Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO107.ZIP/V15NO107

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 05:01:35
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #107
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 14 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
                         Beanstalks in Nevada
                 Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV
                    Gus Grissom and the Mercury 7
                           He3 Power Source
                      Home made rockets (3 msgs)
              Interstellar Probes - How Fast Can We Go?
                  Mini Energiya(?) & MIR replacement
                          Parsecs? (4 msgs)
                           RedStone Rockets
             SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
                     The Federation is still here
                      Watching a Shuttle launch

    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: 12 Aug 92 17:30:32 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
-Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
-Date: 11 Aug 92 18:41:07 GMT

-In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
-> Would it be possible to put something in near orbit over Nevada and
-> attach tethers to it so that people could reach the object via
-> elevators?  I know it wouldn't be easy, but is there a way to pull
-> this off?

-Hmm. Interesting question.  To first order:  No, it's impossible, for two
-reasons.

-When you say "orbit," you usually mean "Keplerian orbit," a free body
-that stays on its path without applying any thrust.  Nothing in a
-Keplerian orbit can hover over Nevada, since the plane of its orbit
-*must* pass through the center of the Earth.

-It *is* possible for an object in orbit to hover over a spot on the
-Equator, if it takes exactly 24 hours to make one revolution AND its
-orbital plane is the plane of the Equator AND its orbit is a circle.
-Then the Earth rotates underneath it as it cirlces and it stays over
-one spot.  "Geostaionary" communication satellites do this all the
-time.  It's called "Clarke orbit."

A possible workaround is to build an anchor in Nevada, and another one
at a corresponding point in the southern hemisphere (same longitude, and
same latitude, except S instead of N), then run *two* tethers to a point
in equatorial orbit, one from each anchor. This was discussed several
months ago, with the anchor points being the poles. Lower latitude ought
to work better.

I don't see much point in it, though. And why Nevada? Is it some intricate
scheme to get around the state and county laws regarding gambling and such? :-)

-The second impossibility is that there is no material strong enough to
-make the "elevator cable" out of.  Crudely speaking, it has to hold up
-its own weight as well as the weight of an elevator, or other payload,
-and nothing we have now is strong enough.  Such a device is often
-called a "beanstalk," by the way.

Is that still true even of tapered tethers?

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:06:26 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Mark Goodman <[e-mail]> writes:

>>[Freedom has support in Congress]

>I am not aware of any huge and lasting support.  The House votes have
>been about 230-180, far from 2-1,

The past two votes where far closer to 2-1. Either way, this is still a
sizable majority made even larger when you realize what went into it. The
Congress rarely changes an appropriation like this after it is reported out
of committee. In addition, a very powerful member did huge amounts of
lobbying to make it happen and still failed.

To those who say social spending will beat NASA every time, look at these
votes. Freedom was carved up and $$ given to every constituency in the
house. It still failed.

At the level we are talking about allocations tend to be based on clout
first and need second. NASA has enough clout to get about $15 billion
every year and it will get it regardless of how it is spent.

If Mr. Coffman's model was correct, Freedom would have been dead a long
time ago.

>and then only because the aerospace
>industry has already received such a big hit from DoD cuts.

So?

>There is
>tremendous opposition to the space station, which is based on the
>essential question: what good is it?

That is a technical question, not a political one. It's not nearly as
relevant as you think.

>>Since these will open the space frontier and produce far more tax income,
>>it seems a good idea.

>Allen, if you are refering to the Space Station, a Moon Base, or planetary
>exploration, my reaction is: Come on, give me a break.  If you are
>refering to investments in near-term space technology (improved ELVs,
>perhaps SSTO, improved automation and remote control, lightsats, etc.)
>and R&D on more distant prospects (NASP, etc.), I agree.  Which is it?

