Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_2/V16NO261.ZIP/V16NO261

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Thu,  4 Mar 93 05:00:29
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #261
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  4 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 261

Today's Topics:
                           Aurora (rumors)
                           Docking Systems
              Grand & Everyday Challenges for Education
                          hijacking Toutatis
                       Nobody cares about Fred?
                 Orientation of the shuttle in orbit
                             Prez Powers
                     Refueling in orbit (3 msgs)
                   Shuttle operational reliability
                      SOLAR gravity assist? Yup.
           SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Supernova may have caused huge void around solar system [Release 93-36] (Forwarded) (2 msgs)
             Titan balloons (was Re: Cassini Rover idea)
                     Why Apollo didn't continue?

    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: Wed, 03 Mar 93 16:52:30 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora (rumors)

>The booms LA hears, assuming they come from the Aurora, are due to a
>Mach 1 aircraft coming home at about 25,000 ft.  I've lived on enought
>airbases to recognize it by now.
>Dillon Pyron (Mon, 1 Mar 1993 15:49:49 GMT)

That's not what was written in the Los Angeles Daily News, May 17, 1992:
"By clocking the pace at which it tips seismographic instruments at
points throughout Southern California, its estimated speed is more than
Mach 3, he said." (he = Jim Mori, a seismologist for the U.S. Geological
Survey).
BTW, if it were only slightly more than Mach 3, it would sound like an
SR-71 ...

J. Pharabod

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

Date: 1 Mar 1993 14:30:15 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Docking Systems
Newsgroups: sci.space

THis weeks space news had an article on the NASA station-shuttle
interlock module.  THis would also be used for MIR.

They also reported that BURAN is Now delayed one year, due to
vandalism and theft at baikonur.  BURAN will at this rate
probably be jettisoned.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 19:32:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Grand & Everyday Challenges for Education
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

One of the strengths of this newsgroup is that people can pose challenges
and get help here from others.  We're exploring ways in which to involve
students and teachers in this new electronic world in ways that benefit
both them and the existing electronic communities.   We'd like to help
organize things so that a broad set of teachers and students can be
additional resources for this group.

If you have questions or problems that you'd like help with, either "grand
challenges" that involve difficult issues or "everyday challenges", please
send them to me, and I will try to match them up with some of the large
number of teachers and students that have expressed interest in taking on
challenges.

What kinds of challenges?  It will take some time for the students and
teachers to formulate a response, so don't send challenges that require an
immediate response.  We will encourage the folks that take on your
challenge to communicate with you via email, so don't hesitate to send a
challenge that is somewhat ill-defined or vague.  We have a wide range of
volunteers, ranging from elementary school to graduate school, so send
both simple and complicated challenges, and we'll try to find a group who
can address your challenge.

Why bother?  You'll be helping to explore innovative ways to improve
education through electronic communities like this newsgroup.  You might
enjoy the responses you get to your challenge, and you might even get
some fresh insights or innovative ways to approach the problems you
describe in the challenge, because the students and teachers will in many
cases be approaching the problems you describe anew.  Because their
efforts are motivated by the instructional value inherent in the challenge
itself, teachers and students will be able to put much more effort into
tackling your challenge than you or your associates or even other members
of this newsgroup could afford.

So, please rise to this challenge, and send me (via email) whatever
challenges have been bugging you, either grand challenges or everyday
challenges or anything in between!  We can't promise that every challenge
will be taken up or that responses will completely solve your problems,
but we certainly hope that everyone involved learns something interesting
through this process.

