Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO999.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-13 | 29KB | 709 lines

Space Digest                Sun,  8 Aug 93       Volume 16 : Issue 999

Today's Topics:
   $12M Houses and sci.space (was: Funding private space ventures)
                    ** FTP site of ASTRO images **
                              11 planets
                        Astronaut Biographies
              Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
                 Mars Observer's First Photo (3 msgs)
                       Mars Observer GIF Image
                   Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93
                           Titan IV Failure

    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: 7 Aug 1993 09:31:24 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: $12M Houses and sci.space (was: Funding private space ventures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I, [e-mail], wrote:
>: |Space hardware is expensive mostly because it is all custom-designed
>: |for a completely new environment.
>
>Pat ([e-mail]) replied:
>: Hardware does not have to be custom designed each time.
>
>I didn't say it must always be that way -- I just said it is now that
>way.  We are learning a lot from our interactions with the Russians.
>We won't be able to apply all of it in our world, but we are learning.
>This is part of the reason NASA is working with the Russians.
>

Why was it neccesssary for NASA to spend 20 years going down the
custom engineering blind alley.   ?

Theoretically we are as smart as the russians, we should be teaching them
lessons, not having to learn from them the obvious.

Also  mass production and standardization carries  far more benefits
then extreme specialization.

A formula 1 racer, is a marvel of engineering.  Just as a 5 meter
Sailer is a marvel of grace and balance,  but what do more
productive work.  Ford trucks and RO-RO cargo vessels.

what bothers me at least in the space seminars i attended int he 80's
was the lack of engineering mindset applied to commercial commsats.

even there,  in the most common of applications,  there was a real
fatal obsession with unique design.  mass production would have a lot
of benefits in this arena alone.


>I wrote:
>: |[...]in various forms for Earth environment for over 15,000 years.
>: |We've been seriously thinking about houses in space for only 30.
>
>Pat:
>: In 30 Years,  Aviation moved from the WRight Brothers  to
>: almost the Jet Age.     Computers  moved  light years forward too.
>
>: The technical challenges for molecular beam epitaxy are as unique and
>: difficult in their own way  as that of High orbit solar cell developement.
>
>The reason aviation and computers moved forward was the commercial and
>defense pressure to advance.  We have no such pressures making deep
>space exploration advance.  NASA must not only create the technology

But look at the near earth market, ken.

There has been lot sof commercial and defense presure to advance
in the LEO-GEO belt.  yet there has been none of the progress
seen in commercial endeavours.

the cost  of the first comm sats, were only a few thousand dollars
each,  now the birds runs in the 100 million dollar range.  even
accounting for inflationa nd increases in technical capability,
they are still moving the wrong way on the price curve.

Look at the ACTS program, it's been at it for 12 years,  that's
far too long for a R&D program.  in that time,  FIber has chewed away
50% of the market for signal bandwidth.
cgranted the Reagan administration screwed the program up,  but still,
NASA could have pushed it through.
>for space travel, but must also bootstrap the demand for space
>exploration.  Scientific curiosity is the only thing that's driving

NASA doesn't have to create "THETECHNOLOGY" and then bootstrap demand.
that IMHO is the problem.  If NASA created useful technologies,
then the market would select technologies and run with them.

DARPA did a lot for micro-electronics,  but it was on the procurement of services
or design competitions.  NASA takes these ideas under their wing,
and controls them until they die.

NASA should take a more service procurement approach to things.

like.  THis is the 5 sensor package we want to fly around
Neptune.  we want the package to get x power,  and have 3-axis
pointing.   you bid to get these instruments there.

I've looked at the specs for cassini, they are kind of intense.
NASA may be far better off letting the vendors provide this
service on a fixed price basis,  with milestone and performance
payments.  x percent when the package leaves earth,  x percent when
it  makes saturn,  x percent after 1 year....


>NASA's exploration of the solar system right now.  If commercial or
>military interests find reasons to launch spaceships for which the
>benefits exceed the costs, it shall be done.  One of NASA's goals
>should be to reduce the costs.

THe problem is the Military industrial complex has owned space,
and they've brought their military mindset with them,

Looka t the cost/performance curves for fighter aircraft.
look at the change in design life cycle for fighters.

in WW2,  a fighter took  6 months to get to prototype,  now it
takes 10 years.  and it's getting longer.

Now look at NASA projects.  in the 50's,  1 year, was the design cycle.

now it's closer to 10.  and in SSF, it's more like 20.