I am refering to the growth which would occure with the development of
a spacefaring civilization.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------253 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 17:22:02 GMT
From: Brent Kellmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gus Grissom and the Mercury 7
Newsgroups: sci.space

Not long ago, I read a passage from Tom Wolfe's _The Right Stuff_ and came
across something about a near-accident that Gus Grissom was involved in early
in the Mercury Program.  The incident involved a test flight of a RedStone
rocket that Grissom was flying a chase plane for.  Evidently (if I remember
things right), the RedStone blew up and nearly brought Grissom's plane down
as well.

Does anyone out there know anything specific about the incident, or know where
I can get more information about it?

Any help would be appreciated.

Brent Kellmer
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 19:06:24 GMT
From: "thomas.vandoren" <[e-mail]>
Subject: He3 Power Source
Newsgroups: sci.space

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: He3 Power Source
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T
Keywords:

   About 2 weeks ago I saw a series of 5 minute modern videos of great interest.
One of them was about a proposal to use Helium3 mined from the moon as a power
source on Earth.  One of the claims was that the value of one shuttle load
of He3 was a couple billion dollars or something in that order when computed
relative to the power output it would provide.

   Does anyone have more info, opinions on that proposal?  If it is true it
would seem that there may be some kind of business case for lunar operations.
My only concern or potential skepticism is how easy is it to develop an
He3 power plant?  I mean are we talking something as hypothetical as fusion
power, or something that does have a reasonable chance of being developed
in the near future.

   The video mentioned how He3 as exhaust from the sun doesnt make it to the
Earth's surface due to the atmosphere or magnetosphere but does get absorbed
into the lunar soil.  It showed proposed lunar surface strip mining machines
that would filter out the He3 and replace the regolith behind it thus having
minimal environmental impact.  Other items such as oxygen and water could be
extracted at that time as well.

  How hypothetical is this and is it practical?

Lee

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 15:28:26 GMT
From: "robert.e.wiersbe" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles J. Divine) writes:

<much deleted>

>
>I recommend _educating_ the public about the dangers of
>rocketry et al.  Getting them involved _responsibly_ if they
>want to get involved.  Isn't there an American Model Rocketry
>association that does just that?
>
>
>--
>Chuck Divine

There are actually two organizations that deal with safe consumer rocketry, the
National Association of Rocketry (NAR) and the Tripoli Rocketry Association.

There are motors available today that will outperform anything you could make
yourself, not to mention being safer and legal.

You can contact these organizations at:

    National Association of Rocketry
    P.O. Box 177
    Altoona, WI 54270
    [phone]
    [phone]
    Email: [e-mail]

    Tripoli Rocketry Association
    P.O. Box 40475
    St. Petersburg, FL  33743-0475
    Tripoli Rocketry Association, Inc.
    P.O. Box 339
    Kenner, LA 70063-0339

Bob Wiersbe    NAR# 44588    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:47:25 GMT
From: Jonathan Hardwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Richard Martin) writes
> Here's a very simple, safe, easy and challenging part of model
> rocketry.  With a little common sense, nobody can get hurt...
> and it's cheap, too.
>
> Take a match, preferably one out of a match book with a blue head.
> Wrap the head tightly in aluminium foil, leaving an exhaust port.
> Deform a paper clip to about a 30 degree angle, and place the
> match `rocket' on top.  It is probably a good idea to do this on
> some cardboard that you don't care about, on an asphalt surface.
> Make sure that nobody is standing in front of the rocket!
> Using a candle, or some other good heat source (*not* a blowtorch),
> heat the end of the rocket from underneath until the head ignites
> and the rocket launches.  After a lot of trial and error, the `art'
> will probably become apparent, and it's a pleasantly mindless way
> to while away a long summer afternoon.

For extra credit, scrape off the chemical mixture from the match head
and just use that, thereby saving weight.  My most complex
(successful) match rocket was a two-stage affair, using the propellant
from 5 match heads in the first stage, and 2 match heads in the
second.  My most stylish was a winged design, which I glide-tested
first, and then launched with a 2-match booster.

