Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO892.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-20 | 30KB | 722 lines

Space Digest                Tue, 20 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 892

Today's Topics:
                          3-man Shuttle EVAs
                   A new spin on Gravity -vs- space
                       DC-X thermal protection
                            European space
              For All Mankind: Will it be aired again??
                   GPS Altitudes (was: DC-1 & BDB)
                  GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
     Head NASA Select Guy (was Re: NASA SELECT  and scrambling.)
        Henry was right (as usual) (was Re: Space Movie/PR..)
                Info: Re STS-51 Launch Scrub Saturday
                         MOON CABLE (4 msgs)
                          Satellite viewing
                      Space Movie/PR.. (2 msgs)
                     Where is ESA's ERIN server?
                   Why are meteor showers seasonal?

    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: 19 Jul 93 13:48:32 GMT
From: jeff findley <[e-mail]>
Subject: 3-man Shuttle EVAs
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

<Henry Spencer writes about the upcoming Hubble repair mission in his
space news article from May 24 AW&ST>
> Provisions are
> being made for 3-man EVAs, although there are no specific plans for any.

What provisions are necessary for 3-man EVAs (besides carrying an extra suit)?
How exactly do they get those three guys into and out of that small airlock?
I know this has been done before, but I had problems getting the details of
*how* this is done.

Jeff
--
  __   __    __   __  /-------------------------------------------+-----------\
 /  \ |  \  |  \ /  \ |"Have you noticed the way people's         | The above |
 \__  |   | |__/ |    | intelligence capabilities decline sharply | opinions  |
    \ |   | | \  |    | the minute they start waving guns around?"| are mine, |
 \__/ |__/  |  \ \__/ |Dr. Who (Tom Baker in "The Horns of Nimon")| not SDRC. |
[e-mail] \-------------------------------------------+-----------/

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 15:18:31 GMT
From: Bob Zwarick <[e-mail]>
Subject: A new spin on Gravity -vs- space
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <2218ab$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Lawson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Helenb) writes:
>|> There is no such thing as centrifugal force, no matter how it's spelled.  It's
>|> mass accelerating inwardly while revolving
>|>
>|> Bruce Helenbart
>|> Virtual Realist
>|>
>|>
>
>Help!  I'm under attack -- by a virtual realist, no less!  To arms:
>
>Centrifugal force is a fictitious or pseudo- force, as is the Coriolis force.
>Yes, the only real force is the centripetal force due (in this case) to
>gravity.  But, doing your calculations in a rotating frame is often convenient,
>especially if you happen to live in one, and so the concept is extremely
>useful, and few, if any, physicists feel the need to add the extra syllables
>to a name that is already too long.
>
>     -- Bill Lawson

But has it been 'proven' that gravity exists (as a real force)?

--
===============================================================================
Bob Zwarick                          "Call me by name again, again forever,
                                      and never will it sound without response"
===============================================================================

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 17:52:22 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X thermal protection
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>Is this the remnant of the silly USAF requirement
>>that the STS be able to  fly  1,800 miles cross range.

>It's not a silly requirement if you want to fly polar missions and can't
>land just anywhere. Also, I don't know DC's crossrange but it is in the
>same ballpark as Shuttle.

Does this imply that DC has about the same lift as STS?

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 13:24:23 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: European space
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:


> -=> Quoting Dave Stephenson to All <=-

> DS> drops of course. British Aerospace proposed a 4 man 'super
> DS> command module' to fly on the Ariane 44 back in 1987. Could have
> DS> taken 6 back to Earth as crew return vehicle. It got nowhere fast.
> DS> a. It was British, B. it was like something the Americans had done!
> DS> c. The french wanted Hermes!

>David,

>I think has more to do with the fact that the British government
>wanted somebody else to pay for it.  Britain spends remarkably
>little on space.

Sorry that was implied in a.. If it is British is usually is a good,
even billiant idea, but no one wants to pay for it!
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 09:16:05 GMT
From: Andy Clews <[e-mail]>
Subject: For All Mankind: Will it be aired again??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Richard E. Nickle ([e-mail]) wrote:
: >Also, I would highly recommend reading the book. It is excellent - the
: >first book I ever read that I didn't want to put down.
: And the soundtrack to 'For All Mankind' is available.  It's by Brian Eno
: and called 'Music for Apollo'.

