Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO145.ZIP/V15NO145

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 04:59:58
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #145
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 27 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
              Chase planes (was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whate
  Chase planes (was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing)
                          Martian Chronology
         Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing (3 msgs)
                           Opinions on NLS
Photos of spacecra(was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing)
                        Private space ventures
              Robots or Automatons? (was telepresence..)
     Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space (7 msgs)
                        Space Digest V15 #141
                space news from July 20 AW&ST (2 msgs)
                             Trip to KSC
         With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?

    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: 26 Aug 92 20:30:04 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chase planes (was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whate
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Harlan Harris) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (WENDY WARTNICK) writes:
>>
>>wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some
>>sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots
>I seem to remember that in the first few flights they did have some sort of
>chase planes. I don't recall if they had them during the actual launch,
The video Seven Days in Space (excellent) has shots of the launch from a chase
plane -- spectacular! The video is a composite of several pre-Challenger launches.
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 18:12:56 GMT
From: Harlan Harris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chase planes (was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (WENDY WARTNICK) writes:
>
>wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some
>sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots.  Yeah, I know
>there is no feasable reason for this, but I am mighty tired of artists'
>renditions.  Also, that way we could watch the shuttle go all of the way up
>  Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)?
>
>        just a random thought'
>
>            wendy

I seem to remember that in the first few flights they did have some sort of
chase planes. I don't recall if they had them during the actual launch, but
I'm fairly sure they had several jets fly down to Edwards with the shuttle
during the landing. I would imagine that it's too expensive to do normally,
and not real safe during a launch. Goldin would call that "waste"...

As for satellites, the only people that might have one with decent resolution
and the ability to track an object going Mach 20 or so are the DoD, and
there's no chance they'd release an actual photograph from a spysat.
However, I've heard that amateur astronomers with telescopes get enough
resolution to figure out what kind of military satellites are being released
from the shuttle, on the ground.

I know what you mean though. After a minute or two, the launch gets boring.
Take a look at the footage out the window during a launch from one of the
IMAX films, though. It shows the earth start to curve and the atmosphere
disappear, which is just as neat.

 -Harlan

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

Date: 25 Aug 92 17:36:25 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Martian Chronology
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Dave Jones) writes:
+In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Kenneth Freeman) writes:
+|Has a Martian calender been worked up for the benefit of future
+|colonists? Would the moons have a practical or a _pro forma_ role?
+|---
+|Free Tibet.
+|UUCP: {ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!kfree INET: [e-mail]
+
+A Martian calendar was written up in either "Galaxy" or "Astounding"
+SF magazines  in the 50s.  It may even have been an Asimov article.
+
+The real question is: would any colonists care enough about the seasons
+on Mars to want to track them accurately with a calendar?

Maybe not the seasons, but the day would be very important. Navigation
will probably be done with artificial satellites (GPS-like) rather
than the stars.

I once entertained putting together a Nautical Alamanac for Mars
for the year 1986 (My best guess for a manned mission) for navigational
purposes. It would have been simpler to put everything in terms of
Martian days than to keep everything in Earth days.
+
--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 12:57:47 GMT
From: "David W. Bishop" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Dennis Bruggink) writes:
>Maybe someone can save me some hunting:  I've checked a number of sites
>w/ GIFs for an image of the shuttle landing; I've found one in the Hubble
>series (hubble24.gif) which is exactly the view I'm after, but it's not
>very sharp.  Basically the shuttle has just touched down, and is seen
>as from a side view.
>

I went through the contents of ames.arc.nasa.gov pub/SPACE/GIF.  You will find
a file called CONTENTS in that directory which is a one line summery of all
the images I looked at and could figure out what they were.

Here is a summery for a couple of the images you are looking for:

          Image Name     Bytes  Size   Colors  Object
   ec89-0100-001.gif    442587 940x716   234   Shuttle
Space shuttle Atlantis, just as it is lowering its landing gear
   ec89-0100-012.gif    382036 944x656   248   Shuttle
Space Shuttle Atlantis, just before touchdown at Edwards AFB.