Drop the Performance mindset.  just get em up,  and let them fly.
the firster, faster,  is far better then the "better later".

look at HST.  It' was so perfect, it missed 1987A.  Look at galileo.
it was so perfect, it will miss shoemaker-levy.

Large probes, with a political support network  are not the way to
do good science.  The discovery program i think will be far more
productive  then the great observatories.



>
>Science Fiction authors have been proposing various profitable
>deep-space missions for years.  If we can get the costs and risks down
>low enough, commercial interests are sure to pick up the banner and
>expand us all into space.  Right now, NASA is learning the technology
>for space vehicles in the Shuttle and Station programs and reducing the
>risks of commercial exploration by unmanned space exploration
>vehicles.  In your opinion, what more should we be doing?  (I can
>think of several things.)
>

My opinion.

    work the life cycle costs issues.  You don't need to
"learn" the technologies for space vehicles.  it was already
done in the 70's.  work on getting the costs of these technologies
down.  that or leap-frog into advanced technologies.

For all teh high cost of satellittes,  we still sue the same
prpulsion technologies.  I'd be more impressed by a crude
package flying to mercury on a solar sail,  then some super sophisticated
package  that won't get there until  2020, due to the costs and
poor propulsion methodologies.

excuse my typing  my hand tremors are real bad.


>Jenks:
>: |[We're] taking the baby steps necessary before learning to walk, but
>: |we're impatient to learn how to run.  Space technology is still --
>: |sadly -- in its infancy, and we're barely getting started on the kinds
>: |of projects which will develop that technology in its long road to
>: |maturity.  Give us time to learn and grow, but keep holding our feet to
>: |the fire.
>
>Pat:
>: The greatest fear of the Bell labs guys was that the military would
>: classify the transistor.
>
>: I think governemnt control over space engineering has had a similiar
>: effect.
>
>: LEO, MEO commsats  are a very exciting place to be.  Space engineering
>: is moving ahead, only NASA is not path finding.
>
>NASA is finding paths, but not necessarilly paths to the same
>destinations.  What paths should we be finding?  How wide should
>they be?  What kind of pavement, overpasses and traffic control?
>Let's debate it here, and I'll feed it into NASA management.
>

work on the basic technologies,  like Bell Labs.  do basic science,

but don't try and be western electric.  encourage  small companies
to develope nice markets.  Large companies are driven by
the Harvard MBA's.  small guys are kooky enough to spend
10 years developing a product or a service.


>Jenks:
>: |
>: |Since space missions (and space stations) are so few, reliability is
>: |crucial -- which drives up costs more.
>
>Pat:
>: Redundancy  is as good as reliability.  Simplicity is a virtue
>: in reliability not complexity.
>
>Redundancy is only "as good as reliability" if you can afford the
>redundancy, in dollars, volume and in launch weight.  From a systems
>perspective, redundancy is one way of acheiving system reliability.
>

Why can't we afford volume and launch weight?

why are our launch vehicels so primitive?

Push concepts like BDB,  and  SSRT,  and Sea Dragon,  as well
as Technology for beyond the cis-lunar environment.

chemical propulsion is too expensive for mcu beyond  jupiter.

if we want to explore the planets with orbiters,  we need better
propulsion.  aero-braking,  electric and Ion engines, solar sails....

MY idea of a "Vanguard" engineering office could test out a lot of these
concepts on the cheap.  put $50 million/year into building large ugly
brutal test vehicles.  beg borrow or steal  launches for them.
then  stick an experimental ion engine on one side.   see how far
it can go.

with luck, you may be able to push it somewhere interesting.


>NASA is learning many lessons about these topics.  Are we asking
>the right questions?  Are we getting the answers out to the people
>who need to know them?  Let's talk about it.
>

I think from a science perspective,  the science work is good.

every planetary scientist i've met seems like a real hot shot.
The Instruments flown  seem to be very good,  the distribution of
data by NSSDC  is excellent these days.  the presentation
of all data on CD-ROMS is an act of scientific altruism,  that
is im-measurable.

Now the problems in this area,  is the older data.
NSSDC needs to get off their butts  and clean up and salvage all
the older lunar and planetary science data before it turns to dust.

there is millions of dollars in data on  old dying mag tape.
if it isn't preserved now, it will be lost forever.
if there is something to talk to management about,  here is one mortal sin.

preservation efforts won't cost too much.


>Jenks:
>
>: Is the paperwork neccessary for safety and reliability or merely for
>: butt protecting.?
>
>Most of it is for safety, reliability and mission success.  The

is it really?