Not quite correct - the soundtrack album is called "Apollo: Atmospheres and
Soundtracks", but it is still by Brian Eno. Perhaps you were confused by
titles of two of his other albums, "Music for Films" and "Music for
Airports".

Don't forget that For All Mankind was released on video last year (well, it
was in the UK anyway). This was a godsend for me because my off-TV recording
was munged by a spiteful VCR. I get the impression that the music soundtrack
from the TV broadcast, whilst still by Eno, is different from that on the
video - i.e. different tracks used in different places.  Can anyone confirm
this?


--
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, England
JANET: [e-mail]      OTHER NETWORKS: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 21:18:40 +1200 (NZST)
From: Bruce Hoult <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS Altitudes (was: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Greg Price) writes:
> I bought a Magellan OEM board. Under "Operational Characteristics" it states
> that max velocity is 950mph (1529 kph) and max accel is 2g. Under Evironmental
> Characteristics, Altitiude, Operating it states -1000 to +58000 feet (-0.30km
> to 17.68km).

I'm thinking about the use of GPS units in gliders, and those limits are a bit of
a worry.

Most of you probably don't know that the 1995 World Champs, to be held at Omarama,
New Zealand, intend to use GPS units as the official scoring mechanism for the
first time in international competition.  This will replace the ancient methods
of a barograph trace (to prove you didn't land anywhere) and turn point photos
(to prove where you went).


The 950 mph limitation isn't a problem.

The 50,000 ft limitation will be OK, but is uncomfortably close to the heights that
may be achieved during competition flight in wave conditions -- glider flights
between 30,000 and 40,000 ft are reasonably common in the area.  50,000 isn't in
any real danger for the forseeable future, but the margin seems uncomfortably
small.

The max acceleration of 2g has me worried.  Does this refer to stright-line
acceleration only, or would a tight turn trigger the unit to stop working?  It
is *very* common to use 60 to 70 degrees of bank (2g-3g) on a continuous basis in
strong thermals.

-- Bruce

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 14:56:39 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <229kmb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <226do3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>>Comments like "WATW" (We Are The World) Orbit  does not sound like a
>>>positive assessment.  When there are numerous good reasons to push for
>>>51 degree,  65 Degree,  73 Degree or even 90 or 97 degree orbits.
>>
>>Then people should be justifying those orbits based on their merits
>>and talking about their drawbacks (like requiring some enhanced
>>shielding, I gather) rather than trying to justify them as "the
>>Soviets coulc play if we launch to high-inclination orbit".  Having

>Reasons for a High Inclination Orbit :

>1)  Cheap Soviet flights available.

That's not a valid reason unless you've already decided to chuck the
U.S. capability in this area in the interests of short-term monetary
savings.

>2)  Improved Earth Observation Missions.

This one actually makes sense, but the proponents of the
high-inclination orbit seem to hardly ever mention it or the actual
improvement that could reasonably be expected in return from it.

>3)  Improved Logistics Flow missions.

Unless this is just another way of stating something like 1, it
doesn't seem particularly obvious to me why this would be so.

>4)  Improved space science/engineering base.  (  hihg inclination,
>is a far more rigorous environment then low inclination.

This sounds like saying "We should do it this way because it is
*harder*."  Somehow, that doesn't quite track for me.

>5)  Apparently ACRV return is simplified( This is what i was told,
>    I can't see an intuitive reason why this is).

Only reason I can think of is that there would be more 'land'
available to come down on with the high-inclination orbit.

>>
>>But Make vs Buy isn't a good paradigm if there is any sort of
>>technology development involved in the alternatives.  You have to
>>count into the balance what sort of 'profit' we get from doing it
>>ourselves and what kind of potential 'loss' there is if we don't do it
>>

>Make vs Buy is  properly cognizant of the benefits of
>Technology developement.   Nevertheless,  Every company does
>Make this  decision in it's business operations.

Yes, and generally badly, since companies often fail to look at
anything too far beyond the next balance sheet.

>IBM  Buys  Micro-processors.  DEC buys 4M DRAMS.

Yes, and we can both see how healthy *those* two are, can't we?

>Certainly there are intangible benefits from  spooling up to
>do things,  but if that bleeds off developemnt  money from
>more vital activities,  that is equally a problem.

>Good Business people  make these analyses.


