Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_4/V15NO440.ZIP/V15NO440

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

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 05:02:59
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #440
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 20 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 440

Today's Topics:
            Clinton's address (was Re: Feynmann's legacy)
                       Galileo HGA: Hypothesis
                           Hubble's mirror
                     Lunar "colony" reality check
                         Moon Capture Theory
                             NASA Coverup
                    ROTATION OF THE MOON (3 msgs)
                     Shuttle replacement (6 msgs)
                            SSTO viability
              SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
              What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
                       world in danger (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: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:28:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton's address (was Re: Feynmann's legacy)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>For such a together dude, why doesn't Clinton (and Gore) have an e-mail
>>address and access to the NET???  They'll Never know what's going on
>>unless they be on-line.  They should at least be FAQed in.
>>
> The Clinton/Gore campaign did have an account on CompuServe (I don't remember
> the account number).  I had heard some talk after the election that they
> would keep the account, but I haven't heard a final decision yet.
>
> --
Well, I tried to mail to that account, and got the message returned saying
that the mailbox was full.  It seems that even though the store is there,
noone is minding it.

            John.

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

Date: 19 Nov 92 21:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Galileo HGA: Hypothesis
Newsgroups: sci.space



        Another naive query about Galileo's HGA problem.

        Can it send data at a high rate but with little power?

        If so, what if a relay craft were sent after it to gather and
        send information back at the intended rate?

        Would this work?


      o < < < < < < < < < < < <  )-x  . . . . )-G

      earth                     relay       Galileo




                                             Lawrie Williams

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

Date: 19 Nov 92 20:40:53 GMT
From: "William H. Jefferys" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
#In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William H. Jefferys) writes:
#>I'll agree, the error would have been caught if the primary
#>and secondary mirrors had been tested together. There are
#>lots of simple tests that would have caught the error.
#>None were used.
#
#This is rapidly becoming a contender for Technological Myth Of The Decade.
#
#If you look at what actually happened, rather than the popular mythology,
#the fact is that three independent tests were run, and TWO OF THEM DETECTED
#THE ERROR.  At which point, Perkin-Elmer management decided that the third
#was more trustworthy than the other two, and ignored the two failed tests.

The tests to which you refer are the refractive null and
the inverse null, in addition to the faulty reflective null.
All three of them are based on the same basic interferometric
technology, and are not independent in the sense that I
meant. You are correct, had P-E decided to investigate the
discrepancies between the reflective null and the other two
devices (which agreed with each other) the problem would have
been discovered. Had the optics people who built the reflective
null realized that there was a problem when they found themselves
shimming out the lens cell for the field lens with washers, the
problem would have been found. Had they measured the position of
the field lens with a PLASTIC RULER, it would have been found.
There were lots of red flags flying, and they were all ignored.

By an independent test, I meant a geometric-optics test such as a
Hartmann test that could have, fairly cheaply, detected the problem.
I certainly don't want to be accused of promoting a Technological
Myth; I am personally quite cognizant of the technical issues involved,
owing to my long association with the HST project. But I am using
'independent' in a different sense than you.

Bill

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

Date: 19 Nov 1992 17:32:57 GMT
From: Joel Plutchak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne Harvey) writes:
>That would lead to the assumption that the moon would
>be of a different composition than Earth, with possibly greater concentrations
>of elements (mineable (sp?) quantities). This would change the picture
>somewhat, when you assume that the only mineral explorations done on
>the lunar surface were conducted in the equivalent of the Sahara.

   Could you clarify that last statement?  Start with defining
"mineral explorations" and what "conducted in the equivalent of
the Sahara" means.
   I know that imaging data from which one can infer mineral
composition is not very abundant for the Moon, but the Galileo
encounter(s) and Earth-based telescopic studies have contributed
somewhat to our understanding of the composition of the lunar
surface.  See various recent publications for further information,
e.g. proceedings of the Lunar & Planetary Science Conferences, the

American Geophysical Union conferences, and Science magazine.
(And look for more results from next month's second Galileo
encounter of the Earth/Moon system.)
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 17:25:25 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Capture Theory

>I seem to remember some theory a while back that the moon was actually
>*captured* by Earth at some stage (I think it was about 800 million
>years ago), which also has corollaries in some of the very early
>human legends. That would lead to the assumption that the moon would
>be of a different composition than Earth, with possibly greater concentrations
>of elements (mineable (sp?) quantities). This would change the picture
>somewhat, when you assume that the only mineral explorations done on
>the lunar surface were conducted in the equivalent of the Sahara.

