Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_7/V13_723.ZIP/V13_723

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-27 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
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/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8cOMzOW00WBwE4s05y>;
          Thu, 27 Jun 91 03:12:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 03:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #723

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 723

Today's Topics:
            Re: Fred Vote Thursday
            Whats this USF thang?
            Re: orbiter production
            Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space
              Re: Body Mass Measurements
              Re: Microgravity?
       Re: sci.space.policy (was Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space)
          Re: IGY and the beginning of the Space Age
      GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPGRADED TO MAJOR CATEGORY STORM
          Re: IGY and the beginning of the Space Age
            Jonathan's Space Report, Jun 5

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 17:39:53 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lethe!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Fred Vote Thursday


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
writes:

>By the way, the current vote count puts it nip and tuck.  Fred has
>just enough votes to tie if the House majority whip's stats are correct.
>Fred has 140 Republicans and 77 Democrats.

This is incorrect, 217 is enough to win by one vote. At the moment there
are only 432 members in the House (three seats are vacant due to death,
resignation, ect). Also note that a tie is a win since the VP gets the
tiebreaking vote.

The momentum is also on Freedoms side. Last Freday there where only 70
votes in favor of the amendment to restore Freedom funding.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 17:55:00 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lethe!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate![e-mail]  (Bob Rehak Ext. 3-9437, AIS Central)
Subject: Whats this USF thang?


What's with this United Space Federation.  Is it a big joke or what.
All I read on this net from the USF is the same rhetoric about the
cold war, the military industrial complex, war time economies, etc.,
etc., etc. I don't necessarily want to see all the money that was
going for defense $$$ going to space programs.  I'd like to have
my taxes cut so I can afford to live a little.  People in the
defense industry will just have to learn a new trade.  I did.  That's
the way it goes in any industry.

If you just get everyone focused
on some grandiose world space program, we will still have the same
socioeconomic problems.  We as a species haven't yet learned to
live together and I doubt that focusing on colonization of space
is going to solve that problem.  We will just bring the same
social ills into outer space with us.  Hopefully there will be
some kind of intergalactic space police to keep us under control.

|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bob Rehak, DBA At Large, BITNET: A20RFR1@NIU                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Date: 10 Jun 91 09:00:21 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!norge![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: orbiter production

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Byron Han) writes:
|> If we are not going to do manned space flight, why are you proposing
|> spending money on regenerative life support, space suits, etc?
|>
|> Shuttle being able to launch people into orbit is certainly a very unique
|> capability when compared to Titan IV.

It depends on your goals in manned space. If your only goal is to get a
few men into orbit for a year or less at a time, then 30+ billion dollars
will get you to that goal via the space station. If your goal is to
develope technology that will allow space industry and colonization,
then the space station, and the space shuttle, are not a wise expenditure
of limited manned space R&D funds.

That's because there is a lot of R&D that needs to be done to achieve the
second goal, and a lot of that R&D does not require men in space at this
time. One of these R&D areas is launch technology, and progress in this
area will in the future allow R&D requiring men in space to proceed with
a much greater R&D return for much less money. So the space shuttle and
the space station are an appalling waste of money at this time because
changing the order in which we research manned space technology so as to
do research requiring men in space later, will allow us to make much more
progress in less time and for less money.

John L. McKernan.                                                  [e-mail]
Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "It's kind of a macho thing,
    programmers are always trying to be weirder than their machines."

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

Date: 10 Jun 91 09:19:05 GMT
From: pasteur!agate!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ucselx!petunia!zeus![e-mail]  (James T. Green)
Subject: Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>I think a group for non-science space related postings is a good idea and
>I wold support it. However, I think people will find a lot of overlap between
>them. Sci.environment and talk.environment went through this a while back
>and last time I looked there was a lot of crossposting.
>

I believe there would be a simple answer for cross-postings
(at least for those who use "rn").  Put the following
in the sci.space kill file:

/talk.politics.space/h:j

This will kill any file which has been crossposted from
talk.politics.space (or whatever).  This way you
only read an article once (when you go to t.p.s.).
I do this with sci.space.shuttle
that I only see an article once, rather than seeing it
repeated in two newsgroups.

The moral is that cross-posting can easily be taken
care of by kill files.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "I didn't do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove anything! *
*                                   <Bart Simpson>                *
* =============================================================== *
*                   (-:   James T. Green   :-)                    *
*              Internet: [e-mail]                  *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: 10 Jun 91 17:57:00 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!convex![e-mail]  (Don Dodson)
Subject: Re: Body Mass Measurements

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Herbst) writes:
>How are body mass measurements made aboard the shuttle in the weight-
>lessness of space?  Is it the mirco-gravity at 180 miles up?