>>>COnsidering we put 1/3rd of our GNP  into relying on certain very unstable
>>>arab countries to sell us Oil,  I don't see what the problem is.
>>
>>You have an alternative?

>More energy Conservation,  Higher energy taxes,  developemnt of
>low energy consumption Infra-structure.   It's  bizarre, that it
>is  cash wise cheaper for me  to drive  to Chicago  then to
>take the train  ( The absolute lowest energy cost solution.

It's actually not, if you properly amortize the vehicle the way the
trains have to.  This is one of the points of 'full costing' (in the
economic sense).  Lots of people make bad decisions because they
figure that they already own the car so the cost of operating it
(other than gasoline) doesn't count.

>Why is it, cheaper for me to drive to work in DC (Home to the best
>public transit system in AMerica)  then to take metro.

In part for the reasons I've already mentioned (perceptualy cheaper
only, but not cheaper in actuality).  In part because it's run by the
same sort of mindset that runs institutions like Congress.

--
"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: 19 Jul 93 14:01:18 GMT
From: "Theodore F. Vaida ][" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Head NASA Select Guy (was Re: NASA SELECT  and scrambling.)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
>Theft of services?  This seems rather extreme.
>
>It may interest you to know that there are people who receive NASA
>press releases and press kits for various space missions, reprint
>them, and sell them to subscribers.  (Much of this stuff, in fact, you
>and I read for "free" on sci.space.news.)  I don't have names handy
>but I belive you can find ads for them in *Final Frontier* or maybe
>*Ad Astra*.  Essentially they are doing on paper the same thing we're
>talking about with cable.
>
>As far as I know, this is perfectly legal, and it's simple capitalism.
>They're providing a service, and their customers are willing to pay
>for it.  (Since NASA does not copyright this material, it is in the
>public domain and anybody can make copies.)  Would you like to outlaw
>this service too?
>
>(I also don't think we've established that there really IS a cable
>company attempting to charge a premium for providing NASA Select
>video.  Mark Bixby merely reported on 9 July in sci.space that he'd
>stumbled on a scrambled signal on a hidden channel of his cable
>service.)
>
>It seems a good idea to crosspost this to rec.video.satellite to get
>comments from knowledgeable people.  Followups to sci.space. (?)
>
>--
>     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
>   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
> /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \

Hmm... you realize of course that we pay the press to carry our news
to us, after all we cant go to every press conference ourselves.  Ok,
so its not illegal (as far as we know) but then think about the
difference, NASA puts together press packs (which as I understand you
can get if you are simply persistent, a friend of my has done it
several times) for the press on the typical questions and some of the
technical information.  The press then turns sround and picks out the
most sensation items (ones gaurantedd to bring in the revenues) and
puts them on page B38 of the newspaper... those of us who have read
the actual packets posted here know that  mostly its not incredibly
exciting and is actually just material collated from all the public
documents that each part of the mission generates.

NASA select is a direct linkup educational channel for anyone
interested in space sciences, it is a supplementary educational tool
for primary and secondary schools as wekk as some colleges when
approriate material is available.  It also has neato pictures of
the suttle launching, doing interesting things and then landing.  The
cable company is different than the press in that it is using
EDUCATIONAL material to make money.  Consider that some teachiners in
that area might like to have their kids watch the stuff to get them
interested in science, and if Mom and Pop are forced to shell out 30$
a month, it aint happenin and johnny goes back to quietly knifing his
neighbors..
        ..sigh...






--

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

      Pages including this page:  1
                                -----

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

Date: 19 Jul 93 10:03:21 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Henry was right (as usual) (was Re: Space Movie/PR..)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
> In article <22cv4m$[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (George William Herbert) writes:
>>
>>I've been working on a project to do a scale model Orion for special
>>effects purposes with Footfall movie or miniseries in mind.  It's
>>really quite doable.  A ten-meter diameter vehicle will easily work,
>>and use up quite a bit of conventional explosives per "jolt".

George, I would like to see more discussion of this idea.  Could you
post a bit more discussion of how to do it?  (Possibly more
appropriate to rec.pyrotechnics... do they ever discuss Orion models
over there?  I don't usually read it.  To quote one Fermilab sage:
"They must be typing with their noses, because they can't possibly
have any fingers or toes left...")

