Space & Astronomy

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Space & Astronomy / Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso / mac / TEXT_ZIP / spacedig / V12_4 / V12_495.ZIP / V12_495

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu> X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/kb:Fj:600VcJI0ok4z>; Sat, 27 Oct 1990 01:31:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <Ub-Fiby00VcJM0n04A@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 27 Oct 1990 01:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #495 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 495 Today's Topics: Re: UFO on TV in Nevada "NAVY WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE" Disposal of N-waste into the sun. Re: Hybrid replacements for SRB's (was: Man-rated SRBs Will we be able to see Galileo? photos from Voyager Voyager Update - 10/24/90 Re: Mercury rotation and tidal lock Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Oct 90 17:49:43 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!helps!bigtex!pmafire!reiser@CS.YALE.EDU (Steve Reiser) Subject: Re: UFO on TV in Nevada There is a manager here who's brother works on a top secret job at this hangar 51 - I won't gives names and may be risking my neck even posting this. However, when the guy here asked his brother about all this UFO stuff, he just smiled and beat around the bush not denying any of the speculations, but hinted that more info has leaked to the public than should have. All the guys who work there are flown out of the Las Vegas area by a Boeing jetwhich takes a devious low level flight course so that employees can't be followed if they were to drive to this area. Keep investigating and keep an open mind (neither gullible or skeptical) Steve -- Steve Reiser (reiser@pmafire.UUCP or ...!uunet!pmafire!reiser) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 00:03:00 GMT From: sgi!cdp!nec@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: "NAVY WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE" "UFO CENTRAL" The Forbidden City AREA# 51 Posted by: Ron Garcia(NEC) Produced by: Audrey Lauin Reported by: Bill McGowen, both of 'Current Affair'(10/11/90)@8:00p.m. Just afew miles from Las Vegas, Nevada there lies a "TOP SECRET" instalation called AREA# 51. This area is run by the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Jaime Shandera (investigator/editor) calls the TOP SECRET area within AREA# 51 "DREAMLAND". A ring of mountains surrounded by another ring of mountains. An Electro Physicist named: Bob Lazar known for his work with Los Alamos Meson Physics facility along with his work at NASA has come forward with information on the Navy's (9) captured/acquired alien spacecraft/disks/ UFOs. He was hired/assigned to investigate/analyze one of these captured UFOs. He states: "these things were not built by human hands, as the tech- nology is FAR beyond anything we have presently! Just the reactor & power source alone produce an amazing amount of power!!! It was very OBVIOUS what was in the hanger!, a typical flying saucer! The fuel that the reactor uses is a SUPER HEAVY element!, something on the lines of approx.#115 on the periotic charts! It's a material which cannot be synthesized here on earth, nevertheless be found in nature! It does not exist!!! Ten years ago, this AREA# 51 was the secret developmental area for the stealth fighters and bombers, along with countless underground nuclear testing, which STILL goes on! Many researchers say that if the military wanted to hide a secret testing/analizing of captured alien spacecrafts/disks; that this AREA# 51 would be the place to do just that!!! Mr. Bob Lazar (distraught over the criminal activities of the Navy), brought friends to the perimeter to photograph the FIRST FLIGHT TESTING of said disk by our own military! They filmed it making numerous streaks across the skies over and around Rachiel Nv. Unfortunately, he and his friends were found out............. Since then, Mr. Lazar has become a modern man without a country! His birth certificate, records of government jobs, coworkers, everything vanished, without a trace!!! The man does not exist! "As if I was never born....he says..........." Doesn't this PISS you off to realize that our own military is withholding evidence of life on other worlds from the general public??????????!!!!!!! Well it should!!!!!! They have contained dead alien life (on ice) and the hardware thereof for some 35-45 years now. Don't you think that it is time to stop the cheap lies and release OUR natural history findings to us immediately!!!!!!!!!!!! Something should be done to force these CRIMINALS within the AF, Navy, and/or other military sanctions i.e. CIA, FBI to release these glorious things/discoveries that belongs to the AMERICAN people; NOT THE GOD DAMBED NAVY AND/OR DEPT OF ENERGY!!!!!!!! PLEASE GET MAD AS HELL LIKE I AM AND LETS WRITE LETTERS!!! And don't believe me; check it out for yourself! You can contact Current Affair and obtain a transcript of this particular aired program for a minimal cost. I taped it on my VCR, but I cannot send hundreds of copies to everyone. Lets get out there and do something about this criminal government of ours; who knows how much else they are witholding from us all!!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:47 CDT From: <SC05212%SWTEXAS.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu> Subject: Disposal of N-waste into the sun. An earlier writer states that long before our sun dies we will have both control over it and earths tectonic movement. The man was a zoologist. I do not believe that he realized the scale of project he was talking about. I don't think he realized how many Gigatons of Hydrogen we would have to add to the sun in order to appreciably lenghthen its life. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 90 03:30:38 GMT From: phoenix!winnie@princeton.edu (Jon Edelson) Subject: Re: Hybrid replacements for SRB's (was: Man-rated SRBs In article <8548@fmeed1.UUCP> russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage) writes: >In article <1990Oct21.234530.27141@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Not the way I meant it (which was away from the launching pad). > >A hybrid rocket doesn't need oxidizer present anywhere near it until it >is being filled for launch. The precautions needed for the transportation, >assembly, and stacking of SRB's are not required. The fuel is, quite The point about having to transport liquid oxidizer is still valid if weak. Liquid oxygen is transported all the time, look somewhere on the grounds of any middlin to large hospital. And when it spills, it is a problem until it evaporates. The fact that the fuel in a hybrid is so safe should indicate just how much oxygen can speed up combustion. LOX spilled on asphalt presents an explosion hazard because of the intimate mixture of fuel and oxidizer. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 02:10:06 GMT From: amethyst!organpipe!hindmost!jgotobed@noao.edu (Joe Gotobed x4549) Subject: Will we be able to see Galileo? I suppose this has been asked & answered, since Galileo will be very close to the earth at the December encounter and it's fairly large, will it be visible (greater than ay 4th mag?) If so, since it'll be cookin right along, for what time period will it exceed say 4th magnatude? Joe ------------------------------------------------- Joe Gotobed (joe@arizona.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 12:50:23 GMT From: wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucdn!gilla@decwrl.dec.com (Arnold G. Gill) Subject: photos from Voyager I am asking the following for an acquaintance. Now that the Neptune encounter is finished, and Voyager 1 has finished taking pictures of the Solar System, will any more photographic work be done by either spacecraft? Or is it a case of there being no point to doing that? Were there ever any photos taken of Pluto, or others directed outside the Solar System? I seem to remember reading in the last week or so, that the orbits of the Voyagers and Pioneers have shown no sign of pertubations -- which is taken as indicating that there is no 10th planet. Did I read this correctly, and if so, how far can this conclusion be extended? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Arnold Gill | - If I hadn't wanted it heard, | | Queen's University at Kingston | I wouldn't have said it. | | InterNet: gilla@qucdn.queensu.ca | - Astrophysician in training | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 14:54:08 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Voyager Update - 10/24/90 Voyager Status Report October 24, 1990 Voyager 1 The Voyager 1 spacecraft collected routine UVS (Ultraviolet Spectrometer) data on sources HD 27778, DELTA CETI, and HD 1679. On October 15, one frame of high-rate PWS (Plasma Wave) was recorded. Round trip light time is 12 hours 4 minutes 14 seconds. Maintenance work on the X/B transmitter on the 34 meter antenna in Australia resulted in 6 hours of outage time. Also, 3 hours and 35 minutes of tracking time was lost with the 34 meter antenna in Spain due to rain. Voyager 2 The Voyager 2 spacecraft collected routine UVS data on source EG 165. On October 16, one frame of high-rate PWS was recorded. Round trip light time is 9 hours 15 minutes 24 seconds. On October 17 a real-time command file was transmitted to modify the FDS (Flight Data Subsystem) PRA (Planetary Radio Astronomy Subsystem) POR (Power on Reset) algorithm; this patch was necessary in order for the FDS to provide the proper response to future PRA POR occurrences and configure the PRA receiver with the local oscillator loop locked. The commands were verified by CCS (Computer Command Subsystem) checksum. The next POR will indicate if this procedure will work properly. CONSUMABLE STATUS AS OF 10/24/90 P R O P E L L A N T S T A T U S P O W E R Consumption One Week Propellant Remaining Output Margin Spacecraft (Gm) (Kg) Watts Watts Voyager 1 5 36.3 + 2.0 367 55 Voyager 2 6 39.4 + 2.0 370 61 ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 19:50:27 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) Subject: Re: Mercury rotation and tidal lock In article <110889@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.Philips.Com (Robert Casey) writes: > when the planet is in the "perigee" (near the sun, can't remember the right word) perihelion -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu Congress thinks that if you have nine women pregnant simultaneously, you can get one baby in one month. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 90 18:47:42 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Sorry about the double spacing, but the editor on this system does it every time I try to upload a pre-prepared message. It is too expensive for me to type it in online. I am having trouble figuring out how to stop it inserting double line feeds. +I'm sure Freedom would be much cheaper with a ten year life +time. + So what? I can la+unch a LLNL station every ten years for thirty + years for about 20% what Freedom costs. Of course I suspect we + will learn a lot about space stations in that ten years and +we may very well want something different. With LLNL we can +change the design if we want. With Freedom we will be stuck with +it. It boils down to the credibility of the cost projections Have you ever had the experience of awarding a subcontract to a company who presents a beatiful prposal, then two years later you find they cannot deliver what they promised ? Every day occurrence in the