---
                            David Bishop

INTERNET: [e-mail]   | The opinions voiced are mine and
US MAIL:  RR2 Box 183A, Rome NY  13440  | not my company's.
PHYSICAL: 43.150N 75.414E 650'          |

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 17:41:00 GMT
From: WENDY WARTNICK <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dennis Bruggink) writes...
>Maybe someone can save me some hunting:  I've checked a number of sites
>w/ GIFs for an image of the shuttle landing; I've found one in the Hubble
>series (hubble24.gif) which is exactly the view I'm after, but it's not
>very sharp.  Basically the shuttle has just touched down, and is seen
>as from a side view.

and on this subject...

wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some
sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots.  Yeah, I know
there is no feasable reason for this, but I am mighty tired of artists'
renditions.  Also, that way we could watch the shuttle go all of the way up
  Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)?

        just a random thought'

            wendy

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 18:44:05 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (WENDY WARTNICK) writes:
>wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some
>sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots...

I've seen a photo of a shuttle launch seen from the air, from the Shuttle
training aircraft I think.

>  Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)?

They do, when they happen to be looking in the right direction.  I've seen
a weather-satellite image with a shuttle launch trail.  But there isn't
really anybody up there in the real-time moving-imagery business, barring
possibly some of the spysats.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 16:52:14 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Opinions on NLS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>NASA's primary mission is air and space flight R&D.
>
>Since NLS is not R&D but rather operations this is another excellent
>reason for dropping NLS.

NLS is not in operation. Or have I missed something, when did they start
service? Last I heard they were still doing *research* on the design that
they intend to *develop*.

Gary

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 18:35:55 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Photos of spacecra(was Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (WENDY WARTNICK) writes:
> wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some
> sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots.  Yeah, I know
> there is no feasable reason for this, but I am mighty tired of artists'
> renditions.  Also, that way we could watch the shuttle go all of the way up
>   Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)?

The video that Artsebarski and Krikalev brought to the Chicago area
has lots of neat shots of the whole Mir station taken from Soyuz, and
lots of neat shots of Soyuz and Progress operations taken from Mir.

The SPAS pallet deployed and retrieved again from the Shuttle in the
early Eighties took photos of the Shuttle from a distance.  More!
More!

During the first and second stage         Bill Higgins
flights of the vehicle, if a serious      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
irretrievable fault should occur and      [e-mail]
the deviation of the flight attitude of   [e-mail]
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined       SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
value, the attitude self-destruction
system will make the vehicle
self-destroyed.
     --Long March 3 User's Manual
     Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:16:41 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Private space ventures

>   As an aside, I will point out that most of those starving in Africa
> are doing so because their family and countrymen think it more
> important to kill each other than feed each other. Against a climate
> such as this, it is difficult to see how diverting finance from space
> into Africa is going to be of any lasting benefit.
>


... not to mention farmers in the "West" who profit by screaming loud
enough (or are sufficiently violent, like the french farmers) to get
paid for keeping food prices high and production down...

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:04:34 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robots or Automatons? (was telepresence..)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
 writes:

 > Not the same thing at all. Except for the Viking landers, *none* of the
 > spacecraft that ventured beyond the Moon have been able to manipulate
 > their environment. They have been mere sensor platforms. The common
 > usage of robot is more specialized than automation. It requires the
 > ability to manipulate the environment. The term robot also ordinarily
 > means autonomous to a large degree, capable of on the spot decisions.
 > This is in contrast to teleoperated devices that require distant super-
 > vision at the detail level in near real time.

[long elucidation on descriptions of past vehicles, etc., with Gary's
position above fleshed out, but pretty much the same]

Gee, Gary, I think your definition of 'robot' is a little too constrained.
Especially as you refer to the 'common usage', which I would say is more
like "A machine that has some behavior similar to the human form, or mind."

I think the reason that Voyager et.al., didn't manipulate their environement
was because there was no point.  Not only did we have no clue (well, little
clue :-) what was there to be manipulated, their job was just looking around.
Note that 'just looking around' is a behavior similar to the human form,
which I think is why many people consider it a robot.

Or,  if you prefer Heisenberg, you cannot help but manipulate the environment
by looking at it, therefore sensing platforms are robots by your definition.