Jim Levin
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 20:35:40 GMT
From: Martin Connors <[e-mail]>
Subject: hijacking Toutatis
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Matthew Kaiser) writes:
> dudes...
>
> i've just read an article in AdAstra
> about asteroid Toutatis comin within 1.6M km of Earth in 2004
>
> what will the statis the our space program be by then?
>
> can we (America) get going and hijack this thing and
> pay off our national debt with a mass-driver
>
> i mean it's only 3.5km across so its not a Ceres class asteroid
>
> MY GOD (forgiveme) we could put a second moon in orbit around us!!!!
>
> *******************  let's do it  **************************
Sorry but coming close is not enough to make it easy to grad Toutatis.
This thing MOVES - somewhere in the vicinity of 35 km/s when near Earth.
That was the problem with Galileo the second time around - and must have
been very frustrating - it came within 300 km of Earth but a rendezvous to
repair the antenna was impossible due to its great speed. Sort of like
those baseball line drives you don't want to catch!
--
Martin Connors         |
Space Research         | [e-mail]  [phone]
University of Alberta  |

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 10:18:24 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
|>from the trade press was the Freedom PMO waived off because not
|>enough knowledge base existed on methane thrusters.
|>
|>This kind of failure seeking management ultimately brought the
|>prgram down.
|
|Hold on, again. Freedom is supposed to require 10,000 pounds of
|propellant a year for station keeping. Before PMC there won't
|be much life support activity at all. And even after PMC there
|will only be 4 people on board. That's an awful lot of beans
|for 4 people! The orginal alternative to off the shelf exchangeable

So.  Before PMC, then they may have to import Methane and Oxygen to
support the Propulsion system.  But once they reach PMC, they should
be able to generate enough methane  based on the sabatier
process to provide the bulk of their propulsion needs.

and the methnae economy provides leverage for future mars developement.



|hydrazine thruster packs used newly developed H2/O2 thrusters operating
|off of electrolyzed water from Shuttle fuel cells. Shuttle offloads it's
|excess water and Freedom electrolyzes it with solar cell excess power
|and stores it for stationkeeping burns. *That* was clever, but had too
|high an upfront cost for Congress to swallow. The thruster development

SO you say the shuttle is going to provide 10,000 pounds of propellant
all from the fuel cells from a couple of missions a year?
I think before PMC, they'd still have to import fuel feed stocks.
and electrolyzing water, takes more power then sabatier cyclers do.


|had to be funded, on orbit electrolyzers had to be developed, and water
|transfer systems designed. Nothing earthshaking, but impossible without
|the upfront funding assured.
|
A reasonable alternative.  granted.  and certainly better then
hydrazine imports,  but still, I think methane OXygen  is a better
choice then H2O to H2/O2 jets.

If you have to do DDTE for something,  better to do it on something
that will leverage the MARS missions.

>Here's a chart of SSF funding history from Wales. Note that OMB and
>Congress have cut requested upfront funding *every* year. That's driven

 NOTE for REcord,  OMB has Cut more then COngress DID.


>scaleback after scaleback in the program as development stretches
>out, causing downstream cost escalations, and reduced capabilities.
>

SO ratehr then blame 535 elected repsresentatives,  we should blame
Dick Darman.

>
>            NASA SSF REQUEST AND ALLOCATION HISTORY
>FY   NASA    OMB    Congress Total  Total   Congress Holdback
>Bdgt Request Change Change   Change SSF($M) Holdback Release  Notes
> --- ------- ------ -------- ------ ------- -------- -------- -----
>85     235    -85        0.0  -85.0   150.0     57.5  4/1/85  [A]
>86     280    -50     - 29.7  -79.7   200.3      0.0
>87     600   -190        0.0 -190.0   410.0    150.0  ???
>88    1055   -288     -374.7 -622.7   392.3    225.0  6/1/88
>89    1872   -904.6   - 67.4 -972.0   900.0    515.0  5/15/89
>90    2130.2  -80     -300.6 -380.6  1749.6    750.4  6/1/90
>91    2693   -242     -551.0 -793.0  1900.0    1260.0 2/3/91  [B]
>                                    -------
>                                     5702.2   Total FYs 85-91

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 19:04:49 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orientation of the shuttle in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Robijn) writes:
>    Recently I tested a computer program that showed a space shuttle in a
>circular orbit around the earth. The shuttle was oriented in such a way that
>its nose pointed in the same direction as its velocity, just like a plane.
>Someone then remarked that this is wrong: according to him the shuttle has a
>fixed orientation with respect to the stars, not the earth. I'm not sure
>whether that is really the case. Anyone who can help me out?

