X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/cbwNHxS00WBw06Pk55>;
Thu, 28 Mar 91 02:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <QbwNHsu00WBwM6O05C@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 02:02:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #311
SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 311
Today's Topics:
NASA Headline News - 03/20/91 (Forwarded)
Re: "Follies"
Re: NASA Headline News - 03/18/91 (Forwarded)
Re: railguns and electro-magnetic launchers
Re: Value per pound vs. cost per pound
Re: railguns and electro-magnetic launchers
MAJOR MAGNETIC STORM WARNING - LOW LATITUDE AURORAL ACTIVITY WARNING
Administrivia:
Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News - 03/18/91 (Forwarded)
In article <1991Mar18.233833.19729@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:(I should add that he is writing on behalf of Peter Yee,
although I don't know why I should add that. Just trying to avoid confusion,
I suppose - P.F.)
>NASA has terminated the operation of the Dynamics Explorer-1
>(DE-1) spacecraft. The spacecraft, which acquired the first global
>images of the aurora, was launched on August 3, 1981. It was
>designed to last three years and to study the coupling of energy,
>electric currents and mass between the Earth's upper atmosphere,
>ionosphere and magnetosphere. Project scientist Dr. Robert Hoffman
>said the quality and quantity of data returned from DE-1, and a
>companion spacecraft, far exceeded their expectations. The
>spacecraft was terminated because it had refused to accept commands
>since Nov. 17 and because of operation cost considerations and the
>diminishing value of the data returned.
Wasn't this the spacecraft whose data touched off (or helped touch off)
the mini-comet controversy?
Speaking of which, I ask again: has there been any new evidence for or
against the theory, such as Galileo was possibly (I'm not sure) supposed