Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO168.ZIP/V15NO168

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

Date: Sat,  5 Sep 92 05:00:19
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #168
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  5 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
                    (Big) Bang in The Netherlands
                       Eclipse '92-Who saw it?
                 Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't
                             Flying wing
         Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? (4 msgs)
                        Laser distance record?
                    Mars Observer Press Kit (long)
                              Relativity
                        soviet rovers on mars
                        Space DIgest Archives
             SPS feasibility and other space development
                            Teleoperation
                 Upload Astronomy Lab for MS Win 3.x
     With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? (2 msgs)

    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: 4 Sep 92 10:06:07 GMT
From: Frank Teusink <[e-mail]>
Subject: (Big) Bang in The Netherlands
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello,

There was a thread in this newsgroup on the `bang' that occured a few
days (weeks?) ago down here in the Netherlands (Friesland). Although
the official explanation they give now is that some super-secret plane
went throuh the sound-wall (as suggested in this newsgroup), there was
yesterday an item on television in which a geologist gave the following
explanation:

We're pumping up gas in this region, and this causes leakage of water
to layers of chalk down below. Its starts a reaction with the chalk that
transforms it  into plaster (selenite?) (it would be much easier if you
called it 'gips' just like we do :-). This plaster has a higher volume
than chalk. Therefore, there is a build-up of tension in these layers,
that sometimes causes shock-waves.

It seems that there was another 'bang' a number (10?) of years ago. That
one was explaned by a concorde going through the sound-wall (this
explanation is disputed by the geologist). It seems that the explanation
of this geologist is backed by the Geology department of the University
of Utrecht. I don't know how these shock-waves explain the fact that the
'bang' was somewhere in the air (supersonic).

I hope this interests you,

Frank Teusink

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 15:26:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Eclipse '92-Who saw it?
Newsgroups: sci.space

 Is there anyone out there who went to see the solar eclipse of June '92? I am
looking primarily for a .GIF of it, but any description would be helpful.
                                       Thank You,
                                           Dan Kwiatkowski
                                           [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 14:16:04 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't

From "New Scientist", 29 August 1992:
METEORITE SHAKES DUTCH PROVINCE
Govert Schilling, Utrecht
  Two-and-a-half years after a meteorite crashed through the roof of a
house near the Dutch town of Enschede, another much bigger meteorite
has exploded over the Netherlands. Last Wednesday evening, people in
the northern province of Friesland heard a loud bang and felt tremors,
which set doors and windows rattling.
  With the recent earthquake in the southern part of the Netherlands
fresh in their minds, more than a hundred people called the police.
Others called the Dutch Air Force base in Leeuwarden, thinking its
planes might be taking part in some exercise.
  According to Henk Haak, head of the seismological department of the
Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, seismic stations near
the town of Assen, to the east of Friesland, registered the passing of
an acoustic shock wave, which ruled out an earthquake. And nor were
any jets flying at the time of the explosion.
  Although the sky was almost entirely obscured by cloud, at least 10
people reported seeing a huge flash or fireball, strengthening the
case for a meteorite. Niek de Kort of the Dutch Meteorite Documentation
Center says the best explanation is the explosion of a large, rather
porous stony meteorite, measuring about a meter across, which exploded
at a height of about 10 kilometers, less than a second before it would
have hit the ground near the town of Joure.
  "This was probably a scaled-down version of the large Tunguska
explosion in Siberia, back in 1908", says de Kort. Most astronomers
think that the Tunguska event was caused by the impact of a chunk of
cometary material. De Kort is pessimistic about retrieving any material
from the Dutch meteorite, which would probably have vaporised during
the explosion.
(end of article)
._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.

According to Harm Munk (Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:42:08 GMT), experts in
the Netherlands don't believe any longer in a meteorite, but think it
was a supersonic bang, though no known jet was in the area. This doesn't
explain the "huge flash or fireball". I suggest two other explanations:
1) Somebody (hoaxer or amateur scientist) launched a rather big home-made
rocket, which exploded at rather high altitude (over or inside the
clouds).
2) An air-air or air-ground missile escaped accidentally from a military
jet, and had to be destroyed on flight.

J. Pharabod

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

Date: 04 Sep 1992 16:14:19 -0300 (BST)
From: TYNTYN <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flying wing

Dear sir,
    I'm currently studying for a degree in Aerospace Engineering at KingstonUniversity. For my second year project, I have been requested to write a report
on the evolution of the flying wing. Could you please send me some information
regarding projects such as HOTOL and next generation space transport Vehicles.
Your help will be much appreicated .

