Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO641.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 33KB | 773 lines

Date: Fri, 28 May 93 14:22:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #641
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 28 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 641

Today's Topics:
                         Fireball Report Form
                    How I should report fireballs?
                Liberal President murders spaceflight?
                    Magellan Update #2 - 05/27/93
                      Magellan Update - 05/27/93
                          Moon Base (2 msgs)
                   Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
                             New DC-X GIF
                  Privatizing scientific terminology
                  Seeding Mars with "Mars box" life
                            Space Raffles?
                      The crew is toast (2 msgs)
           Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
               Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    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: Thu, 27 May 1993 21:12:00 +0200
From: Andre Knoefel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fireball Report Form
Newsgroups: sci.space

  International Meteor Organization * Fireball Data Center
  --------------------------------------------------------


          F I R E B A L L    R E P O R T    F O R M
          =========================================

Date:    y    m    d        Time:   h    m    s  in UT!

Location:

Longitude:    deg    '    "      Latitude:    deg    '    "

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

                       Apparent path:

begin: RA =    deg                 azimuth  =    deg
       dec=    deg                 elevation=    deg
                          or
end  : RA =    deg                 azimuth  =    deg
       dec=    deg                 elevation=    deg


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

                        Description:


apparent magnitude:         mag
duration:    s
color:
trail:
fragmentation:
persistent train:
angular velocity:    deg/s,       or scale number:
sounds description:
sounds time lapse:
Observer
Remarks:

------------------------------------------------------------
              mail back to: [e-mail]


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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 21:11:00 +0200
From: Andre Knoefel <[e-mail]>
Subject: How I should report fireballs?
Newsgroups: sci.space

                         How I should report fireballs?
                        ================================

Data on fireballs are useful for different purposes:

  1. identification of photographed meteors (exact time required);
  2. informationen concerning color, train, fragmentation, and sound which are
     not easily obtainable by other techniques; and
  3. analysis of fireball periodicities and/or fireball radiants.

The Fireball Data Center (FIDAC) of the International Meteor Organization (IMO)
has the task to build up a wide and complete picture of the appearance of
fireballs troughout the year. This information will support the investigation
of these imposing, bright events, especially those accompanying meteorite
falls. Studies of fireball and meteorite-fall rates at mid-northern latitudes
demonstrate that possible meteorite-producing fireballs and actual meteorite
falls occur more frequently in the evening than in the morning, and also more
frequently in spring than in fall. These general conclusions should be
underpinned with further observations allowing a more detailed analysis,
including also the southern hemisphere.

For all these reasons we need a minimum of data of a fireball events. The three
important details are the correct date and time, the coordinates of the
location and the brightness of the fireball. The following key items are in a
complete fireball observation:

- date and time: in UT, important for comparison of data. Please use UT only,
       pay attention to the date!
- location and coordinates: important data for further computations, e.g. the
       zenithal magnitude, conversion of the trail coordinates from azimuth and
       elevation to right ascension and declination. Name of the location in
       original language, adding state and country.
- coordinates of the apparent path: in right ascension and declination for
       investigation of possible fireball radiants and in the case of a
       meteorite fall for the computation of the impact point/area. If you are
       not able to determined right ascension and declination you should
       report azimuth and elevation. Please note, the scale starts with
       North=360deg ... East=90deg ...
- apparent magnitude: as far as possible use astronomical magnitude classes; if
       required note an interval. In case of obervations by eye witnesses cite
       the comparisons they give and add a rough estimation (e.g. 'much
       brighter than Venus' -- estimation mag. -5 to -8).
- duration: of the visible path in seconds
- color: of the complete trail and any changes along it
- train: information about color, duration, apparent breadth, and shape
- fragmentation: number of pieces, location along the train, brightness of
       fragments
- persistent train: information about color, brightness, shape and iis
       variation, and time taken to vanish
- velocity: in degrees per second or on a scale of six ranks (0-stationary,
       1-very slow, 2-slow, 3-medium, 4-fast, 5-very fast)
- sound: all information about sound, the description as a comparison (e.g.
       rustle, roar, whizzing) and the time lapse between the optical
       observation and the appearance odf noise; if the occasion arises, the
       succestion of different noises can be defined too
- observer: name
- source and remarks: additional remarks, e.g. the souroundings of the
       observing place (important for synchronous sound recordings) metallic
       objects in the vicinity, wet/dry air, wind, etc.