aerospace industry. One tends to become skeptical. If it seems to good to be true, it probably is..... + Another thing to remember is time to develop. If we began when + the idea was proposed, the first LLNL station would end it's + operational life before Freedom even begins its. A lot of +science isn't going to get done waiting for Freedom. + Now all other things being equal wouldn't we be better off +using the LLNL design and send a new one up every ten years? Sounds good in theory. See previous comment on credibility. +The LLNL Earth Station goes up in 1 HLV flight. This can be +Why? If Freedom used expendables instead of insisting on using + the Shuttle their costs would also drop. At $500 to $900 a pop + those assembly costs add up fast. Why is that apples and +oranges? I thought the HLV would be reusable....There is some psychology involved, Shuttle exists, HLV does not. There is a risk in betting that a non-existent HLV will work. Once again, the problem of credibility. >Does LLNL figure in the cost of developing HLV in their > costing ? + Does Freedom figure in the cost of developing the Shuttle in + their costing? They don't have to because Shuttle exists and its development is previously paid for. + they also use subsidized numbers. The tapayer is subsidizing himself ? I do not understand. + The LLNL plan however, does figure both development and the + true operational cost. Sounds too good to be true...... + They have two qualified contractors signed up to do it for a + fixed fee. Last time I bought into a proposal like that I regretted it.... + This HLV will cost less than ONE shuttle flight to develop. +It will lift twice what the Shuttle lifts for a quater to half +the launch costs. Sounds good. Good enough to get private venture capital.....right ? So why don't they just go do it ? Why do they want the taxpayer to underwrite it ? >Seems kind of expensive to develop a whole new HLV then only > fly it once. + In addition, doing it in one launch with deployment in shirt + sleves reduces risk. No EVA is required for station + construction. Provided it works. Remember Skylab ? + Besides, they plan to fly it 20 times. Maybe somebody else can + also use it. However even at one use it will be far far cheaper + than using the Shuttle. Now you have taken the bait......who is going to pay for those 20 flights ? They are proposing a scenario based on a projection of non-existent traffic. Increased traffic of course reduces the cost, but to submit a proposal to reduce cost by assuming 20 non- existent customers will appear from nowhere waving their checkbooks is, shall we say, "optimistic". >Cheaper to use a smaller SSX and take it up in several peices. + Now *THAT'S* risky. The above HLV's are all based on existing + technology. Over 90% of the parts can be bought today. SSX +on the other hand requires a lot of new stuff. It would be + far more risky for LLNL to use SSX. Not at all, SSX is also 90 % off the shelf. And for a traffic projection of 20 flights will be cheaper than an expendable HLV. >Then why did they bother proposing amorphous Silicon ? +Because it will save the taxpayers a couple of million $$. I + think that's a great reason. No, it ignores the classical new technology risk. If the new product fails its qualification program, then it costs a lot more. >Could be a design detail. Maybe LLNL have some new exotic >variant of NiH cells. + Nope. They are off the shelf. Have they flown ? I would prefer to use the existing commercial designs than an unknown quantity. Let LNNL pay to get thenm qualified first. >Any of those guys coming to southern California any time soon ? + Invite them down Hah ! I value my job too much. >At first sight you can save an awful lot of money by accepting >higher risks, but then again expensive spacecraft like Shuttles >and Space Station, are very expensive and their replacement cost >must be figured in the risk equation. + Quite correct. But then since the LLNL approach costs 5% as + much as the station and half the cost of a new orbiter and the + LLNL station has an ACRV, this risk is justified. Ok, I gotta ask, what is LLNL's magic formula which makes their ACRV cheaper than NASA's ACRV ? +Of course the odds of anybody being in a breached module is +lower in the LLNL station. I would assume therefore that it is + actually safer in this respect. No. We need to consider the probability of the event occuring in the first place, which for LLNL I believe is higher. + LLNL is about as risky as Apollo, I am not convinced of that. >NASA keeps asking for assured crew return vehicle, congress > keeps deleting it from the budget. + Given the cost of the NASA ACRV this comes as no suprise. Why + not just buy a Soyuz? Because that opens other questions, like why not launch Freedom or LLNL using Energia ? >As the cost of aerospace systems escalates, the tendency to > "push the envelope" naturally falls off. + NASA's *JOB* is to push the envelope. That is NASA's dilema. Whenever they have a failure the media come down like a ton of bricks, they forget about NASA's job of pushing the envelope.....the media have got into too negative an attitude. And bad publicity means smaller budgets. A double incentive to take fewer risks, despite the primary goal of pushing the envelope. >The B-2 test program made little if any attempt to "push the >envelope" in the Chuck Yeager sense. + Rest assured it will before it becomes operational. Not according to some acquaintances at Northrop up the street. The commissioning process is based heavily on analytical modelling, and the flights are primarily to validate the models. The models tell them what the envelope is. Works out cheaper than flying numerous prototypes to destruction. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #495 *******************