Or, the term 'robot', which refers to special machines built for constructing
cars are not robots by your definition. No matter how hard they all work,
they will never change the fact that in front of each of them is a pile of
parts, and behind each is an assembly, leading to a built car.  They don't
manipulate their environment, since it never changes!  Sure, they assemble
stuff, but a picture of their environement taken at any random time would
not appear different than any other.

And, finally, to be just a little more nit-picky, a paraphrase from websters:

Robot:

1. A machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts
(as walking or talking) of a human being;...

2. An automatic apparatus or device that performs functions ordinarily ascribed
to human beings or operates with what appears to be almost human intelligence.

3. A mechanism guided by automatic controls.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 13:05:48 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for
>>HLVs this decade.

>How do you figure?

See the Soyuz thread. We can use Atlas/Soyuz for crew rotation and
one of the Zenith Star launchers for supply.

Don't worry, I'm not going to mutate the Soyuz thread here. If you didn't
see the details, I am going to do a writeup on them for my next column and
I will post it here in addition to talk.politics.space.

   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?"                               |
+----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 15:10:58 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>
>>I think Nick is right
>>in saying that HLVs have no commercial relevance in this decade.
>
>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for
>HLVs this decade.

It is NOT commercial. It is not a market. It is a monopoly subject to the whims
of the Federal Government.


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 16:52:12 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for
>>HLVs this decade.

>It is NOT commercial.

Not now, no. However, there is absolutely no reason it cannot become
commercial. Until it does, we aren't going anywhere.

>It is not a market.

A market is nothing more than a demand for goods and services which can
be met. If we have a space station, then there will be a demand to
transport people and supplies.

It is therefore a market.

>It is a monopoly subject to the whims of the Federal Government.

It need not be. If you lack the imagination to see that, say so
and I'll just drop it.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:58:57 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for
>>>HLVs this decade.
>
>>It is NOT commercial.
>
>Not now, no. However, there is absolutely no reason it cannot become
>commercial. Until it does, we aren't going anywhere.

>>It is not a market.
>
>A market is nothing more than a demand for goods and services which can
>be met. If we have a space station, then there will be a demand to
>transport people and supplies.

>It is therefore a market.

Fine. Come up with PRIVATE money, not public funds to build and launch the
station. According to you and Mr. Szabo, it's a goldmine of opportunites out
there. Please, demonstrate your financial wizardry and marketing skills here.

If it's so hot, you can lease space to the Federal Goverment. And since it IS a
market (implying multiple buyers of goods and services), if the Feds don't show
up, you can find enough other customers to cover your bills.

>>It is a monopoly subject to the whims of the Federal Government.
>
>It need not be. If you lack the imagination to see that, say so
>and I'll just drop it.

No, I think you lack the common sense to realize that if it was a commercial
venture, it would be built with private monies, and have multiple customers,
rather than have a (fatal) sole-source dependency on the (United States)
goverment.

They don't operate McMurdo Base in Antarticia <sp> as a "market." How much do
you want to stretch reality?

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 17:00:06 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>
>>I think Nick is right
>>in saying that HLVs have no commercial relevance in this decade.
>
>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for
>HLVs this decade.                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Really? And I thought Fred was a *government* project. Wonders will
never cease.

A market requires buyers and sellers. I don't see either in this
case. NASA is going to use it's in house Shuttle that it already
owns and has already paid for to build and supply Fred.

Gary

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 20:14:19 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>No, I think you lack the common sense to realize that if it was a commercial
>venture, it would be built with private monies,

We are talking about having it built with private money. No, not the
station but the resuply vehicles. Note the difference.

The US Air Force is not a commercial venture yet it is supplied by
commercial ventures. Do you think the govenrment owns the refineries
that supply the jet fuel? Everything from F-15s to toilet paper is
bought from the private sector.

Launches whether used to send satellites or resuply a government space
station can be commercial.

>They don't operate McMurdo Base in Antarticia <sp> as a "market."

I'll bet they do. Not the research conducted but the resuply.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:46:59 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Allen said...

>>>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for
>>>HLVs this decade.

I said ...
>>How do you figure?

Allen said ...

>See the Soyuz thread. We can use Atlas/Soyuz for crew rotation and
>one of the Zenith Star launchers for supply.