Even if it not possible to give information concerning all data we would like
to receive reports. Please, always indicate which data are certain and wich are
not.
For the report of fireballs we use a special fireball report form (see seperate
mail).

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            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)
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 22:36:59 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>I'd suggest you look up a report done in 1977 (by Ford (the company)
>under the management of Mitre).  It's several hundred pages studying
>the technical, safety, and economic aspects of nuclear power,
>breeders, etc.  Your preceding paragraph is full of misconceptions
>about the economic viability of breeder reactors at current market
>prices for uranium, along with misconceptions about a lot of other
>things.  Oh, and in case you didn't know it, both Britain and France
>already had enrichment facilities long before Carter came into office.

1. If they're not economically viable, then _WHY_ did they need
to be outlawed (fuel reprocessing)?

2. Banning fuel reprocessing while at the same time more stringent
waste disposal requirements are being made is a de-facto limitation
to the point of banning nuclear power. And it worked: noone's started
construction on a new plant in years and years.
--

+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+
|Phil Fraering          | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, |
|[e-mail] | into the Century of the Fruitbat."    |
+-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+

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

Date: 27 May 1993 23:40 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update #2 - 05/27/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                       MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            May 27, 1993
                            3:00 PM PDT

1.  The Magellan Transition Experiment continues as the flight team
carefully maneuvers the spacecraft toward the desired aerobraking
corridor.  The second "double down" trim maneuver was performed at
2:07 PM PDT today to lower the periapsis to 143 km.

2.  At the Mission Director meeting early this afternoon, a "single
down" OTM was approved for execution on Saturday.   This will lower
the periapsis by 1.6 km.

3.  All spacecraft subsystems continue to report nominal performance.
There have been some difficulties with transfer of 1200 bps telemetry
between JPL and Denver.

4.  On the incident of orbit 7638 last night, Attitude Control
estimates that the spacecraft performed the drag pass about 120 deg.
off the proper attitude. Spacecraft systems responded as designed and
there was no damage to the craft.

5.  The solar panels were facing the sun and stayed near 85 degrees C.
(instead of cooling to 25 and then warming to 39 during the drag
pass).  Attitude control stayed in phase plane D, and used about 0.046
kg of fuel during the pass.  From orbit 7639 on the spacecraft
performance has been normal.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 27 May 1993 20:07 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 05/27/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                       MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                           May 27, 1993
                           10:00 AM PDT

1.  The Magellan Transition Experiment continues as the flight team
carefully maneuvers the spacecraft toward the desired aerobraking
corridor.

2.  The spacecraft has now made fifteen atmospheric drag passes with
periapsis below 150 km and all subsystems were reported to be nominal.

3.  As the spacecraft approaches the low part of the orbit, the
attitude control system switches from reaction wheel control to the
thrusters.  Depending on the amount of attitude error when this switch
occurs, the thrusters have used from 0.013 to 0.023 kg of fuel to
maintain the position within 10! of the velocity vector.  The expected
fuel consumption is 0 to 0.3 kg per orbit.

4.  Shortly before orbit 7638 last night, an update to the periapsis
time table was sent to Magellan.  An error in the coded data was
rejected by the on-board computer, and the spacecraft apparently went
through the atmospheric drag pass in the wrong attitude.  Spacecraft
systems responded as designed and there was no damage to the craft.

5.  The solar panels were facing the sun and stayed near 60 degrees C.
(instead of cooling to 25 and then warming to 39 during the drag
pass).  Attitude control stayed in phase plane D, and used about 0.046
kg of fuel during the pass.  From orbit 7639 on the spacecraft
performance has been normal.