Thank you


Aymen Mussad

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

Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:38:43 GMT
From: Andreas Michael Weder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi Barry,

two days ago I read an article on the topic of Mars in the german
magazine 'GEO'; they talked about some of the planned missions to
our neighbour planet and mentioned that there were still some
dreamers at NASA that actually intended to transform Mars.

I'd say, forget about that. Even a manned mission to Mars would cost
*at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher).
Terraforming is a nice SF idea and sounds like an easy thing to
do, but IMHO we don't know enough about the involved systems
to even think about changing a planet. It's stupid, will cost
too much (NASA will not be given the money for 'Big Tickets' in the
next years) and belongs to SF.

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 15:18:51 GMT
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Barry Kort) writes:
>A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters
>tells me:
>        A fairly large team <at NASA>, is planning the terraforming
>        of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it.
>        Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C.  And with minimal study of
>        that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur.
>        After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based
>        micro-organisms and rugged plant life.
>Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise
>elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars?

Your collegue has almost certainly read far too much science fiction.

It is fairly likely that someone at NASA is studying how one might terraform
Mars.  It is certain that neither NASA nor the human race as a whole has the
either engineering know-how nor the *budget* to accomplish this any time soon.

And if your friend is concerned about the pristine environment of Mars being
destroyed, well I certainly share that concern, but there's a much more
important ecological disaster to be solved here on the Earth -- the loss of
the Earth's pristine reducing atmosphere due to the ecological irresponsibility
of photosynthetic organisms.  Clearly mankind has an obligation to fix this
disaster as soon as possible.

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

Date: 4 Sep 1992 16:06:21 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry Kort) writes:
>A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters

Well, he's not.

>tells me:
>
>        A fairly large team <at NASA>, is planning the terraforming
>        of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it.

We hardly "know" Mars.

>        Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C.  And with minimal study of
>        that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur.
Huh?
>        After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based
>        micro-organisms and rugged plant life.
>
>Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise
>elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars?

As far as I know, NASA only has two funded Mars spacecraft projects.
Mars Observer is to be launched in the next 6 weeks to orbit Mars, take
pictures, watch the weather, etc. No landing will take place. NASA is
also involved with the joint XSSR/Russian/French missions to land on
Mars in 1994/96 timeframe. This includes use of Mars Observer to relay
data from the landers.

There is a study on Goldin's desk that proposes to land a number of
small weather stations on Mars to get a better picture of the global
weather and climate, called MESUR. There have been studies for a sample
return mission that would include a rover or two. This is as far along
as some prototype/technology testbeds being built at JPL and
Carnegie-Mellon U. This may lead to a project start.

The probable origin of this rumor is a book by a contractor at
JSC (Jim Oberg) on how to terraform Mars. There have also been a few
what-if type papers done by the NASA and planetary science community
following up on this. I know of no "fairly large team" working on this
with NASA money.  In fact, a big chunk of the SEI support staff at JSC
(19 contactors) get pink slips in the next week, due to lack of FY 93
money. This sounds like more wild rumors started by ecofreaks to show
how evil NASA and the Government are.



--
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| [e-mail]    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
| "No the game never ends when your whole
|       world depends on the turn of a friendly card"

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

Date: 5 Sep 92 01:16:41 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Barry Kort) writes:
>A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters
>tells me:
>        A fairly large team <at NASA>, is planning the terraforming
>        of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it.
>        Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C.  And with minimal study of
>        that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur.
>        After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based
>        micro-organisms and rugged plant life.
>Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise
>elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars?

There are no plans by NASA to terraform Mars.  You might see an occasional
discussion of what if scenarios on to how to terraform Mars, but there is
definitely nothing concrete in the workings.   NASA follows its own planetary
protection requirements that complies with international planetary quarantine
agreements not to contaminate Mars with terrestrial organisms.  For example,
Mars Observer is required to survive in orbit until the year 2009 with a
99.9% probability and to survive thereafter until the year 2039 with a
95% probablity.  Mariner 9 was placed in an orbit that will remain
stable for at least 50 years.  The Viking landers were sterlized and
placed into hermetically sealed biocaps before they were launched, and
the Viking orbiters were placed in a long-term stable orbit.  The spacecraft
landers used in the upcoming MESUR mission will also be sterilized and
stored in bioshields.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 3 Sep 92 14:25:00 GMT
From: Shawn McCarthy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Laser distance record?
Newsgroups: sci.space

 > To date, what is the farthest that a laser has been seen from?