If broader safety margins were used on systems,  you wouldn't need
to worry about as many arcane things.

If more components were off the shelf,  who would worry abou;reliability.

I buy grade 8 bolts for projects.  i know what specs they should meet,
it's in the ASME/ASTM standards.  that's all i need to know.

NASA seems to abhor the idea of ASME specs.  to be fair, it's not just
NASA, it's the entire space engineering community.

I pointed out once at a meeting in 1988 at hughes,  that the SRBs on the
STS  didn't conform to ASME specs on perofration.  the reply from
the pseaker, was what do they know about space.  I didn't bother
replying,  that they may not know much about space,  but they sure
know  a heck of a lot more about engineering then NASA.


>folks who say NASA internal paperwork is merely for CWA maneuvers
>usually don't understand its real purposes.  NASA procurement
>paperwork, which must comply with FAR's, is a different story.
>

let's not even re-open this can of worms.


>Pat:
>: SKYLAb had a very simple documentation trail.  Infact that was a major
>: problem when SKYLAB came down.  A fair chunk of the OPS data was in
>: the heads of the staff.  they had to be brought out of the farm
>: to re-awaken the giant.
>
>With better documentation, a new team could have done that instead
>of bringing the old staff in.  Documentation has its purposes, and
>this is a good example of where better documentation would have
>helped.
>

yeah,  but as long as the people were around,  it wasn't such an issue.

sure SKYTLAB could have used better documentation,  but on most
space programs i see documentation for bureaucracies sake.

look at SSF, for an example.


>Jenks:
>: |we fly millions of complex items on every space mission -- because each
>: |mission is so precious -- and some of those items will fail.  We deal
>: |with this, but it's frustrating.  (Can you think of a better way?)
>: |(I can -- more, cheaper missions.  O, how I long for DC-2!)
>
>: Exactly.  SSF is a step in the wrong direction.
>
>: Cheaper transport is the right direction. IMHO.
>
>But we don't have to go in only one direction.  We can afford to
>do both.
>

i would posit we can't.

we have gone in one direction, spent a kings ransom and have little to
show for our efforts.

complecity will arise naturally from human endeavor.  it is not neccessary to
increase complecity.

increase reliability, and let other people  increase complexity.


>Jenks:
>: |If our goal as a space program is to develop new technology for space
>: |missions which will make future space missions more economically viable
>: |(thus bootstrapping the commercial exploitation of space), there are
>: |many steps we should take which are different from our current
>: |direction.  But NASA is faced with a dilemma: if we concentrate on
>: |developing basic technology for future space missions, we don't have
>: |enough money to fly the misions we're currently working on.  If we stop
>: |flying the current missions, including Space Station, we don't have a
>: |testbed for evaluating space technology.  Technology cannot progress
>: |simply as a state of mind and as abstract ideas; it requires hardware,
>: |testing and continual refinement.  So we have a compromise.  We spend
>: |some money on developing new technology, and some money on these wimpy
>: |little Space Shuttle and Space Station missions, in the hope that the
>: |technology we develop and test will help us to accomplish really
>: |interesting missions in the future and will pave the way for mankind's
>: |expansion into the Galaxy.  (Is there another view of this dilemma?
>: |Of course!  What's yours?)
>
>: Like I've said before.  two track operations.  Engineering builds
>: out of the inventory.  Product developement works  on new better
>: bleeding edge things.  Testing division  tests  the new stuff
>: and puts it into the catalog.
>
>: But you budget for these as separate activities,   not as
>: combined activities the way they are done now.
>
>: I like the Discovery missions.  fast light quick.  Now what they
>: need is a Explorer Office, to design and Test  new Bits and pieces
>: for use in future discovery missions.  The two offices should be
>: separately  funded and operated.
>
>The politics behind that are pretty strange, but basically Congress
>won't fund exploration today.  But they will fund Shuttle and
>Station, partly because of the pork barrel effect.  If you can
>solve that one, please do.
>

COngress  wont fund exploration when the programs cost a billion
dollars each.

look at AXAF, GRO, CASSINI, Galileo.

all these programs cost too mcuh.

if they were put together on shoe-strings,  they'd go faster.

voyager,  was done on a shoe-string  and has been an absolute
scientific miracle machine.

use the cost savings off of these big programs to push low cost engineering.
and push propulsion technology.