6.  Based on the present navigation and spacecraft data, the next OTM
(Orbit Trim Maneuver) will be the "double down" magnitude.  The second
of the corridor-adjustment OTMs is scheduled for 2:07 PM PDT today.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 27 May 93 20:04:21 GMT
From: "Theodore F. Vaida ][" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

anyone know where to find info about that Al-O process?  I'd be
greatly interested in details...
--

---------==============Sig file cover sheet=====================---------
                  ->POLAR CAPS<- or [e-mail]
      Student Konsultant Making the world safe for computing!

      Pages including this page:  1
                                -----

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

Date: 27 May 93 22:48:30 GMT
From: Tom Zych <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>I like the idea of building an aluminum/oxygen extraction facility on the
>moon. This could provide for relatively inexpensive support for other
>projects.  The aluminum could be used for structures, and the oxygen for life
>support, on the moon or in Earth orbit.  The Earth-moon transfer vehicle
>could be fueled with oxygen and molten aluminum.  Al-O batteries could
>provide power away from the main perated solar cell facility?

Would it be possible to extract reasonably pure silicon from the
lunar crust?  If so, all the solar cells for a powersat could be
made on the moon and shipped to geosynchronous orbit.  Given
that much volume, it would be a lot cheaper than making them
on Earth.

BTW, is "Clarke orbit" a synonym for "geosynchronous orbit"?
(I'm guessing this because comsats were Clarke's idea, and that's
where they go).  Is this a FAQ?  It isn't in the list.
--
Tom Zych
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:28:34 GMT
From: Jay Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
Newsgroups: sci.space

As [e-mail] said:
> Wherever we go, though, we have to miniaturize and automate big-time.
> Does anybody expect any organization, government or commercial, is
> willing to shell out in the $10's of billions for any of this stuff?
> Get real.  We're talking $5 billion or less, maybe even <$1 billion, to
> bring back some good paydirt or forget it.   The whole ball of wax
> has to fit into two or three rocket payloads or forget it.  Since this
> is aways off in the future, might as well bring advanced biotech, or
> early nanotech, into the picture and have fun.   If we insist
> on government research that's where it should be at, in the
> big-payoff technology that makes the big breakthroughs in
> automation, miniaturization, etc.  That kind of tech is
> not as far off as you might think, and it looks like we'll need
> it to make this stuff economical.    Also we'll get a lot
> more "spinoffs" with big-breakthrough generic technology
> (ie technology at a basic engineering level that applies to
> many kinds of industries) then we will making the nth tiny
> improvement in rocket technology, the nth spacesuit,
> and other stuff special to space while more U.S. Earth-relevant
> high tech moves to Asia, and your job, and any hope of a cheap
> ride into space with it.
>
> [e-mail]

The problem is not as bleak as it sounds. The Space Studies Institute has
done lots of research into it.

From this we've drawn the following conclusions:

A. The moon is where you start. Though it has no volatiles, it has a
tremendous wealth of metals and oxygen. The astroids also have this but
they aren't close enough for teleoperations. In early mining financed by
private companies, people aren't going to be able to afford the costs of
sending a full blown crew to the moon or to NEAs. Instead, it makes more
sence to send up teleoperated equipement first and have it payback before
you even go to manned mining. Plus SSI has demonstrated (see our display at
the Franklin Institute in NJ) that you CAN to teleoperations at lunar
distances.


B. You really can't start full scale mining. At first you need to think
small. In an early return to the moon workgroup we sponsered, we found that
you start with creative ways to get profit. Our plan had a first flight to
cost 200 million dollars and deliver 6 teleoperated rovers, and materials
processing equipement. The rovers would have a race which would return 286
million dollars profit. Thus, you have financial backing for 'wilder'
ventures.' Next, you'd have your rovers benefict some materials and send
another flight with an iron coin and glass object processer. The customer:
Earth. Sold four $500/ carat and including an adequate supply of materials
to experiment with, 1.5 tons would be returned to earth and sold for 750
million dollars. Now you're in the big time. Next a larger rocket to be
fueled with lunar oxygen minned in the previous trip is launched. Though by
the second trip the value of the materials goes down, you still make
multibilllion dollars profit.