This seems a rather shaky theory on first look.  For the Earth to capture
something the size of the moon, and yet stay in the same orbit, and a
nearly circular one at that, seems highly unlikely.  I could imagine a
moon of a relatively small mass being captured, with no major orbital
effects, and I can imagine an Earth with a very elliptical orbit having
it's orbit circularized by the capture, but the former isn't the case,
if the capture was after the period of planet formation, and the latter
is incredibly unlikely, since the timing would have to be so good.  And
where did this to-be-captured moon form in the first place?

If the moon was already in the solar system (low velocity, relative to the
Earth) how did it get here?  If it wasn't in the solar system, it's
momentum would be huge, and an interaction would throw the Earth out of.
a stable orbit, no?

Has anyone heard of a fleshing-out of this theory?  Does it use simulations,
of is it based just on legends, or what?

Of course, while everyone is discussing cheaper or better ways to colonize
the moon, why not discuss cheaper and better ways to answer these questions
about lunar composition?  Seems to me that spending $$ to design a lunar
colony (as I understand NASA did/is doing) without knowing what's available
is the ultimate 'putting-your-eggs-in-one-basket'.

> Wayne Harvey
> [e-mail]

-Tommy Mac
-----------------------------============================================
Tom McWilliams              | What a tangled web we weave, when at   ". |
[e-mail]      |              ,  .first we .practice .*'  .|
[phone] -or- 353-2986|            '. '  . . to decieve    ,      |
a scrub Astronomy undergrad | After that, the  ,          +             |
at Michigan State University| improvement is tremendous! '.  , .'       |
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:41:59 GMT
From: Joel Plutchak <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>    I  am  , at least,gratified to learn that Velikovsky's idea of planetary
>   collisions , long scorned and ridiculed by the scientific community ,  is
>   now the prevailing theory explaining the origin of the moon.
>
>   snarfy

  >- chuckle! -<
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:57:34 GMT
From: "Bradford B. Behr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Newsgroups: sci.space

>> The same thing is happening, much more slowly, to the earth --
>> friction with the tides and within the "solid" earth is slowing the
>> rotation rate by something on the order of 1 sec every century. We can
>> actually measure it (the slowdown) nowadays. Love those atomic clocks!
>
>Do you know if that rate is constant?  Say around 63M years ago,
>around the time of the end of the dinosaurs, the day would have
>been 175 hrs longer!

If the rotation rate is slowing down, then in the past it would have
been faster, and the day would have been shorter, not longer. (I would
guess that your mind thought "shorter" and your fingers typed
"longer".)

Anyway...

I would suspect that the rate of energy loss would depend on the
rotation rate, so the rotation rate would drop off exponentially, or
at least in an asymptotic fashion. Which would mean that 63M years
ago, the day would have been _at least_ 175 hrs _shorter_, and
probably much more.

Hmmm... something fishy there. 24 hrs minus 175 hrs is.... yeah.

OK, so it looks like my 1 sec/century value was incorrect. That'll
teach me to post dimly remembered facts to the net. ("Always... no,
no, _Never_ forget to check your references." -- _Real Genius_, a
great flick).  Regardless, I'm going to do it again. I remember
reading somewhere once that the terran day was once 10 hours. If
anybody out there would like to verify or trash this figure, with a
valid reference, I'd be most appreciative.

Thanks,
Brad

"c = 2.99... no, 55 mph. Yeah! That's the ticket!"
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bradford B. Behr                   [e-mail]
     Sacramento Peak National Solar Observatory, Sunspot NM 88349
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:55:10 GMT
From: "paul.h.nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Newsgroups: sci.space

Since the moon is gradually receding from the earth, due to tidal effects,
can we extrapolate backwards in time and postulate how close it has been
to the earth and when?

ALso, can we pick a lower bound earth orbit, where the moon would have broken
up and fallen into the earth, and use that as an UPPER bound for the
age of the earth-moon system?