>Don't worry, I'm not going to mutate the Soyuz thread here. If you didn't
>see the details, I am going to do a writeup on them for my next column

I did indeed miss most of the Soyuz thread as I was incommunicado all summer,
so I apologise if I'm the questions I ask have already been covered.

1)  Accepting Soyuz (so we don't restart the thread), Freedom still requires
either a return of thrusters to Earth for refueling, or a decision not to
reuse them, or a redesign.  Which did you have in mind?

2) Accepting that industry is the best choice for resupply (which I think it
is), how do you plan to use an HLV?   The baseline plans I've seen put Ariane 5
at about the right size, and if you increase the payload, you decrease the
number of flights to the point where I begin to wonder if it's commercially
viable.  Maybe we need to agree on a definition of Heavy Lift.

--
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
             [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 05:03:54 LCL
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Digest V15 #141

>NASA is not some evil entity trying to keep humanity from developing space;
>they're trying to help in their own way, but they have their own problems.

NASA is not TRYING to keep humanity from developing space, they are simply
SUCCEEDING (in some cases) at keeping humanity from developing space.
Evil (or at least bad) acts often come from good intentions.

>Without the promise of near-term profit, you won't get industry to do what's
>necessary, so the government does things like SSF, and perhaps more
>importantly,  SSTO and NASP.

IMHO, you have the motivations reversed.  It is not that NASA is picking
up on a very real and important need that private investment has simply
ignored; it is that NASA, being an arm of the gov., has a literal
monopoly on what happens in space, and like all monolpolies, the only
benefits are to the holders of the monopoly.

Consider the phrase 'what's necessary' above.  Only someone who has
completely accepted a monopoly situation would think in terms of
'necessary' instead of 'desired, useful, marketable', etc.
Necessary for what? To whom? By whose standards?  The holders of the
monopoly, of course!

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:25:20 GMT
From: Doug Davey <[e-mail]>
Subject: space news from July 20 AW&ST
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
[Much deleted]
> Big article on the Tethered Satellite project.  This actually isn't the
> first test of tethers in space -- that was done on Gemini -- but it's
> the first test of long ones.  [I'll skip most of the technical details
[Much deleted]
> There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Are you speaking of Ed White, Mike Collins, & friends floating around at
the end of their umbilical cords?  Or, was there an actual deployment of a
tethered satellite that I've forgotten?  If you are speaking of Ed White &
company, wouldn't Alexi Leonov get the credit for the first tethered satellite
experiment?

--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Doug Davey        [e-mail]         bcr!iscp!ddavey

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 18:47:12 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: space news from July 20 AW&ST
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> Big article on the Tethered Satellite project.  This actually isn't the
>> first test of tethers in space -- that was done on Gemini...
>
>Are you speaking of Ed White, Mike Collins, & friends floating around at
>the end of their umbilical cords?  Or, was there an actual deployment of a
>tethered satellite that I've forgotten? ...

Neither one exactly.  On some of the later missions, they connected a
tether between the Agena docking target and the Gemini while docked, and
then separated and flew them as a tethered system for a while.  It sort
of worked; the tethers weren't too long and there was difficulty keeping
them taut.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 04:37:54 GMT
From: Miroslaw Kuc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trip to KSC
Newsgroups: sci.space

sci.space,

Next week I am planning to go to Orlando, Florida and while there take
an excursion to KSC, go on the tour and perhaps see the Sept 11 launch.

Is there anything I should look at in advance, like reservations for the
tour of KSC?  If I were to go see the space launch, where should I go?

Does anyone have any other suggestions?

Please reply by e-mail.  If there is enough interest I'll summarize and
post or is there already something out there I can refer to?

Thanks to all!

Miro
--
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Aug 92 16:39:36 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rui Sousa) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>   Not the same thing at all. Except for the Viking landers, *none* of the
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   spacecraft that ventured beyond the Moon have been able to manipulate
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   their environment. They have been mere sensor platforms. The common
>
>You are forgetting the Luna series and the Viking landers. Though not
>autonomous they certainly could turn rocks over...

Try again.

Gary

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 145
------------------------------