> Some time ago, Henry noted that he had seen a display relating to
> a scale model demonstration of the Orion concept at NASM.  Someone
> (I forget who) posted back that Henry must be mistaken because those
> items were not even in the NASM collection...

More precisely, the dispute was about whether the NASM display
included a film of the Orion model in operation.  I think we decided
that it did not, and that Henry must have seen it elsewhere.  Lots of
us have seen the model hanging in the museum.

A good rule of thumb is: If Henry  | Bill Higgins
Spencer says something you         | Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
disagree with, then you're wrong.  | Internet:  [e-mail]
--Tom Fitzgerald, [e-mail]    | Bitnet:    higgins@fnal

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

Date: 19 Jul 1993 15:18:54 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info: Re STS-51 Launch Scrub Saturday
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here's the word I've heard re: "Why did STS-51 get scrubbed last
Saturday?"

Approximitly t-1:30 the launch control found a fail on the
SRB holddown pyros, with these being set to "ARMED". This lead
them to be concerned about a failure to "SAFE" prior to t-0, which
would have caused a GLS engine shutdown. No other problems were reported
through to the t-0:20 hold. Investigation of the systems is under work
at this time.

(Background info: The SRB pyros are a set of explosives which sever
the bolts holding the SRB's to the launch pad. These are blown just
prior to lift off to allow the shuttle to lift off from the pad
cleanly. - note: this is my understanding of the system.. I may be
slightly off.. if needed I can research out more presice info on this
topic..)

Mike

--
Michael C. Jensen    [e-mail] [e-mail]
Valparaiso University - Electrical Engineering / NASA - Johnson Space Center
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
*** Windows NT -- from the people who brought you edlin.. ***
---The opinions expressed are my own.. not NASA's or VU's..---

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

Date: 19 Jul 1993 15:27:36 GMT
From: Lab Master <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOON CABLE
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've been following this "MOON CABLE/SKYHOOK" thread for a while, and I
have a question (maybe a stupid question, but here goes).

The main "expense" in putting something in orbit is energy, right?
Wouldn't running something up a skyhook take just as much energy as
launching it with a rocket?  If so, what's the big advantage of a skyhook?

-Lab Master

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

Date: 19 Jul 93 13:49:57 GMT
From: "Theodore F. Vaida ][" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOON CABLE
Newsgroups: sci.space

For a real trat, check out this month's Analog magazine, the science
fact article is a description (right down to the equations) of a new
'hook' called the supersonic skyhook... instead of anchoring it to the
ground, it hangs above the atmosphere (within reach of a supersonic
jet with attitude rockets) and provides the means of climbing to a
higer energy position (for escape velocity).
--

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

      Pages including this page:  1
                                -----

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 16:16:24 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOON CABLE
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22eeh8$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lab Master) writes:
>I've been following this "MOON CABLE/SKYHOOK" thread for a while, and I
>have a question (maybe a stupid question, but here goes).

>The main "expense" in putting something in orbit is energy, right?
>Wouldn't running something up a skyhook take just as much energy as
>launching it with a rocket?  If so, what's the big advantage of a skyhook?

It is not merely energy, but the application of the energy.  Also, it
is not the case that energy can necessarily be minimized by shooting
into orbit.

Right now, to get something into orbit, there is the problem of
using several accelerations to get it there.  The biggest problem
is overcoming gravity, so that an acceleration of more than 1 g is
needed to even get anywhere.  How much energy, and even more so,
how much power, is needed to operate an elevator?  We do not have
to use high acceleration even to get up, and then high acceleration
to adjust to the orbital height.  Using a beanstalk would be like
using an elevator, and not using a rocket with the need to accelerate
quickly.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 16:36:14 GMT
From: Steve Linton <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOON CABLE
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22eeh8$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lab Master) writes:
|> I've been following this "MOON CABLE/SKYHOOK" thread for a while, and I
|> have a question (maybe a stupid question, but here goes).
|>
|> The main "expense" in putting something in orbit is energy, right?

Wrong. The main expense is the manpower required to design build, manage and test
the hardware that does the launching. After that comes the energy to accelerate
the engines and fuel tanks and the as-yet-unburnt fuel.