To measure mass in the absence of gravity, you can apply
a force and observe the resulting acceleration.  For example,
put your object in a centrifuge and spin it at a known rate
about a known radius.   Measure the force it exerts on the
centrifuge by means of a spring or other devise.  Then

    Mass = Force * Radius / V^2

To measure the mass of a space-craft, fire a rocket engine of
known thrust and measure the resulting acceleration.  Then

    Mass = Force / acceleration

Don Dodson

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 20:32:26 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lethe!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate![e-mail]  (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman
Rubin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bev Freed)
writes:
>
>            .....................
>
>> A 710-meter shaft set deep into the Earth forms the centerpiece of a
>> new microgravity experimentation facility which will open in July.
B
>> The center is expected to make a significant contribution to
>> biotechnology, metallurgy, ceramics, and other space related
>> research.
>
>            ..................
>
>I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?
>The formula I recall would have the gravitational force there approximately
>.9999 g.
>--
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
>Phone: [phone]
>[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

  The microgravity is not at the bottom, it's during the freefall to GET to
the bottom.  This technique has been used before, I belive it was developed
to create round grapeshot for cannon balls.  The molton metal would be
dropped
and allow to cool as it fell.


Carpe Diem                             [e-mail]
                                       [e-mail]
"All that is gold does not glitter."   [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Jun 91 07:55:37 GMT
From: olivea!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!norge![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: sci.space.policy (was Re: RFD:  talk.politics.space)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> It would be nice to have a place for rational discussion of space
|> policy issues related to both government programs and private
|> enterprise -- sci.space.policy would be one alternative.

I strongly agree that sci.space.policy is a much better name for the proposed news group.
A discussion about current and potentially improved space R&D management, as well as
discussions about future space R&D directions is not a discussion about politics, it's
clearly about space policy. Also, the contents of sci.space.policy will come out of topics
that are currently discussed in sci.space, and the large majority of those interested in
sci.space.policy will also be interested in sci.space. So it makes a lot of sense to
reflect the fact that the contents of the proposed news group is a subset of the parent
news group sci.space, and to place the proposed news group in the name space where those
interested in sci.space could easily find it.

John L. McKernan.                                                  [e-mail]
Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 10 Jun 91 16:07:31 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Perry G Ramsey)
Subject: Re: IGY and the beginning of the Space Age

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, lc2b+@andrew (Lawrence Curcio) writes:
>>As I recall, IGY was 1956.
>
>The IGY was actually 18 months long (go figure).  It lasted, I recall,  from
>January 1957 through June 1958.

Wrong again.
Webster's New World says July 1957 to December 1958.  Vanguard was
supposed to have made it into orbit by the end of IGY.  You know the
rest.
--
Perry G. Ramsey         Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
[e-mail]  Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA
perryr@purccvm
N9LFF

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 12:30:24 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lethe!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate![e-mail]  (oler, CARY OLER)
Subject: GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPGRADED TO MAJOR CATEGORY STORM



                       /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                            GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE

                        STORM UPGRADED TO MAJOR CATEGORY

                       /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                               07:00 UT, 05 June

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


STORM UPDATE INFORMATION:

Major to severe geomagnetic storming is currently in progress (07:00 UT, 05
June).  Conditions intensified around 05:00 UT and have reached severe storm
levels over the middle and high latitudes.  Significant geomagnetic and
auroral storming are being observed.

There is a high probability for low-latitude auroral observations this
evening (04/05 June) and tommorrow evening (05/06 June).  Continued major
geomagnetic storming could be observed if solar Region 6659 continues to
produce strong solar flares.  Major flaring is expected to continue.

A polar latitude HF radio blackout has been observed due to intense solar
proton bombardments.  Absorption over the high latitude and polar regions
will remain capable of producing long-duration HF blackouts over the next 24
to 48 hours, at least.  Further major flaring could degrade conditions even
further.

A significant probability for VHF auroral backscatter exists over the low,
middle and high latitude regions.  Conditions are very favorable for VHF
backscatter communications over widespread areas.

Auroral storming is very high at the present time.  This is a very strong
geomagnetic and auroral storm.

No significant improvements are anticipated over the next 12 hours.
Conditions over the sunlit hemisphere will be less severe than conditions
on the nightside.