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:01:19 GMT
From: Matthew Sheppard <[e-mail]>
Subject: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Trevor German) writes:
>|    Re: sending a message to the future.
>|
>|        I have a much better idea. Take a dead satelite. A big one,
>|    like say the moon. Then blast its surface with  enough nukes to
>|    make an easily recognisable pattern that would be only partly
>|    erased by comet and meteoride collisions. Then just for good measure,
>|    adjust the rotational velocity of the moon so that the message
>|    always faces the earth. The message could be something like
>|    a big face......................
>|

>And put it at a distance so that it subtends the same angular diameter
>as the sun.

Question:
    Why is the moon orbiting the earth at the same rate it rotates?  It
can't be pure luck that the same side of the moon is always facing us.

Perhaps someone already tried to send us a message and we just haven't
read it yet.




--
| Matthew Sheppard  CLARKSON UNIVERSITY  [e-mail] |
| I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.ANoN |
| I don't want a pickle. DoD#477 TEP#477 RIDE FREE (8^]..etcetera..    |

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:02:49 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Your saying that since the subcontractors are turning a profit it therefore
>follows that NASA is making a profit. If you think about that for a moment
>you will see that it makes no sense.

I would hope this country could do more with its space program than just keep
its contractors profitable.  But NASA isn't a contractor -- it's a government
agency.  Government agencies don't earn profits, nor should they.  They should
be doing things in the public interest that can't earn a profit.  If it earns
a profit, then it should be done by private industry, not government.

>Profit is when you collect more in fees/sales than you spend. If you add
>up all the money collected in fees and subtract out the amount spent you
>will see that Shuttle has lost billions.

So?  The Shuttle was never supposed to earn a profit -- it's run by a govern-
ment agency called NASA.  The interstate highway system didn't earn a profit
either, but most people consider it money well spent.

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:05:35 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hugh Emberson) writes:
>
>This sounds a lot like Shuttle-C, whatever happened to that idea?

The Shuttle-C and ALS programs were combined to form NLS, then Shuttle-C was
never heard from again.

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:13:25 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>I don't doubt that much cheaper expendables CAN be build (Zenith Star
>launchers for example cut costs in half). I simply don't believe that the US
>government can build them.

Then why do you propose that the U. S. government build Delta Clipper?

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:36:19 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Shuttle doesn't do anything which can't be done by existing and near term
>systems.

The Shuttle does many many things that nothing else in the fleet will do.  The
most obvious is serve as a manned spacecraft.  The original article in this
thread listed many more.

>Titan IV can lift any existing or planned payload Shuttle can lift.

The Shuttle has twice the payload capacity of the Titan IV.  It can also
launch cargoes the Titan IV can't touch.  Would _you_ volunteer to fly a
Spacelab mission in a Titan IV payload fairing?

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:27:02 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>I would hope this country could do more with its space program than just keep
>its contractors profitable.  But NASA isn't a contractor -- it's a government
>agency.  Government agencies don't earn profits, nor should they.

1. The original poster said that Shuttle had the 'highest return on
investment' of any launcher. I am simply pointing out that isn't correct
and I am glad that you seem to agree.

2. No, government shouldn't be making a profit but nither should they
provide subsidies to lock out private competition. Shuttle has not only
been a sink into which we dump billions but it also was very nearly
responsible for killing the private US launch industry. If Chalenger
had happened just a few years later then Ariane would now have 100%
of the world launch market.

>They should
>be doing things in the public interest that can't earn a profit.

Since providing launch services is a profitable buisness then I am glad
to see we agree.

    Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:23:02 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl Hage) writes:

>Although Gore was flamed here for this speech, it would seem to me that he
>could be a very strong supporter of SSTO.

Let's hope so.

>Development of DC-X has been relatively low cost, but can you convince
>everyone that DC-1 will be cheap? Are the cost predictions realistic?

No, you can never convince everybody. However, the cost predictions are
the best available. If nothing else the fact that the design and construction
of DC-X is on time and on budget gives a good indication that their cost
estimators know what they are talking about.

There are risk areas and it would be a good idea to spend a few million
to test those.

>(BTW: I wasn't sure about the engines for DC-1. In scaling up, are
>more engines added or larger engines added? If larger, does that mean
>using SSME type engines or a whole new design?)

DC-Y will use larger engines (about 200K pounds of thrust each). There
are two options available:

1. A new engine called the RL-200 which initially is composed of some
   off the shelf components and some new components.