 > I recall a successful experiment sending a laser beam from the
 > Earth to a Surveyor lander on the Moon in the sixties.  That
 > would make the current record approx. 384,400 km?
if i remember, a laser was bounced off mirrors on the moon and seen on earth..
so probably twice that.

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 15:27:41 GMT
From: Martin Connors <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Press Kit (long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>                               MARS OBSERVER
>                                 PRESS KIT
> Mars Observer Laser Altimeter (MOLA)
>
>      The Mars Observer Laser Altimeter uses a very short
> pulse of laser light to measure the distance from the
> spacecraft to the surface with a precision of several meters.
> These measurements of the topography of Mars will provide a
> better understanding of the relationship among the Martian
> gravity field, the surface topography and the forces
> responsible for shaping the large-scale features of the
> planet's crust.

This is great - comparable resolution in altimetry for Venus (from
Magellan) and Mars. If only something as good existed for Earth! I think
there is an 'etopo5' database for Earth but the precision is likely not as
great especially for ocean floor which is 70% of Earth. Comments?

Martin Connors
University of Alberta

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 11:21:50 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relativity
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (pete)
-Subject: Re: What is the speed of light measured from?
-Date: 3 Sep 92 12:44:00 GMT
-Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny

[e-mail] (Richard Ottolini) writes...
->[e-mail] (pete) writes:
->>Neglecting the engineering problems of high speed travel through an
->>imperfect vacuum, you can travel light centuries in subjective
->>hours if you accelerate long enough. If you arrive at the Andromeda
->>galaxy 2 weeks after leaving earth, you could be justified in
->>thinking you travelled faster than c. It's just that the rest of
->>the universe will have aged 2x10^8 years.
->
->No. You would not feel you are going faaster, but the universe got smaller
->and slower.  These are stardard result of Special Relativity.

-*sigh* ...I should just learn to keep my mouth shut.
-OK consider: you've accelerated to .99999 c relative to your
-original frame. Tangential to your world line at that instant
-is an inertial frame, in which your speed is instantaneously 0.
-Now consider this new frame to be the rest frame, and your
-velocity relative to it is small, but steadily increasing as
-you continue your constant acceleration. Clearly, a newtonian
-approximation of your situation considered from this frame
-will conclude that you continue to experience the full force
-of your acceleration, just as you did when you first started
-from your initial rest frame. That is, just because you are
-traveling at nearly c relative to your initial frame doesn't
-mean that in your frame you sense your acceleration decreasing.
-And you have absolutely no reason to model the universe outside
-as getting smaller. That's just silly.

But length of objects in other frames of reference *does* decrease by the
factor of the Lorenz contraction, same as passage of time. (And effective
mass increases by one over this factor.) If you're in a fast spaceship,
and you use a Doppler radar to determine your velocity relative to the
objects around you, you will always get a value less than c. If it's
going to take an hour of subjective time (at constant velocity) to
reach the Andromeda galaxy then any measurement of the distance to the
galaxy will put it at less than one light-hour.

There are several factors which have to be considered, and which are
often left out of popular accounts of relativity:

 - There is often considerable confusion between what can be observed
   within a particular frame of reference and what a person in that frame
   of reference would see. For the single observer, the lightspeed delay
   of information on its way to the observer has to be taken into account.
   Contrary to popular opinion, it's possible to set up a coordinated time
   system throughout a frame of reference, and it's valid to say that
   two events within a given frame of reference that took place a great
   distance apart were simultaneous. Simultaneity between two different
   frames of reference has no meaning. (A "frame of reference" includes
   all the objects in the universe that are motionless with respect to
   one another.)

 - Special relativity only applies directly to objects that are not
   undergoing acceleration. For something that's accelerating, you need
   general relativity, which has much harder math. People often throw in
   acceleration when it's not needed as part of a thought experiment on
   special relativity. Even with acceleration, you will never observe
   anything that will lead you to believe that you're moving faster than
   the speed of light with respect to anything else. A single observer
   may still see some interesting effects due to the previously-mentioned
   lightspeed delay in receiving information. For instance, if a spacecraft
   is moving toward Earth at nearly the speed of light, its position as
   you observe it will appear to translate toward the Earth at a much greater
   rate than the speed of light. However, blueshift measurement will show
   that it's actually traveling slower than light, and if you set up
   a network of observers through your frame of reference with synchronized
   clocks, they will show that the spacecraft is moving slower than light.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 08:11:04 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: soviet rovers on mars
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, john@newave (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>I have also heard a rumor that Gagarin's flight did not complete an entire
>orbit, and the Soviets supposedly airlifted his capsule a few hundred miles
>to the east to make it appear that they completed a full orbit.  Has anyone
>else heard this?