Lifting a 1kg mass into GEO is roughly the equivalent of lifting it 6000km
against Earth's surface gravity. This is easily seen to require
6 x 10^7 J or roughly 2 kWh. Say 10p (UK) at current prices, less in bulk. Doing
the same with current rockets takes roughly L10000 (UK). Also with a skyhook you
get (most of) the energy back when you bring things down.

|> Wouldn't running something up a skyhook take just as much energy as
|> launching it with a rocket?  If so, what's the big advantage of a skyhook?

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 14:27:25 GMT
From: Gary huntress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite viewing
Newsgroups: sci.space

We had an almost perfect stargazing weekend here in New
England.  My wife loves to sit outside when it isn't buggy and
watch for shooting stars.  She has very keen vision and also
likes to pick out the satellites as they go by (my eyes aren't
quite as good but I can sometimes follow them if she points them
out to me).

Anyway, she saw two things on saturday that we couldn't quite explain.
One was a satellite that went bright-dim-bright-dim-bright-dim as
it went across the sky.  All that I could figure was that it may have
been tumbling.

The second event was three satellites traveling in formation!  Going
roughly north to south, they were in a skewed triangular formation
and they had approximately equal brightness.  I could think of no reason
to have a number of satellites operate as a group, so the only explanatio

I could come up with was chance.  Given the 6K or so pieces of space
junk, the odds are that a few should be moving together, right?

Any thoughts?

Gary Huntress
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 12:42:43 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Movie/PR..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Is there any movies that take place in space? Other than the classic SF
>(Sci-Fi) type movies and such..

Plymouth. Had it been a series it would have been a soap opera about the
first Lunar colony.

>Maybe do Arthur Clarke books (I think it was Clarke) about RAMA, or other liek
>good books....

>It would be a grewat publicity plou to get people interested in space research.

It's a good idea but I think your thinking along the wrong track. We need
a show where people see THEMSELVES and not others in space. People currently
don't see space as something for them but rather as something for a
few scientists and astronauts.

Plymouth would have been exactly what was needed. It was about ordinary
people just like us living on the Moon. The show would have been about
them and not their situation.

This would be a way to generate a lot of interest if the show was properly
done. Top Gun was great for Navy recruting and I understand that LA Law
caused a swell in applications for law schools all over.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------16 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 16:41:48 GMT
From: Martin Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Movie/PR..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
     [stuff deleted]
>
>>It would be a grewat publicity plou to get people interested in space research.
>
>It's a good idea but I think your thinking along the wrong track. We need
>a show where people see THEMSELVES and not others in space. People currently
>don't see space as something for them but rather as something for a
>few scientists and astronauts.
>

Currently, people have very little opportunity to even see ANY space info,
even when your very interested.

Let's see, when the shuttle goes up CNN and other news organizations show the
obligatory 20 second blurb on the blast-off, 1 minute segments during the
evening news each day during the flight, followed by 10 second segments showing
the landing.  Not much opportunity there.

My cable company doesn't show NASA Select, and isn't interested in doing so,
saying there is no available capacity for new channels, while they waste one
channel on _cable radio_! sheesh.

I called JPL one day to see if they offered an auditorium for public viewing
of NASA Select... nada.

Maybe CSPN could show NASA Select instead of the British House of Commons when
ever the shuttle is up.

If you want greater public support for the space program, the public needs to
be exposed much much more to it.  Sci.space and sci.space.shuttle are as close
as I can get.

--

                                   - mjb -

                                [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 09:07:35 GMT
From: Hartmut Wilhelms <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where is ESA's ERIN server?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], Troy Goodson <[e-mail]> () writes:
>I was reading the latest Earth Observation Quarterly (published by ESA) and it
>had a special section describing materials available from what I think was
>called ERIN.  They gave the user name and password for guests to log on but
>did not give the address of the server.  Does anyone know what that address
>might be?

I assume you are meaning the ESA ESRIN branch located at Frascati near Rome.

Try:
    esrin.esa.it  (192.106.252.1) via telnet

---
            Hartmut Wilhelms
      __/|__        Atmos Science Programme Office
     /_/_/_/        German Remote Sensing Data Center
       |/ DLR        [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 21:33:43 +1200 (NZST)
From: Bruce Hoult <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why are meteor showers seasonal?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Around 0100 GMT on Aug 12 -- evening of the 11th in North America --
> will be a good time to be in a dark area and watching the sky.

Drat.  That's the middle of the afternoon.  What should it be like six
hours later, or eight hours earlier?

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 892
------------------------------