2. Using Apollo J2 engines. This will significantly cut into payload
   but will support continuous imporvement of the overall system.

>: This [being cheaper than HL-20] BTW is a source of trouble for SSTO.

>A source of trouble? HL20 won't win any arguments claiming to be better
>because it's more expensive. They might win if SSTO is making exagerated
>claims though.

Another way is to make exagerated claims yourself and throw dirt on the
competition.

>Of course, as Gore said, "trying to fund all [alternatives]
>in the current budget environment is ridiculous", so every project is
>going to have to compete for it's existence.

Exactly.

>Claims of $1M or even $10M launch costs seem too low to be believable.
>Since the claims for the Space Shuttle, nuclear power (too cheap to meter),
>etc. were very wrong in the past figures like this are taken with a
>great deal of skepticism. Does your info kit offer clear and complete
>information that will convince a skeptic?

Only circumstantial. If the models are correct than DC will fly for
$1 to $10M per flight. However we need DC-X to verify the models.

However the circumstantial evidence supports it. After all, the cost and
part count of a launcher is about the same as a commercial airliner. The
rest is up to the technology and to date nobody questions that it can
be done as far as the technology is concerned.

>For point 3, there seems to be a particular timetable in mind for
>producing DC-X/Y/1. How does that timetable compare with the alternatives?

An operational DC-1 should be flying in 97 IF (this is a big if) we can
get Congress to fund it properly. BTW, since we are only looking at $1B
per year over about four years this is an achieveable goal provided
supporters put and keep pressure on Congress.

>The unknowns in the timetable probably relate to developing new technologies
>to address problems which have not yet been solved. What are the major
>new technologies which need to be developed by DC-X and DC-Y?

Very few. The main ones relate to the turbopumps and some of the structural
materials. Proposals exist to build test articles on all of these which
should answer most if not all open questions for about $25 million.

>On point 4, we haven't had an opportunity on the net to find out how well the
>project is managed.

Their performance to date has been excellent. They are still on time and
on budget.

>Conceputally, as stated above, the idea of scaling up
>seems like a plus and allows funding to be contingent on success. However,
>I don't understand the GAO (?) report which was critical of the project.
>How about summarizing the objections given in the report with a response.

I assume you mean the review by the Surveys and Investigations staff
at Appropriations or the NASA Assessment. (BTW, every other group
from the NRC to the Aerospace Corporation who has looked at it has
endorsed it; even the NASA assessment says it is possible if they
are allowed to do it).

There is much to call the S&I report into question. First of all, the
committee is keeping the document to itself and will only allow
Congresspersons to see it and even then only with a committee member
present. Even staffers who advise Congresspersons aren't allowed to
see it. Note that the document isn't classified. Anything held this
closely and not subject to open review cannot be taken seriously.

Of what we do know about the report, they only seem to have used
comments from people at NASA Langly especially people 'competing'
with SSTO. SSTO proponents don't seem to have been contacted. Of the
specific comments we know about, all seem to have come from documents
which are several years old and obsolete.

>Are there some ballpark estimates for total costs to develop DC-1?

$2 to $4 billion.

>I fail to understand why
>NASA, etc. isn't enthusiastic about SSTO. I won't buy that the reason
>is bureaucracy, or it is an "outside" project.

Well I think that IS the main reason. NASA is famous for its Not Invented
Here (NIH) attitude about technology. Look at it this way, your a mid level
NASA manager. You are counting on HL-20 to keep you and your people funded
into the next decade. Yet a working SSTO calls all that into question. What
do you do?

>    7. The chance of success is high

Every agency who has looked at it says that it is or will soon be possible.

>project? The NASP needs to have an engine developed, and this is not a
>simple matter of engineering a design. Are there similar sorts of problems
>with DC-Y?

The project emphasises using existing technology and rapid prototyping.
This reduces risk and provides an excellent platform for both research
and continuous improvement of the concept.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:12:07 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO viability

-From: [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright)
-Subject: Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
-Date: 18 Nov 92 20:08:14 GMT
-Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA

-In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
->>Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
->>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do?

->I hope so. We are working hard on that (again, let me know if you want
->to help). We have shown a few key people that there is support for this.

-Nothing that doesn't have "ecological disaster" in its title has
-the ability to fascinate Al Gore.

