualifies as an aerobraking maneuver because the closest
>Hiten got to Earth during these maneuvers was something like 20,000 miles.

No, I'm thinking of the aerobraking maneuver it did on 12 March 1991,
perigee altitude 126km, lowering its apogee about 1000km.  It wasn't
what you'd call a *big* aerobraking maneuver -- the dramatic drop in
apogee was thanks to a highly elliptical orbit, strongly affected by
even a small loss of velocity -- but aerobraking it was.

(I do plead guilty to having gotten the year wrong. :-))

See the 25 March 1991 issue of Aviation Leak, or my summary thereof, for
confirmation.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 18:32:43 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mir flights 1993-95
Newsgroups: sci.space

I ran across a few schedules for future Mir missions in the last week
and thought I'd post them. This is by no means all that is known
about future Mir flights, but is the best I could put together in a
few minutes.

Valeri Poliakov has been chosen as the doctor to attempt an 18 month
long flight on Mir from 1993-1995. Poliakov is a veteran of a 240
day Mir flight in 1988. The data below for 1993 is solid, the data
for 1994-5 is more fluid at this date. The Russian crewmembers denoted
by "?" are yet to be officially announced. Likely candidates are known
among the 'Russia watchers', but not listed here to avoid excessive
speculation.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Deputy General of the Russian Space Agency, Boris Ostroumov
said on 11 December 1992 that three manned launches and six flights
of the Progress M cargo ships were scheduled for 1993.
The first manned launch was on January 24 when a two-man replacement
crew was sent to the Mir station. In July the next replacement
crew will be accompanied by French cosmonaut Jean-Pierre Haignere
and the mission will last for 3 weeks. At the end of 1993 a mission
will start which will last for 1.5 years and will include a doctor
[Poliakov]. In a schedule released by the Flight Control Centre
(TsUP) on 30 November 1992 the following dates for [1993] missions
to and from Mir were announced."[1]

Ship             Date             Crew
-------------- ---------------  -------------------------------
1993 Launches:

Soyuz TM-16    24 January       Manakov/Poleshchuk[1]
Progress M-16   3 February[1]
Progress M-17  23 March[1]
Progress M-18  18 May[1]
Soyuz TM-17     1 July          Tsibilev/Serebrov/Haignere[1,2]
Progress M-19  27 July[1]
Progress M-20  12 October[1]
Soyuz TM-18    16 Nov/Dec?      ?/?/Poliakov[1,2]

1993 Landings:

Soyuz TM-15    30 January       Solovyov/Avdeyev[1]
Soyuz TM-16    21 July          Manakov/Poleshchuk/Haignere[1,2]
Soyuz TM-17    Nov/Dec?         Tsibilev/Serebrov

1994 Launches:

Soyuz TM-19    May 1994         ?/?/Canada or France astronaut?[3]
Soyuz TM-20    Sept 1994        ?/?/ESA astronaut[2]

1994 Landings:

Soyuz TM-18    June 1994        ?/?/ESA astronaut[2]
Soyuz TM-19    Sept? 1994

1995 Launches:

Soyuz TM-21    March 1995       ?/?/NASA astronaut[2]
STS            June 1995
Soyuz TM-22    August? 1995     ?/?/ESA astronaut(135 days)?[2,3]

1995 Landings:

Soyuz TM-20    March? 1995       ?/?
STS            June 1995         NASA astronaut/Poliakov/?/?[2,4]*
Soyuz TM-21    Sept? 1995        ?/?

* possible return of Poliakov and other cosmonauts on the space
  shuttle are still TBD, see [4].
** Priroda and Spektr launches are still TBD but no earlier than
   late 1993
*** I have reference to German/French flights to Mir in the 1994-5
    time frame but can't immediately find a solid reference. A
    multitude of other rumored international participants have yet
    to materialize.

[1] "Mir Mission Report", Neville Kidger, Spaceflight, Vol 35,
    May 1993, pp. 175
[2] "Poliakov aims for new fligth record", Tim Furniss, Flight
    International, April 28-May 4, 1993, pp.24
[3] "ESA Considers Manned Options", Tim Furniss, Flight
    International, Aptil 7-13, 1993, pp. 23
[4] "Astronaut Sees Need for Several Shuttle-Mir Missions",
    William Harwood, Space News, May 10-16, 1993, pp. 11

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 17:22:29 GMT
From: Alan Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: murder in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tb3f1$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>
|>
|> THe US now has Long Arm statutes,  that cover crimes against
|> Government personnell  anywhere,  anytime  and against
|> People on  US vessels.  I think it also inludes,  crimes against
|> US citizens  in International  areas,  including  AIrports.