It depends on what the particular mission is doing.  Earth-observation
missions will fly in more or less the orientation your program uses, to
keep the payload bay pointing at Earth.  Astronomical missions will fly
in constant orientation with respect to the stars, with the precise
pointing direction changing occasionally to look at different targets.
Microgravity missions sometimes fly "sideways", with nose or tail pointed
toward the Earth, using gravity-gradient stabilization to minimize thruster
firings.  There are assorted variations.

A non-rotating spacecraft will stay in a fixed orientation with respect
to the stars.  However, it's easy to induce a one revolution/orbit
rotation to maintain a fixed orientation with respect to the Earth
instead, and there is often reason to do this.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 18:33:37 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prez Powers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>[congress is given the power to tax & spend, voters should be responsible]

>>>... if you'll continue your perusal of the document
>>>mentioned above, you will also notice the tenth amendment, which limits the
>>>powers of congress to those enumerated within the document.

>>Yes, but your problem seems to be an incorrect or inadequate
>>definition of 'powers'.

>Actually, my problem is in trying to interpret the Constitution based on
>what it meant to the writers, rather than what it means to the people
>who gain something from it...but that's something for E-mail, not the net.

>>>If you'd like some info on what the Libertarians are doing...

>>No thanks.  I'm not interested in impractical or unworkable
>>'solutions'.

>Ah, than you didn't vote for Clinton :-)  Seriously, if you are going to
>prejudge something, then you can hardly understand it.  But hey, you
>have your free will...

Who said I 'prejudged'?  Do you think you're the original discoverer
of libertarian philosophy, or what?  If you want to postulate my
ignorance about things Libertarian, you are welcome to do so; however,
you are the one who is guilty of 'prejudging', not I.  I've looked at
what they propose and it doesn't work.

>----------

>>>I'm a little hazy on the legal picture, but I've got an inkling that since
>>>the fed agencies are considered part of the executive, that Prez. Clinton
>>>can do what he damn well pleases (notwithstanding politics) WRT fred, etc.


>>He can do anything he wants -- right up until the point where it costs
>>money.  The Executive Branch is allowed to 'execute', but not to
>>authorize spending.  That takes legislation (guess who does that).

>So, if he has the inkling, he can cancel the program outright, assuming
>he wants to deal with the political heat?

Yes, but he has to spend the money allocated (with a few exceptions, I
think) and he cannot spend it on anything but what it was allocated
for.  So he can have NASA refuse to build SSF, but he will have to, in
essence, just burn the money in a big bonfire or something.  You want
to talk about political heat?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 10:50:41 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

|
|>I believe planners work from what's in hand, not what might be
|>done assuming people get some nerve and backbone.  Besides,
|>MO and it's sister birds could have planned on it.  put 2 of the
|>birds on shuttle centaur and get them there at teh same time.
|
|
|     No, Titan-Centaur was not available when Voyager was planned, it was
|     just an available concept, as cryo refueling is today. I won't even
|     mention everything NASA invented to accomplish Apollo.
|

And they invented everthing for Mercury too.   But then they were
not afraid of a little risk.   now they seem to run from it.

|     I don't think there's room in the payload bay for a Centaur and
|     two payloads. Maybe someone else can say for sure. Besides, there
|     are no  "sister birds" of MO.
|

Not any more.  MO was supposed to be one in a whole series of mars craft.
look at it's name.  Mars Geoscience and CLimatology spacecraft.


|>I think it's easy enough to put a stage onto a rocket.  developing
|>techniques and hardware is a little bit harder.
|
|       Not that easy, the first Titan-Centaur failed. Good thing Voyager 1
|       wasn't aboard.
|

What was the cause of failure for the first Titan-centaur?
Somehow,  I still think it's a lot easier to build an adaptor ring,
connectors  and do the dynamic analysis for hooking stages
together, then to build EVA couplers,  compressors, hoses , etc
to fuel a centaur from the dregs fuel in the ET.

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

Date: 1 Mar 1993 18:48:10 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>And if your science mission does succeed,
>it's back to square one again (where are the followup missions for Galileo
>or Magellan?).