There are several fine points to this art, if I remember correctly:
 a) uniform consistency of launch fuel.
 b) making multiple stages work reliably without either premature
    ignition or no ignition at all.
 c) making a rocket case with just enough foil to resist burn-through.
 d) persuading your mother to give you another box of matches.

By the end of four boxes I was playing around with venturi designs.
Launch precautions?  I didn't take any, since like all 11-year-old
kids I had an innate belief in my own immortality.  You *might* be
able to damage an eye if you ignited a multi-match-head bomb a foot
from your face and it flew _just so_ into your eyeball, so parents
might want to tell little kids to ignite at arms length, keep the box
of matches well away from the launch pad, always leave an exhaust
port, and DON'T try shooting at the family cat :-)

> Richard.
>
> P.S.:    The record distance that I know is 20 m.  Beat that!

Never even came close.  The successful flight of a two-stage rocket
only an inch long is a wonder to behold, however...

Jonathan H.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:13:09 GMT
From: Jonathan Hardwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes
> -Here's a very simple, safe, easy and challenging part of model
> -rocketry.  With a little common sense, nobody can get hurt...
> -and it's cheap, too.
>
> -Take a match, preferably one out of a match book with a blue head.
> -Wrap the head tightly in aluminium foil, leaving an exhaust port.
> -Deform a paper clip to about a 30 degree angle, and place the
> -match `rocket' on top.
>
> Just so long as nobody tries to "improve" the design by adding more match
> heads or strengthening the containment. Match phosphor has a reputation as
> a powerful and unstable propellant/explosive.

Ooops.  I just posted about my multi-match-head designs.

> One source I read stated that just three match heads once propelled a
> quarter-inch steel bolt so that it flew right through a glass window,
> hit a concrete wall, and knocked a big chip out of the wall.

This I *seriously* doubt.

Theoretical standpoint : Weigh the chemical mixture from three
household match heads.  Calculate the energy this represents, call it
A.  Weigh a quarter-inch steel bolt, and estimate the speed it would
need to break a glass window and then knock a big chip out of a
concrete wall.  Calculate the energy this represents, call it B.  I
will stake my reputation as a match-rocket builder (:->) that A < B.

Practical standpoint : around about the third box of matches, I built
a couple of multi-match-head bombs to see what would happen.  A loud
pop and a flying piece of scrunched-up aluminium foil was the best I
could come up with.  If I *could* have launched lethal quarter-inch
steel bolts, you can bet that the neighbourhood cats would have known
about it.

> Safety goggles are also strongly recommended for any work involving
> flammable materials and oxidizers.

Yeah, the only danger I can think of is having a still-hot match
rocket fly into your eyeball if you don't blink in time.  A cheap pair
of sunglasses would be plenty strong enough to stop a match rocket,
however.

> John Roberts
> [e-mail]

Jonathan H.

PS I can think of one possible explanation for the story of the
match-launched steel bolt, which is that they were using the humungous
matches sold for use at sea/in a rain storm/in a tornado.  One of
these probably has as much chemical power as a whole box of household
matches.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:36:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Interstellar Probes - How Fast Can We Go?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi everybody,
I was wondering about sending fast space probes to the heliopause. What's the
fastest ship we can launch by using current technology?
I have seen two proposals
so far. The first (ASTRONOMY 2/91) was about sending a probe towards Jupiter.
There, it would be deflected towards the Sun and perform a close flyby
at a distance of a mere 2 million km from the surface! The velocity at
perihelion would be enormous (close to 313km/s if my calculations hold).
At that altitude over the flaming inferno below, the escape velocity is
only about 0.5 km/s higher so the probe would only need a brief rocket burn to
take off towards the stars. It would pass the orbit of Mercury in about
two days after closest approach! Neptune, 30AUs away, would be reached two
years later. According to ASTRONOMY, it would need about six years to
cross the heliopause which presumably is about 140AUs away (apparently
travelling at a speed of 120 km/s).
---
Another -NASAs "Thousand Astronomical Units" Project- would use a probe
equipped with a ion engine that slowly would accelerate it out of the solar
system. The engine would work for years and in the end the velocity would
be close to 100 km/s. This would travel 1000AUs in about 50 years.
My question is, how fast can we go? Wouldn't it make more sense to send a
ion-propulsion probe towards the Sun first to obtain a gravitational boost
(OK, I know the problems of isolating it from the heat (5000-6000K) and
radiation near perihelion must be enormous)?