I hadn't heard this, though it wouldn't surprise me that someone made the
claim.  Maybe it even happened, though that wouldn't, in my eyes, detract from
the accomplishment of the flight.  (I have read that his capsule was
substantially damaged on landing.)  The basis for the claim that Gagarin didn't
complete a full revolution could also be that Vostok 1 was in orbit for less
than one full revolution.  I don't think there's any question that Gagarin was
put into orbit, and only firing the retrorocket brought Vostok down when it
did.  The first two Mercury flights, in contrast, were suborbital all the
way--although their retrorockets were fired, the capsules were going to come
right down without the retrofire.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 12:52:32 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space DIgest Archives

At long last, an archive of Space Digest is available for anonymous
ftp on julius.cs.qub.ac.uk in pub/SpaceDigestArchives.

Each volume of space digest going back to V1 in 1981 is available as
a single tar.Z file. Early volumes are quite reasonable in size.
Recent ones are a bit out of hand due to people reposting large
bodies of usually unnecessary text.

For those who have Digital Librarian, each volume is pre-indexed. The
index makes it an extremely valuable research tool.

The file sizes run from 1-9 MB.

As movies ads would say 5 YEARS IN THE MAKING. I believe Gene Miya
and Henry Spencer and I first started discussing the need for this in
1986 or 87.

And I wish to thank the help and encouragement in this project over
the years (most of which were spent in procrastination, but that's
beside the point):

    Ted Anderson
    Eugene Miya
    Todd Masco
    Mark Maimone
    Bill Higgins
    Henry Spencer

There is a README file that describes where the issues came from and
lists what is currently missing/truncated, etc. I will try to fill in
the gaps over the next 5 years :-)

I will update from time to time as the holes are filled in. The
current volume will always be available from isu.isunet.edu. I may or
may not have it on line here until it "closes".

PS: This might as well be added to the FAQ resource list.

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 15:19:50 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

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

>>There are times when you follow hunches and gut feel on engineering
>>issues because you simply don't have solid fact to go on.

>This is quite different than persisting with a narrow set of hunches,
>turned into religiously held beliefs, even if they have failed over
>and over, at great cost, while ignoring the many superior alternatives.

>>I think both Dennis and I and Allan would all agree that the fastest
>>way to drive a technology (rather than science) into the the future
>>capabilities we want is to build lots of quick and dirty prototypes
>>that we can crash, blow up and otherwise mangle as a means of
>>collecting EMPIRICAL data.

>This is not at all what Dennis and Allen have been promoting.  They
>have been advocating huge, expensive projects like HLVs, space stations,
>astronauts to Mars, and SPS that, when they fail, bring big chunks of
>the space program down with them.  They say we lack "vision"
>or "guts" unless unless we are willing to bet the house on such singular
>spectaculars.

If you'll notice, Allen is advocating that NASA say they'll buy
commercial HLV launches from suppliers who get stuck with the
bill if it blows up, while Dennis seems to want NASA to build
the HLV's itself, or at least dictate the size, shape, and even
the engines used to the "commercial" contractor...

A lot of what Allen seems to be saying is that "If you really
want an HLV, say you'll buy an HLV and maybe some dolt out
there will bolt one together out of Deltas and save you from
building an assembly line and factory for a vehicle you'll
launch once every two years..."

>Let's make NASA support the commercial space industry, by buying their
>launchers and leasing their communcations networks, instead of NASA
>dictating their narrow, obsolete plans for the shape, size, and orbit of
>space infrastructure to all the other space users.

Amen lord!

[...]

>In short, you have expressed a great strategy for the space program,
>a visions of diverse and quick experiments, nearly 180 degrees opposed
>to the way things have been promoted in the space advocacy community
>and done at NASA.  Let's turn the keel and get on course.