Is this more US legislation that attempts to define laws that apply
*outside* the jurisdiction of the US? If so, I have some questions:

Do the US legislators believe that their laws are superior to the law of
the land the Americans concerned happen to be in? If not, why bother? If
so, what are they going to do about it? What is the difference between
passing laws that the US claims apply in other peoples' countries and
any other form of denial of other countries' national sovereignty (eg.
invasion)?

Sorry if that sounds aggressive, but I have had to point out to US
citizens that I am *not* under the jurisdiction of the United States
Supreme Court unless I happen to *be* in the United States in the
past. I do not like having to do it. Before you c) start passing
laws for us, you are supposed to a) invade, and b) win.

The UK computer industry has had to fight several battles over US
invasive legislation. With all due respect to non-aggressive American
posters,

              YOU CAN TAKE YOUR SUPREME COURT AND SHOVE IT!

Entirely my own opinions of course, Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Belle Vue Court    |"They're unfriendly, which    | Home: 0684 564438
32 Belle Vue Terrace | is fortunate, really. They'd | Away: 0628 784351
Great Malvern        | be difficult to like."       | Work: 0628 794137
Worcestershire       |                              |
WR14 4PZ             | Kerr Avon, Blake's Seven     | Temporary: [e-mail]
England              |                              | Permanent: [e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: 18 May 1993 19:57:48 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: murder in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alan Carter) writes:

>Is this more US legislation that attempts to define laws that apply
>*outside* the jurisdiction of the US? If so, I have some questions:

No more so than the English did in the War of 1812... :-)

>Sorry if that sounds aggressive, but I have had to point out to US
>citizens that I am *not* under the jurisdiction of the United States
>Supreme Court unless I happen to *be* in the United States in the
>past.

Not the Supreme Court.  Federal Law.  Committ an act of terrorism
against a U.S installation, U.S. airlines carrier, or U.S. citizen and see what
happens.  While the host country has the primary jurisidiction (say, if you
blow up a Yank in England), if is a terrorist action (make sure you use lots of
explosives and claim you're doing it on behave of the Tory Liberation Front),
the United States can seek your extradition and put you on trial.

Alternately, if you should happen to go for a boat ride, seduced by a beautiful
young Sharon-Stone-like woman, and you go past the 3 mile (or is it 12?) limit
and into international waters, you can be tagged, bagged, and shipped back to
the U.S. for a trial.  I believe you do have the rights of any other U.S.
criminial at that time (i.e.: no torture, lawyer, Miranda).

> I do not like having to do it. Before you c) start passing
>laws for us, you are supposed to a) invade, and b) win.

Got nothing to do with a law FOR you.  Right of a nation to protect its
citizens and interests.

Don't worry.  We've got you on the list after we take over Canada, but those U.
of Toronto folks keep on finding the fine print on the contracts we send up.
If they don't stop it, more drastic action will be required.

>The UK computer industry has had to fight several battles over US
>invasive legislation.

Would you care to be more specific, rather than blathering about generics?



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 18 May 93 13:54:33
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: murder in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Carter) writes:


   In article <1tb3f1$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

   |> THe US now has Long Arm statutes,  that cover crimes against
   |> Government personnell  anywhere,  anytime  and against
   |> People on  US vessels.  I think it also inludes,  crimes against
   |> US citizens  in International  areas,  including  AIrports.

   Is this more US legislation that attempts to define laws that apply
   *outside* the jurisdiction of the US? If so, I have some questions:

Actually, many nations claim some jurisdiction in various bits
outside their sovereign territories, not just the US, and all nations
have some claims on justice _for_ their citizens abroad.

Also, there are areas of ambiguity, such as space, and most nations
have a "catch-all" clause to cover this, just in case of incidents
where they have an interest and jurisdiction is not clear.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 20:14:10 GMT
From: "Eugene N. Miya" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oh yeah? Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

Cross-posting to a few news groups eh fellows?

Would you let another man sleep with your wife for a million dollars?
    Are you one of those guys who doesn't put the seat down?
    Are you one of those guys who says, "Bless you," when she sneezes?

Your mother for sale as well?

Greed good?

Would you "sell" you country out for a billion dollars?
    Are you willing to spend a billion to trisect angles with just
    straight edge and compass?