MARCU$

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Fififinlandssvensk

Marcus Lindroos                             Internet:     [e-mail]
Computer Science
Abo Akademi University
Finland

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 16:19:33 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mini Energiya(?) & MIR replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

Last week's AW&ST had a CAD sketch of the redesigned MIR 2 station on a
launch vehicle I can't identify.  It *looks* like a cut-down Energiya core,
judging by the relative diameters of the strap-ons/core.  Has anyone seen
this configuration before?  I recall that the brief article mentioned that
MIR 1 will be operable until 1995. Someone here mentioned last week that the
core module will have to be replaced soon. Details on this & MIR 2 anyone?
--
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 14:01:11 GMT
From: Jim Carr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>Hmmm...  at the distance of one parsec, one astronomical unit subtends an
>>angle of one arc second.
>
>Coincidence.  Remember, one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun...

NOT!

A "parsec" is one (arc) second of parallax -- parallax second -- parsec.

The unit is quite convenient for an astronomer measuring the distances
to stars with this method.  An A.U. enters because this parallax is
measured at distant parts of the earth's orbit about the sun.


--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
[e-mail]                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:47:37 GMT
From: A Colin Morton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>[e-mail] (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>Hmmm...  at the distance of one parsec, one astronomical unit subtends an
>>>angle of one arc second.
>
>>Coincidence.  Remember, one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun...
>
>No, THAT, my friend, is the DEFINITION of a parsec...
>
As other posts have stated, one parsec is equal to ~3.2616 light years.
As we, on Earth, are only ~8 light minutes from the Sun, I don't think
the Earth-Sun distance defines a parsec.

Colin.

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 12:24:48 EDT
From: Mcirvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A Colin Morton) writes:
>As other posts have stated, one parsec is equal to ~3.2616 light years.
>As we, on Earth, are only ~8 light minutes from the Sun, I don't think
>the Earth-Sun distance defines a parsec.
>
It's not the Earth-Sun distance, it's the distance from which the
Earth-Sun distance subtends an angle of one second of arc.  That's
*not* a coincidence; it follows from the definition.

The definition comes from the use of parallax to measure the distances
of nearby stars.  You can observe parallax easily by holding your
thumb in front of your face and looking at it with one eye: if you
look at it with your left eye, then your right, the thumb appears
to be in different places with respect to more distant objects.  The
effect is larger if the thumb is closer, and smaller if it is
further away.

In much the same way, nearby stars appear to move very slightly with
respect to more distant ones as the Earth moves.  The Earth moves
in several ways, but a component that can be isolated easily is
its motion around the Sun.  This causes the images of nearby stars
to describe small yearly ellipses in the sky.  The semimajor axis of the
ellipse, measured in seconds of arc (one second of arc is 1/3600 of
a degree), is the parallax of the star.

The word "parsec" stands for "parallax of one second."  A star one
parsec away would have a parallax of one second of arc.  Real stars
are all further away, so they have smaller parallaxes.  Since
with angles this small, sin theta = tan theta = theta (radians) to very
high precision, we can say that the distance in parsecs is the
reciprocal of the parallax in seconds of arc.

The apparent elliptical motion of a star against a very distant
background, as seen from the orbiting Earth, is identical in
apparent angular size on the sky to the motion of the Earth
around the Sun as seen from the star.  Therefore it is no coincidence
that the distance from the Earth to the Sun subtends an angle of
one second of arc when seen from a distance of one parsec.  It is
an immediate consequence of the definition of a parsec.

If I've gotten anything wrong, please correct me...