Lots of space advocates talk about and hope for such things. It just
doesn't get covered _that_ much by the folks at _Ad Astra_ who seem
to deviate from mega-projects just long enough to clone Greenpeace's
newsletter every April for FROMATE (*) Day.

>--
>[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
>Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)

(*) You know, the Fromates? The Friends of Man and the Earth?
The guys who have been trying to blow up Todos Santos for the
longest time... ;-)

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 14:04:28 GMT
From: "Kieran A. Carroll" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teleoperation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
> ...I believe one of the cost-cutting measures for SSF was
>to have the external robots operated largely from the ground rather than
>exclusively by the astronauts on the station.
>

Well, you're correct that ground control of the ``external robots''
has now become an issue. And yes, the changes that were made to the
SSF design and its operations plan that made this an issue were made to
cut overall SSF costs. However, there is a problem...

The Mobile Servicing System (MSS) is Canada's contribution to SSF.
It includes the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), and the
Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM), the main external
robots on SSF. The program cost to develop these is CDN$1.4 Billion,
according to the ``pre-scrub'' baseline. That baseline >does not< include
the capability to control these robots from the ground. Indeed, at
$1.4B the program is somewhat under-funded, and so even the hooks and scars
for ground control have been deleted. If ground control is to be added in,
new money is going to have to be found. Question: is this going to have
to be Canadian money? Or American money? In other words, in redesigning
the space station to reduce NASA's costs, NASA made the existing MSS
design inadequate for its role in the new operations plan; in order to
upgrade MSS to meet its new role, Canada may have to shell out a significant
amount of extra money---by decreasing the NASA program costs, NASA has
increased Canada's program costs. Sounds great for NASA...IF the Canadian
federal cabinet decides to approve the extra money. It seems that
NASA didn't consult our cabinet during the redesign.

The Canadian Space Agency is at this moment evaluating the costs,
benefits and technical options for adding ground control to MSS. they
are quite interested in expanding the system's capabilities, partly because
it would increase the profile of their program, but mainly because they
want SSF to work as planned, and ground control looks like one of the
best ways to address some technical issues that have been coming up
lately (e.g. the availability fo crew for maintenance during SSF
assembly is somewhat less than the amount required). Let's hope that
the Canadian government decides to come up with the extra money to
make this happen...
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 07:18:32 GMT
From: John Haddy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Upload Astronomy Lab for MS Win 3.x
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.windows.ms.misc,comp.ibm.pc.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.apps,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric Bergman-Terrell) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
|> >This file is available at ftp.cica.indiana.edu in the windows area.
|> >            Fuzzy
|> >
|>
|> Anyone know if it the most current version (1.13)?
|>
|>
The current version will become available soon from laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
(137.111.3.11 - also known as ftp.ocs.mq.edu.au).

Give me till the middle of next week before trying tho'!

John Haddy

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

      |  _  |_   _   |_|  _   _|  _|              Electronics Department
    |_| (_) | | | |  | | (_| (_| (_| \/           School of MPCE
    ---------------------------------/-           Macquarie University
                                                  Sydney, AUSTRALIA 2109

    Email: [e-mail], Ph: [phone], Fax: [phone]

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

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 14:09:02 GMT
From: "Kieran A. Carroll" <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>...Telepresence, automated extraction and processing tech,
>and the like are quite important for future space development, as well
>as being the most ripe for spin-offs in Earthside industries.
>
>While space activists and NASA neglect these critical fields,
>the most important such work is still going on down here on Earth,
>in areas from medicine to oil to cable-laying.

Actually, as far as I can tell (and I work in this field),
most of the research money spent in these areas in the last
5 years or so has come from NASA, leading to a true renaissance
in these fields.

--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Sep 92 15:29:17 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>The problem is, projects like TSS and SSF are designed around a launcher
>that doesn't give frequent and simple access to orbit.  TSS, for example,
>could easily have been a quarter the size, a tenth the cost, teleoperated,
>launched commercially, and provided 90% of the needed data.
[...]

Just commenting...

Anyone notice that despite being designed for the Shuttle, TSS was
_not_ apparently designed for astronaut servicing?

Aster all the trouble the program has experienced from being
tied to the Shuttle, they should have at least taken advantage
of some of the advantages they could have gotten, and put someone
outside in a spacesuit to shove on it or kick it or wave a dead
chicken over it or whatever needed to be done...

Moral of the story: If you insist on having the people there,
at least use them... the way the mission was run, it might
as well have been teleoperated, apparently.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 168
------------------------------