Just asking.
I side with the guy from Lewis.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya

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

Date: 18 May 1993 13:02 CDT
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>if you think you may have some problems you may want to make it stand up on the
>>side so that the Gees won't affect too much the writing on the disk or on the
>>hard disk....
>
>Hmm.  I would think being on edge would be *worse*, since that might
>make the tracks unsymmetrical around the spindle due to the sideways
>force on the head.  Older drives used to tell you to reformat if you
>were going to stand the drive on edge; at 3+g, this side force might
>even be a problem for new drives.


well it seemed to work for the Mac II installation I was talking about.
Oh yeah there is something I forgot to mention :
even though you're not suppposed to have water around, there IS
 some condenstion d
dripping from the roof of the plane make sure that your hardware is covered.
Make also sure that your keyboards are protected from the two-phase flow
coming out of sick people. It happened to us.....

Good luck.


Igor Carron
Texas A&M University

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

Date: 18 May 1993 12:43:06 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>I think you can safely bet that there is real-time imagery capability
>available.

The KH-11 was teh first Known  Live Imaging satellitte.
That was it's big claim to fame over the KH-8  BigBirds,
which returned film capsules.

pat

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 16:41:30 GMT
From: "Joseph T. Malloy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <[e-mail]> Dan Gaubatz <[e-mail]> writes:
>For some reasons we humans think that it is our place to control
>everything.  I doubt that space advertising is any worse than any other
>kind advertising, but it will be a lot harder to escape, and is probably
>the most blatant example yet of our disregard for the fact that we are
>not in fact creaters of the universe.  Annoying little species, aren't we?
>
More than just annoying: venal, arrogant, greedy.  Oh, well...

Joe
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 May 93 20:12:30 GMT
From: Joel Hanes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry

Well, I just got off the phone after talking to someone at
Space Marketing.

According to the person I talked to, the proposed "billboard"
will be too small to resolve with the naked eye -- so small
and visually unimportant that fairly accurate directions about
where and when to look will be needed to observe it (for
laymen; I assume you astronomers and space enthusiasts
will know the exact ephemerides, and be painfully aware
of the damn thing).

  Anyway, he suggested that the
visual impact would approximate that of a jumbo jet
at 45k feet (12km) altitude.

---

Joel Hanes

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

Date: 18 May 93 16:58:07 GMT
From: Sheaf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kyle Jones) writes:
>I was curious how much of an eyesore this proposed flying
>billboard would be so I did some rough calculations.
>
>A mile wide object that appears to be about the size of the full
>Moon would have an orbit of about 108 miles above Earth.  Note
>that it will be 108 miles away from the viewer only when it is
>directly overhead.  At the horizon the flying billboard will be
>around 1316 miles away, reducing its apparent size to about 1/32
>the size of the full Moon, which is not going to be readable to
>the unaided eye.
> [similar stuff deleted]
>
>This doesn't sound like a nuisance or an abomination to me.

Umm... then whats the point of building them ???  Why don't you
calculate the eyesore value of an orbital billboard that IS
big enough to be seen by a large number of people for a long
period of time, because that IS what advertisers are going to
want to build!!!  Not to mention the fact that there will be
quite a few of them... how many of these will it take to ensure
that one is overhead all the time ??  That is the question that
the advertisers are going to ask.  One orbiting billboard may not
be a nuisance, but there will certainly be alot more than that...
and call me loopy, but I think an orbiting billboard overhead all the
time qualifies as an eyesore...

In short, an advertiser that would buy a space billboard is not
going to consider anything that ISN'T an eyesore to be worth the
millions they had to spend on it...

S. Sheaffer
Univ. of Pittsburgh

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

Date: 18 May 1993 12:52:17 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Nntp-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1t30v3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|
|This is somewhat at odds with what Navy pilots tell me.  The 'risky'
|part of ejection is leaving the aircraft, since you essentially leave
|by exploding a bomb under your seat.  After that, land ejections are
|safer than at sea ejections (barring power lines, trees, etc.) because
|the risk of drowning from being trapped under the chute, hypothermia
|before they can find you and pick you up, etc. is quite high.  Water
|isn't a whole lot softer than land if you hit it at speed, since it
|isn't very compressible.  If you're not moving at speed, one isn't a
|whole lot better than the other.
|
|Every Navy pilot I ever knew would rather stay with the plane and take
|his chances rather than risk an at sea ejection.


That may be a function of perception, then.
All the people i talked to were  Air Force.

They mostly end up bailing out  over land  and have to
face Pine Trees YOW,  power lines,  rough terrain.
On some air craft,  the seat pan  is very dangerous on landing.

Navy pilots mostly face bailing out at sea,  so they see the
Drownings,   hypothermia,  etc.   Given how dangerous  bailing
out is,  maybe both groups view the comparitive risks
differently.

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 591
------------------------------