--
Matt McIrvin, professional gradgrind, amateur Usenet drifter

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:02:08 GMT
From: "John C. Baez" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A Colin Morton) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>Coincidence.  Remember, one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun...
>>
>>No, THAT, my friend, is the DEFINITION of a parsec...
>>
>As other posts have stated, one parsec is equal to ~3.2616 light years.
>As we, on Earth, are only ~8 light minutes from the Sun, I don't think
>the Earth-Sun distance defines a parsec.

You seem to be deliberately misreading what has been written.  Nobody is
claiming the Earth-Sun distance IS a parsec.  Only that the Earth-Sun
distance is involved in the definition of a parsec.  (Since others have
given the definition of a parsec I won't!)

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 17:24:14 GMT
From: Brent Kellmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: RedStone Rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

Almost forgot -- does anyone have more detailed information about the
Redstone-class rockets that were used in the early Mercury program?

[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 17:47:05 GMT
From: "R. Cage" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Let's look at this a bit closer with some ROM estimates. If we have a 1 TW
>laser beam from the Moon impinging Earth, we add an additional TW to the
>Earth's heat balance. Normal heat input from the Sun for the Earth is
>about 140 TW so the additional 1 TW is less than a 1% change. But due to
>efficiency factors discussed below, actual net heat load would be 3 TW.

You're assuming things, like:

1.)    25% conversion efficiency.  Sorry, but that's too low.
    Photovoltaic cells tuned for monochromatic radiation can
    already go considerably higher, and in the IR, there is
    the possibility of using micro-rectennas.

2.)    Laser is the most efficient transmission method.  Microwave
    is probably more efficient.

Also, you have the earth's energy budget wrong.  The disc area
is about pi * (6.4e6 m)^2, or 1.28e14 square meters.  The solar
constant is about 1360 W/m^2, so we get about 1.75e17 watts, or
175,000 TW of incident sunlight.  Not 140 TW.  You're off by 3
orders of magnitude!

Adding another 4 TW of heat is literally a drop in the bucket.
Spread it out and you'll have a very hard time detecting it.

>By contrast, for Earth based solar collection, there is no net increase
>in heat flux. The energy is striking the planet anyway whether we use it
>or not.

3.)    You're assuming that the albedo of the earth's surface and
    a solar collector are the same.

In a word, WRONG!  Solar collectors are a lot blacker than most things.

If you counter that the collectors can be interspersed with light
colored areas to reflect light and keep the balance the same, you
can do that without solar collectors too.  It's not an argument
for ground-based.

>Now what's happening on the Moon? Gas lasers are very inefficient devices.

Free-electron lasers aren't.  Neither are amplitrons.

>I don't have CO2 numbers at hand, but He-Ne efficiencies are around 0.1%.

I believe CO2 lasers have reached 20%; someone please correct me.

>Now solar energy striking the top of the Earth's atmosphere, or
>the surface of the Moon, is 1 kW/m^2.

Close enough.

>So our 1 TW delivered to the busbar on
>Earth requires a solar collector area of 1E14 square meters on the Moon.

This assumes a system efficiency of 1%.  That is about 10x too low.  Solar
cells are over 20%, conversion equipment to microwaves is well over 50%.

>requires a square 10,000 km on a side, or about 6,000 miles on a side. Sorry
>gentlemen, the Moon isn't that big.

More like 3,000 km on a side.  Just about the area of Luna.

>Now if we discard the laser, the Moonbase
>with it's 6000 mile on a side collector, and simply use the same collector
>field we were going to use for the laser on Earth, we still gather in 1E10
>watts, or 10 GW, and we haven't spent an improbable fortune on the Moon.

You can't use the same collector.  It's out of the sun a lot more than
half the time, has to be built to deal with WATER and WIND, and a whole
lot of other things that limit its life and output.  Vacuum and low G
has the advantage that it's very friendly to most equipment.

>A Lunar collector array would be in darkness 2 weeks out of 4, so storage
>for two weeks would be required on Earth.