C. Big time. Once you're in the big time you still have to be creative. At
SSI we have tested minature mass drivers with accelerations up to 1800
Gravities in 1986. Now we are proceding with mass catchers. This means that
you launch 100 times your mass driver weight (as little as 5-10 T) to L2
each year. Also, we have shown on a benchtop scale that you can use th
HF-leach extraction technique to extract up to many your plant weight a
year. This translates into up to 7-10X metal 7-10 X silicon and 14-20X
oxygen. All with one plant co-extracting. Thus you build up to 95% of your
plant expansion materials and _duplication_ materials. Thus the plant can
replicate 2-4-8-16-32... Once every 2-4 months the plant builds a
replicate. In a matter of years, you are processing 100,000 of tons of
materials.

D. Expansion. After this is done, you've proven technologies and you can
afford to send what you need most for a long term astroidal retrevial
mission. _people_ In our conference a few weeks ago, Eric Druemler
presented a concept for a long range astroidal retrevial mission using mass
drivers. Using a 5000 T 15GW mass driver, you can capture a 10 million T
astroid in six months. Talk about payback: 1000+ times. But: you can't get
into large scale missions like that launched from earth. You need an
industrial base and an early source of ETM. That's where the moon comes in.

As for comets, the delta V's your talking about put it into the long term.
Even if you use large scale mass drivers its a big deal. But: John Lewis
from Spacewatch delivered a paper on 'baked alaskas' at our conference. Up
to 50% of the NEA are really boiled off comet cores.

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 07:32:15 GMT
From: Robin Kenny <[e-mail]>
Subject: New DC-X GIF
Newsgroups: sci.space

Chris W. Johnson ([e-mail]) wrote:
: ..., the new images are as follows:

:     pub/delta-clipper/images:
:     dcx-static-test-rig.gif
:     dcx-rollout.gif
:     dcx-rollout.jpg

: ...and they're located on bongo.cc.utexas.edu (128.83.186.13) as usual.
: Chris W. Johnson

: Internet:   [e-mail]
: UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj

: ...wishing the Delta Clipper team success in the upcoming DC-X flight tests.

Some of the *.gif files can't be displayed. All were ftp'd in binary mode
and some are OK (a very classy looking craft!) Have all gif's been checked
for format?

Also; my newsreader is corrupting the dates of articles - what calender date
      will DC-X(X1?) fly?

Regards,  Robin Kenny
{ A very strong disclaimer about "my opinions and NOT my employer's"
is inserted here.                  Only N days to DC-X first flight!}

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 93 13:05:38 EDT
From: Robert Coe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privatizing scientific terminology
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] writes:

> Perhaps we could get corporations to sponsor the adopted names of classes
> of objects. Thus we'd have McHalos sponsored by McDonalds, the Burger King
> Quark instead of bottom, etc etc...
>
> Any other suggestions???

The electron ("Brought to you by your local electric company") would seem
to be a natural.

Perhaps the makers of Nutrisystem (I think it's a weight loss plan) would
sponsor the neutrino ("Little or no rest mass...").

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ [e-mail]
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:32:19 GMT
From: Jay Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with "Mars box" life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dan Williams)
wrote:
>
> Robert Casey ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : Before you seed life on Mars or elsewhere, be sure there is no natural
> : living or fossil life there.  Or else you'll trash an opportunity to
> : study it and expand biological science.  And that probably requires a
> :
> I think the original poster proposed to seed a "Mars box" as an experiment in
> exploring the possibility of seeding Mars, or any other planet.  The main
> idea is to explore possibilities.
>
> Accidently seeding a planet is not what we want to do anyway.  We will want
> to taylor organisms for specific results.  Then we can get this terraforming
> science time lag down to a few centuries, rather than the current time lag in
> the millions of years. :-)
>
> : through inspection of Mars, by robot or man.  In all sorts of different
> : enviroments there.  Probably take a century of work.  By the time you
> : get done, you will probably contaminate Mars accidently with Earth life
> : anyway.
> :
> This is an admirable goal, but in the current climate for space expenditure
> it will not happen.
>
> On the other hand if someone could prove life was possible in a Mars box
> here on Earth, it might drive intrest for new inspection flights to run
> more tests or return samples.  But any experiments on Mars will always have
> the possibility to contaminate the Mars biosphere.  Since Viking at least,
> there is the chance we have already seeded the planet despite our efforts
> not to.