>[...]
>
>Pat:
>: So what did you think of my idea to use the BUS1 spacecraft as the
>: basis for a cheaper OMV?
>
>I missed that one.  Send it via e-mail?
>


essentially,  there is a need for an OMV.  instead of building one custom,
use the BUS1 spacecraft as the basic shell.  soup up the engines or
change them out.  add the MMA (multi-mission adapter).  add
some additional electronics.  boom.  cheap space tug.

pat
--
I don't care if it's true.  If it sounds good, I will
publish it.  Frank Bates Publisher  Frank Magazine.

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

Date: 7 Aug 93 15:58:18 GMT
From: Frank ROUSSEL <[e-mail]>
Subject: ** FTP site of ASTRO images **
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,alt.binaries.pictures.misc

I commend everybody to look at the FTP site 'ftp.univ-rennes1.fr'
-> Ethernet address 129.20.128.2 <-
in the directory /pub/Images/ASTRO:
there are lots of images (all of kinds in astronomy subject)
especially in GIF format and a NEW ! directory of some JPL animations
Some charts and animations of solar eclipses are available too !

For your comfort, README files in all subdirectories give size and
description of each image, and a 15 days' newer images' list is in READMENEW

Note: you can connect it as 'anonymous' or 'ftp' user, then the quota
      for each is 10 users connected in the same time.
      So, if the server responds you "connection refused", be patient !

2nd note: this site is reachable by Gopher at 'roland.univ-rennes1.fr'
          -> Ethernet address 129.20.128.27 <-
          in 'Divers serveurs Ftp/Le serveur ftp du CRI-CICB/Images/ASTRO'

If you have any comments, suggestions, problems,
then you can contact me at E-mail '[e-mail]'

Hope you enjoy it !

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   _______       _______       ________   | Firstname: Frank
  /______/|     /______/\     /_______/|  | Lastname : ROUSSEL
 / ______|/    /  ____ \/|    |__   __|/  | E-mail: [e-mail]
/ /|           | |____| |/       | ||     | Telephone: + 33 99 83 26 10
| ||           |  __  __/        | ||     |
| |\______     | || \ \\       __| ||__   | Address: 175, rue Belle Epine
\ \______/|    | ||  \ \\     /__| |/_/|  | CityStateZip: 35510
 \_______|/    |_|/   \_\|    |_______|/  | Cityname: CESSON SEVIGNE
    Centre de Ressources Informatiques    | Country: FRANCE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Science without conscience is only soul's ruin (Rabelais) ------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Signed: The responsible of ASTROGOF project at Rennes' University of France   -
- who contributes to the development of CRI-CICB Gopher's server by maintaining -
- an astronomic anonymous ftp server 'ftp.univ-rennes1.fr' in /pub/Images/ASTRO -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 17:05:46 GMT
From: Robert Casey <[e-mail]>
Subject: 11 planets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Seriously, the idea that the asteroid belt was a 'destroyed planet'
>has been considered and generally rejected due to scientific evidence.
>It is thought much more likely that it is a planet that never formed
>at all due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter next door (or
>such was the case many moons ago when I was interested enough to read
>up on this sort of thing).
>
>[There's not enough mass in the Belt to make a reasonable planet, the
>composition seems wrong, and the orbits do not support the idea that
>at one time it was all one object, among other objections.]
>
Wasn't that the planet where Superman was born on, and launched to Earth
as a baby before it broke up?

:-)    :-)    ;-)    :-)   :-)

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 05:19:17 GMT
From: "Robert B. Love " <raptor![e-mail]>
Subject: Astronaut Biographies
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <23uduc$[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
>
> I am looking for detailed biographical information for all NASA
> astronauts in all programs. Anyone know how I can get this information?

Try

ASTRONAUTS AND COSMONAUTS BIOGRAPHICAL AND STATISTICAL DATA
[Revised-June 28 1985]

by Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress

BTW, anybody know if there is a later edition covering the current
batch of astronauts.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Love                   [e-mail]  (NeXT Mail OK)
                           BIX: rlove
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 13:08:04 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>Saturn at the costs you give lifted stuff at $2,000 per pound which is
>>>a third to half what current launchers cost. Not bad for something so
>>>old.
>>
>>Unless you're shipping bulk commodities such as grain or water, cost
>>per pound is a fairly useless metric. Cost per mission is the relevant
>>measure.
>
>And cost per mission goes way down when cost per pound is low enough that
>you don't have to custom-build all the hardware to shave every unnecessary
>milligram off it.  Ordinary engineering companies can build stuff much
>cheaper than aerospace companies, *if* you don't care too much about the
>total weight -- aerospace companies specialize in minimum weight at
>maximum cost.