I have read statements to this effect, written by persons whose eyes
presumably glow red in the dark (such is their political fervor), but
most people who make an effort to be objective about the matter and
who have actually studied his record would find it hard to ignore
Senator Gore's involvement in non-environmental (especially technical)
issues.

-However, Milton Freidman used
-to tell a story about geese and politicians.  If you watch a flock
-of geese, flying in "V" formation behind the leader, everyone once
-in a while you will see them start to head in the wrong direction.
-The other geese, realizing something's wrong, turn and continue in
-the correct direction.  Finally the "leader" turns his head, realizes
-no one is following him, and starts to flap like mad to get in front
-of everybody else again.  Politicians operate much the same way.

At least several thousand Canadian geese live around here, so I see
great numbers of them almost every day. I don't recall seeing that
particular behavior pattern, but I'll keep an eye out for it. It's not
clear to me that the goose in front is actually leading - the V-formation
appears mainly intended to reduce the energy required for flight, *except*
for the one in front. I believe the geese trade places every now and then,
in order to let the 'leader' rest. (Much like a group of bicycle racers.)
In certain respects, geese are among the world's best flyers, so I expect
they know what they're doing.

What *I'd* like to know is why geese feel it necessary to honk frequently
as they fly along, and what perhaps 50% of them know about Canada, that
they refuse to go there even in the summer! :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:21:54 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

Sounds like a good way to get our whole current fleet grounded.  Seriously,
I think a better approarch might be the cost reductions to EOS that could be
had if we could use a Delta Clipper to launch them.

>>When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
>>all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
>>Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
>>news.  (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)

I'm not so sure that we even want the public to know about it until its ready
to fly.  Skunkworks only works in a low-profile situation.  The minute DC
grabs public attention there will be demands for Congressional oversight.
"To make sure the taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent properly."

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: 19 Nov 92 19:24:15 GMT
From: Craig Keithley <[e-mail]>
Subject: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) wrote:
>
>...The new ones use rad-hard SRAM memory.
>

With a few (16? 24?) extra bits per 32 bit word for error correction.  I'm
not aware of any commercial portables that have error correcting memory
(parity checking doesn't count!).

Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
[e-mail]
"I've got a bad feeling about this..."

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:23:27 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: world in danger

-From: [e-mail] (be here now)
-Subject: world in danger
-Date: 19 Nov 92 18:51:33 GMT

-Yesterday evening (11/17) on Headline News a short (~1 minute) news
-item was read about a group of scientists who had published a document
-warning us of the danger we're all in becuase of the rapid depletion
-of the ozone and the also rapid extinction of many species of animals.
-The news item was very brief and did not mention any names nor even
-the title of the paper that was published.

-It seems to me that if something as (seemingly) important as this
-ought to have had more attention paid to it than a one-minute news
-blurb without references.

-Bob Pietkivitch     | "Moon, my long lost friend, is smiling from above."
[e-mail]  |  -- Genesis, Stagnation 1970

That's what CNN Headline News is *for*. You're supposed to watch it for
a 30-minute cycle to pick up that item, then turn to the regular CNN
channel and wait for 17 hours until they get around to mentioning it.
(If it's a science item, you might have to wait until the weekend -
they have a very good science show on Saturday mornings, I believe.)

You can record Headline News on a VCR, and capture plenty of 10-15 second
video clips of events such as launches, that dramatic engine explosion
some months back, video from Shuttle or Mir, etc.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:51:33 GMT
From: be here now <[e-mail]>
Subject: world in danger
Newsgroups: sci.space

I don't know if this is the most appropriate newsgroup to ask this,
but here goes.

Yesterday evening (11/17) on Headline News a short (~1 minute) news
item was read about a group of scientists who had published a document
warning us of the danger we're all in becuase of the rapid depletion
of the ozone and the also rapid extinction of many species of animals.
The news item was very brief and did not mention any names nor even
the title of the paper that was published.

It seems to me that if something as (seemingly) important as this
ought to have had more attention paid to it than a one-minute news
blurb without references.  Did anyone else catch this piece and can
someone point me to the document?

Thanks,


--
Bob Pietkivitch     | "Moon, my long lost friend, is smiling from above."
[e-mail]  |  -- Genesis, Stagnation 1970

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 440
------------------------------