What about the Russians. They launched all those Mars 1,2,3,4,... and lost
track of them without sterilizations (they thought vaccum did it) Mars 3
(supposedly) was even supposed to have landed at tumbled over.

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

Date: 27 May 1993 20:49:22 GMT
From: "David B. Lapadula" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Raffles?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I think I recall reading/hearing about some sort of Soviet venture where they
tried to sell raffle tickets, with the lucky winner getting to go to MIR, or
something like that. I recall that it was done w/a US partner.

Did the whole thing turn out to be a sham? Misunderstanding between the
Soviets (Russians?) and the US partners? Or what?

Anyone know more about it?


.. and I wonder if such a thing has been considered for any other space
programs, as a way of helping to subsidize costs?

Dave Lapadula

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 19:57:59 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: The crew is toast
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Thu, 27 May 1993 14:42:51 GMT, [e-mail] (Dillon Pyron) said:

Dillon> I also remember that the first B-1B to go down killed a Rockwell
Dillon> tech who was riding in the (non-ejecting)jump seat.

The only thing you got right about this was the company the dead
person worked for.  You were probably misled by the fact that the
first B-1B was a reworked B-1A, so it had the capsule rather than
ejection seats.

The cockpit capsule did separate itself from the B-1B but not all of
the airbags deployed, so the capsule landed really hard.  The pilot,
Doug Benefield, a Rockwell test pilot, was killed by the impact (head
wounds, as I recall, plus other injuries).  The co-pilot, Major Frank
Reynolds, a USAF test pilot, received back injuries (he did return to
flight status about a year later, by the way).  The flight test
enginer, whose name I absolutely cannot remember, a USAF FTE, received
head injuries (he didn't return to flight status).

As I recall, Benefield was wearing his helmet but it wasn't fastened
and the FTE wasn't wearing his helmet at all, but I may have reversed
these two.  Reynolds had his helmet on and fastened.  I believe that
the AIB thought that having their helmets on and fastened would have
prevented the head injuries.

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

Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 15:30:50 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: The crew is toast
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1u2rpp$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>I suppose, the STS crew compartment could be arranged with a
>drogue chute for not a lot of penalty,  slow down witht he drogue
>to appx 100 mph  and then the crew bail out individually,
>or count on toughing out the impact and un-ass the sinking
>vehicle at high speed.  But not my idea of fun.

Not my idea of workable, either.  First, the mass penalty for the
separation mechanism (which has to break the cabin and chute *cleanly*
from the rest of the vehicle under very bad conditions) is large, as
is the penalty for the chute itself (to slow down that much mass).
Second, you would have to build a fair quantity of armed explosives
into the structure of the Shuttle (we do this with warplanes
sometimes, but I'm not sure I'd want to do it with a non-military
vehicle).  Third, consider terminal speed of a falling human body is
only about 125 MPH.  Would you be willing to 'tough out' a bailout
from an aircraft without a chute?  I wouldn't -- yet you're talking
about 'landing' (crashing) your escape capsule at almost that high a
speed.  The 'separate and then bail out' scenario seems to complex and
timing dependent.  You've added all that extra mass for your escape
system and you've really not added any safety (or perhaps made things
somewhat less safe).

>I think early WW2 fighters, counted on  ditching  and then swimming
>for it,  but i dounbt it was considered survivable.  any one know?

Hmmm, I couldn't say for sure, but I thought everybody was using
parachutes by WW2.  What you describe sounds more like WW1 to me, and
it wasn't really 'ditching' because you could hardly count on your
fighter going down over water, after all.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 23:56:16 GMT
From: Jeff Swanson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

[e-mail] writes:
>Other Wolfe books I'd recommend:

>        _Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers_
>        _The Painted Word_

>You might also try _In Our Time_, a book of Wolfe's own drawings, which
>are great.


Ah, but you've totally missed one of Wolfe's ABSOLUTE classics --
The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. In this one, he really goes off on
the onomotapoeia, and tends to really blow the doors off the concept
of "structure". Granted, some of it's sort of dumb, but his style
snaps things into clarity with a force that few other writers have.