Sure Henry, cast iron is our specialty. What I'm saying though, is that
sending a Saturn up 1/3 full because the mission doesn't require a heavier
payload, doesn't reduce the launch cost one penny. The $2,000 a pound
cost only applies if the launcher is loaded to max gross. Unless you
custom tailor the payload so that it masses exactly the max load for
the launcher, and you generally can't do that unless your cargo is
some bulk material you can load in arbitrary quanity, then your mission
cost is not going to track the mythic $2,000 a pound figure the launcher
is theoretically capable of achieving.

As an extreme example, suppose I have a vital one pound payload I need
to launch. I'm not going to say, "Hey Saturn only costs $2,000 a pound"
and go try to launch my one pound on the Saturn for $2,000. It's going
to cost me $500 million to use the Saturn to launch one pound the same
as if it were at max gross. That's my *mission* cost for that launcher.
Instead, I'm going to look at Scout for $10 million, or Pegasus for
$15 million, or even Atlas for $35 million. All of them have a lower
mission cost even though the cheapest of them has the highest per
pound cost. I might even put my pound in a GAS can and get it in
orbit for only $10,000. That would be the lowest mission cost I
could find, even though Shuttle has a high cost per pound. It *can*
easily be fitted with several payloads that can share the cost
where as multiple payloads on Saturn hasn't been done, and if it
were it would have to be done as an integrated package that costs
big bucks and major time.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 17:16:27 GMT
From: Robert Casey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:
>>
>>Has any thought been given to doing a direct (digital) VICAR=>GIF
>>conversion and skipping the Print-Scan process?
>
>You missed the point.  The original images are held back for a year until
>the science teams have a chance to complete their work and make their
>submissions to archival journals.  The "publicly released" photos are
>intended only for use by the media and their resolution is intentionally
>degraded...

I suppose the (digital) VICAR=>GIF conversion could include a 2d low pass
filter to degrade the resolution by an appropriate amount for the non-
science early release to the media and computer public.   Of course, I
would expect that there are no programmers at JPL who have the time to
write such software.   Priority is probably given to work that yields
more science.
-----------------------------------------------
We put the "N" in "Nerd"!

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 17:28:00 GMT
From: Ken Arromdee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>Actually, this brings up an interesting point.  What form does the media
>want imagery to be provided in?  With the increasing use of workstations
>in newspaper and magazine publishing, it might not be too long before they
>start asking for the imagery to be provided in digital form...

BTW, is there any way to get a gif file of Gaspra that is from the original
instead of being a scanned photo?  The actual data for Gaspra should probably
be available by now....  (I admit, this is mostly for use as a workstation
background....)
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 18:32:09 GMT
From: Steve Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

A lot of folks have been talking about degrading the images that PIO
releases.  Why would PIO or a science team possible want to release
anything but an image of the highest possible quality? The MOC team
worked hard to process the recent Mars image to bring out detail and
produce an attractive keepsake for the public. This is probably
something of a distraction from their first priority: to do camera
checkout and calibration.
>From the standpoint of science, the raw picture data is the most
valuable since none of the information has been distorted by
image processing, but a GIF of the raw data would not produce a very
pleasing image. I understand that for most science teams, both the
raw and processed data will be available on CD-Rom very promptly.
      Steve Collins

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 13:12:19 GMT
From: Paul Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer GIF Image
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Ron Baalke ([e-mail]) wrote:
:                          ==========================
:                            MARS OBSERVER GIF IMAGE
:                                August 6, 1993
:                          ==========================

What size is the GIF file ?

Thanks,
--
     P A U L        P A U L         P A U L       P A U L         P A U L
     C A R T E R   C A R T E R    C A R T E R    C A R T E R      C A R T E R
      3d signature 3d signature  3d signature      3d signature    3d signature
Focus lines:            |             |

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

Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 18:08:31 GMT
From: Steve Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Around JPL we call ourselves MO, usually pronounced EmOh, though the
softball team is call the MOruns. The best prospect I have heard so
far is to rename the spacecraft Elvis.
          Steve Collins MO SCT (AACS)

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

Date: 7 Aug 1993 09:32:45 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan IV Failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

 what are the advantages of radio interferometry?

given the distances involved,  what kind of point sources are they looking at?

hand held radios?

pat
--
I don't care if it's true.  If it sounds good, I will
publish it.  Frank Bates Publisher  Frank Magazine.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 999
------------------------------