Wrong.  You'd put collectors on both sides of the moon.  When power
is only hitting the far side, it's the far side collectors which feed
the transmitters.  Transmission lines are easy in 1/6 G and vacuum.

>Therefore, at least half of
>Earth's capture arrays would be in daylight at any given moment. That's
>at least 7 times better than the Loony Laser.

Wrong.  Receivers not in direct view of Luna could be fed by
reflectors (easy for lasers, a little harder for microwaves).
If a receiver can take a feed from more than one reflector at
a time, then interruptions from the reflector going behind
Earth as seen from Luna will be avoidable.

>But solar *thermal* is workable *today* in certain cases.

Yes, mostly peaking power or fossil displacement.  Not replacement,
not base-load.  The whole point of Lunetta or SPS is base-load power.

IMHO, if there is the capability to build that much collector
area on the moon, a single catapult can put it into orbit and
leave it in sunlight 24 hours per day, all month.  Having many
feed angles and immunity from lunar eclipses and beam
occultation by Earth is another big advantage.  This is why I
think SPS has a better future than Lunetta.

>Gary
--
Russ Cage   [e-mail]  [e-mail]
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 15:03:11 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Federation is still here
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>Path: mksol!tilde.csc.ti.com!csc.ti.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!bionet!raven.alaska.edu!acad2.alaska.edu!asljl
>From: [e-mail]
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Subject: The Federation is still here
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 11 Aug 92 19:59:53 GMT
>Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
>Organization: University of Alaska
>Lines: 33
>Nntp-Posting-Host: acad2.alaska.edu
>
>Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl
>From: [e-mail]
>Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
>Subject: The Federation is still here
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 11 Aug 92 15:53:25 AST
>Organization: University of Alaska
>Lines: 25
>
>Hello All
>
>Yes, The Federation is still here, at the moment for those still
>interested, it is still here and still reachable. We still want to
>hear from people interested in it or new people interested in the
>Federation.
>    For those of you who are new to the Federation ideas, this is
>what we are:  We are a group of people who feel it is high time we got
>off this rock and started exploring the great unknown of space.  We have
>drawn out in blue print form a drive system that is a a super semi conducting
>crystaline structure. It looks good on paper but we haven't been able to
>test it yet. As always the problem is money. The Federation has been working
>on a personal funds of the few members base at the moment.  We do have a
>info packet that we will happy to give you. You must have a mac that has
>5.0 microsoftword or better. Send us a 3.5 floppy and we will put it
>on there for you. send to this adrress

I normally delete all of the path crap before I post a followup, but I wanted
to save this one.

THIS IS A VERY FAST WAY FOR YOUR MACHINE TO GET SICK!!!  This sounds like a
joke, but you have no idea where your floppy has been or what is on it.  And
you don't even know who had it!

We don't know who this "Lady Rhavyn" is.  He/She could be earnest in this
effort, could be a dellusional fantisizer, or ...  You won't get any respect or
support from me as long as you are ashamed of who you are.

>
>The Federation
>C/O Lady Rhavyn
>Po box 231772
>Anchorage, Alaska
>          99523-1772
>
>If you have any questions feel free to send to this account.
>
As least post a return address.  Some people's news software isn't as generous
as mine.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     | Lawyers are like nuclear warheads, every-
[e-mail]          | body has some, and when you use them, they
                                    f*ck everything up.
                                                  Danny DeVito, _OPM_

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 10:41:42 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watching a Shuttle launch
Newsgroups: sci.space

The topper of all the toppers is still Apollo 17.

The birds came out and sang, because they thought it was morning - at
my parents' house, 100 miles away! Then again, what do you expect from
something that burns two tons of kerosene per second?

Sounds are interesting. I could almost swear that, under the right
conditions, you can even hear Deltas and Titans from 100 miles away.
Anyone else noticed this?

P.S. Never mind the ants, John, watch out for the alligators.
P.P.S. A wild dolphin stuck its head above water after the launch? You
*did* get a special treat that day: they almost never do this!

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 107
------------------------------