--Jeff
***>[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:04:06 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Well, Pat's reply to this appears to have either expired or been
cancelled, so I guess I'll have to follow up on my own note with just
a few basic points for Pat.

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1tlcaa$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>
>>>Uh, don't look now, but we sure seem to do a lot of business selling
>>>weapons systems to other countries.  You might also want to examine
>>>the trade deficit with regard to Europe.  You'll find we sell them a
>>>lot more than they sell us and that part of what we sell them is
>>>things like F-16 fighters, radar sets, etc.
>>>

>>Of course,  The net contribution to the US GDP by foreign weapons
>>sales is kind of poor.

>Well, the net contribution of any single item is kind of poor.

In point of fact, I finally got around to looking it up this morning
at home.  Weapons (primarily aircraft) account for 4+% of all U.S.
exports.  More than 2/3 of those are purchased (i.e., not military
assistance grants).  Now, 2%-3% of total U.S. exports might not mean
much to Pat, but as far as I'm concerned it's enough billions of
dollars to matter.  You're not related to Everett Dirkson, are you,
Pat?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 93 17:29:23 EST
From: [e-mail]

Press Release  Nr. 25-93

Paris, 18 May 1993

EURECA, the European retrievable carrier ready to be brought back
to Earth

After 10 busy months in orbit at an altitude of about 500 km, the

European Space Agency's Eureca satellite will be retrieved from
Space by NASA's Space Shuttle Endeavour, on the fourth day of the
STS-57 mission currently scheduled for launch on 3 June 1993
(provisional launch window 2217h -2330h GMT = 0017h -0130h
Paris time on 4 June). Physical contact between Endeavour's remote
manipulator system (the robot arm in the Shuttle's cargo bay) and
Eureca is planned to occur at 2324h GMT on 6 June (= 0124h Paris
time on 7 June).

ESA's Space Operation Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt, Germany, has
full responsibility for the control and operation of Eureca, and is
currently preparing for a series of orbital manoeuvres that will adjust
Eureca's altitude and orbital phase to Endeavour's planned orbit.
These manoeuvres are a prerequisite for the Shuttle's final approach
: grappling of Eureca by its robot arm, its berthing in Endeavour's
cargo bay and subsequent safe return to Earth. The final and decisive
hours of these delicate and exciting flight operations of the STS-57
mission can be followed at the European Press Centre that will be set
up in ESOC for the duration of the retrieval operations.

In the night of 6 to 7 June 1993, experts from ESA's Operations
Control Centre will present the highlights of the Eureca mission and
the details of the rendez-vous operations. Live images from Space
will allow the audience to watch Endeavour as it approaches,
grapples and stows Eureca in the cargo bay.  At the end of the
retrieval activities, a press conference with the Flight Operations
Director, the Project Manager and the Project Scientist will conclude
the night's programme.

The Presss Centre at ESOC will be open from 2230h on 6 June. The
official programme will start at 2330h and will end at 0230h on
7 June. Media intending to follow the event are kindly requested to
fill in and return the attached form to the ESOC Public Relations
Office, preferably by fax (Nr. [phone]).

--- Note to Editors
Eureca was launched on 31 July 1992 by Space Shuttle Atlantis and
released into Space on 2 August by ESA astronaut Claude Nicollier
operating the Shuttle's remote manipulator system. Eureca is the



largest spacecraft ever built and flown by ESA, weighing 4500 kg
and measuring 20 m across, and is the first to be returned to Earth
for sample access and potential re-flight.

Eureca's 1000 kg multidisciplinary payload consists of 15 different
active experiment facilities and three passive 'add-ons'. This
ensemble made it possible to carry out successfully 71 individual
experiments serving 31 scientists and researchers - the Principal
Investigators - from 29 institutes in eight ESA member countries. The
research undertaken using the Eureca payload ranges from
exobiology to crystal growth, material processing, particle collection,
surface physics, technology applications and scientific observation of
the Earth's atmosphere, of the Sun and of celestial X-ray sources.





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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 641
------------------------------