An update will be posted later this UT day.


                       /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

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

Date: 10 Jun 91 11:35:28 GMT
From: world!ksr![e-mail]  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: IGY and the beginning of the Space Age

In article <[e-mail]>, lc2b+@andrew (Lawrence Curcio) writes:
>As I recall, IGY was 1956.

The IGY was actually 18 months long (go figure).  It lasted, I recall,  from
January 1957 through June 1958.

>There was much development of military missiles before hand. Also, there
>were high-altitude V2 launches all over the place. This activity AS WELL AS
>PROJECT VANGUARD were all BEFORE Sputnik, which was launched in October of
>1957. Sputnik may have been associated with IGY, but it occurred AFTER IGY.

Project Vanguard may have been started before Sputnik was launched, but the
first successful Vanguard launch did not take place until 1958.  Sputnik 1 and
2, at elast, did take place during the IGY.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 20:48:07 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lethe!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, Jun 5



Jonathan's Space Report

Jun  5 1991 (no.75)
----------------------------------------------------

Launch of STS-40/Columbia occurred on June 5 at 13:24:51 UT approximately.
Crew are Bryan O'Connor, Sid Gutierrez, Dr. Rhea Seddon, Dr. Jim Bagian,
Dr. Tamara Jernigan, Dr. Mille Hughes-Fulford, Dr Andrew Gaffney, several
rats, and  many jellyfish.

Soyuz TM-11 undocked from the Mir complex and landed on May 26.  Aboard
were the long stay crew Viktor Afanas'ev and Musa Manarov, and Soyuz
TM-12 researcher Helen Sharman of England.  The
Mir/Kvant/Kvant-2/Kristall/Soyuz TM-12 complex is now crewed by Anatoliy
Artsebarksiy and Sergey Krikalyov.  The Progress M-8 cargo craft
carrying supplies and fuel for the station was launched from Baykonur on
May 30.  Musa Manarov landed with 540 days 22 hours and 31 minutes
spaceflight time accrued over two missions to Mir, beating Yuriy
Romanenko's record for cumulative spaceflight time by over 100 days, and
the US record by over a factor of six.

The 10th Resurs-F remote sensing satellite was launched on May 21 from
Plesetsk. It carries an MK4 multispectral camera, and is based on the
Vostok spacecraft.

Kosmos-2149 was launched on May 24 from Plesetsk. It is an imaging recon
satellite and will remain in orbit for 2 months. It replaced Kosmos-2138
which was deorbited on May 24 after 59 days in space.

Aurora 2, a communications satellite for GE Alascom, was launched
by a Delta 7925 on May 29. The GE 3000 class C-band comsat will replace
the Aurora 1 which was launched in 1982.

TIP 2, a US Navy experimental navigation satellite, reentered on May 26.
It was launched in 1975. Kosmos-151, an electronic intelligence
satellite launched in 1967, reentered on May 6.

Delta 111, the second stage of the launch vehicle which orbited Nimbus 6
in 1975, exploded into hundreds of fragments about May 14. The Delta
stages of that era had a habit of exploding years after launch, due
to the detonation of left over propellants. More recent Delta launches
have burned up all their propellants to avoid this problem.
___________________________________
|Current STS status:              |
|Orbiters                         |
|                                 |
|OV-102 Columbia         LC39B    |
|OV-103 Discovery       OPF Bay 1 |
|OV-104 Atlantis        OPF Bay 2 |
|OV-105 Endeavour       VAB Bay 2 |
|                                 |
|ML/ET/SRB stacks                 |
|                                 |
|ML1/STS-43             VAB Bay 1 |
|ML2                              |
|ML3/STS-40/ET/OV-102   LC39B     |
-----------------------------------


10 years ago: 31 May 1981. The Indian Space Research Organization launched
Rohini RS-D-1, a remote sensing satellite. Problems with the launch vehicle
left the satellite in a low orbit from which it reentered in one week.

20 years ago: 30 May 1971. Mariner 9 was launched on its way to orbit Mars
and map its surface. Mariner 8 failed earlier in the month.

(c) 1991 Jonathan McDowell. Information in this report is obtained
from public sources and does not reflect the official views of NASA.

 .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell                 |  phone : [phone]
|
 |  Space Science Lab ES65            | uucp:
|
 |  NASA Marshall Space Flight Center | bitnet :
|
 |  Huntsville AL 35812               |  inter : [e-mail]
|
 |  USA                               |   span : ssl::mcdowell
|
 '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #723
*******************