Galileo and Magellan *are* followup missions, to the Pioneer and Voyager
series of probes.  For myself, I'd like to see what Galileo discovers before
trying to design a followup to it; there's no telling what we may want on
the next probe.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 23:30:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling in orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>     ... When
>     we need it, we'll develop it. Hasn't that *always* been the way?

The same way we were going to develop ion propulsion for CRAF (which really
could have used it)?  All too often, if it isn't *already* developed, the
answer is "not on my mission, you don't".  Remember, you can't develop
these things on paper; you have to *fly missions* to prove them workable,
and engineering-test missions have been few and far between in the last
twenty years.  (The fact that the MESUR people are planning to fly one
is being treated as remarkable news and a noteworthy departure from
established practice.)

In fact, missions that require development of new technology have a
strong tendency to be written off, precisely because they are not
possible with proven technology.

"When we need it, we'll develop it" is a sensible rule for a space program
that is operating based on an agreed-on master plan, one that can justify
major development work as necessary to an important mission.  But NASA
hasn't had such a space program in many years.  Today's US space "program"
is a random grab-bag of missions, with no master plan or master planners,
in which each mission has to stand on its own.  The result is that you
just don't *get* precursors or followups.  You can't justify a mission
without major science return, so there are no engineering missions as
precursors to science efforts.  And if your science mission does succeed,
it's back to square one again (where are the followup missions for Galileo
or Magellan?).
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 09:04:52 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle operational reliability
Newsgroups: sci.space

Well, Now that the russians are part of the free world, we do get  to
count availability stats for them.   Given their launch rate, I'd say
they count as "Airliner - Like" in operations......

Also,  We do need to work on better faster cheaper launchers in the
expendable category.

pat

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 19:20:18 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SOLAR gravity assist? Yup.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>If you've fallen in parabolically... Add 4 km/s delta-v in a burn and
>when you get out to infinity (or near-enough, i.e. any planetary
>distance) you're doing a cool 71 km/s...

Note, however, that first "if".  See my posting yesterday for the
mathematical conclusion:  unless you want fairly high velocity at
infinity, getting *into* that parabolic trajectory in the first
place is too expensive to make the maneuver worthwhile.

In particular, even the Pluto Fast Flyby mission just isn't hitting
high enough speeds to make the gravity-well maneuver worthwhile.
I don't know exactly what v_infinity they're using, but I seem to
recall a flyby velocity of 16 km/s, and the average cruise velocity
has to be about 20 km/s for their proposed schedule (Pluto in 7yr).
A gravity-well maneuver from Earth's orbit has to be shooting for a
v_infinity of about 42 km/s before it becomes worthwhile.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 10:44:26 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>   References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>   NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
>
>   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>   |In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Well, in some places truck drivers will actually give hitchhikers a
>free ride, they figure they're heading that way anyway and the
>marginal cost from the extra weight is negligible.

What's the Point of this Stein?  Get Away Specials ride the STS super Cheap.
But there is a significant difference between a GAScan and a 12,000
lbm Thruster module.   YEah, I can hitchHike occasionally on the
interstates,  but do you think I could get some trucker to
take me and 5,000 pounds of cargo, even though he has deadhead space?

And You can never hitch hike AMTRAK.  I've tried it.  You pay
or you get thrown off.  Maybe even arrested.


>    Even airlines offer free standby seats if you know the
>right people, for example some airlines offer employees free seats

That's a perk for employees.  helps offset pay.

>on standby figuring (correctly) that the marginal cost is negligible,
>the price charged to regular standbys is what the market will bear,
>based on how big a discount people will demand to accept the
>uncertainty of not getting a flight.
>

And Launcher companies sell secondary payloads much less then primaries,
but then you accept the orbit,  and the mass restrictions they stick you with.
Do you think 12,000 pounds is a secondary payload?   and can SSF
accept uncertainty on when the next Shuttle will arrive witha PM?
I don't think so.

>   Wingo was trying to claim that thrusters fly for free.  Allen pointed
>   out that was a crock.  You then come up with some argument on the
>   cost being the operating cost divided by payload.   Sadly, that's
>   allen's point, too.  The cost of dragging thrusters to orbit does
>   cost 10,000/pound under any rational accounting scheme.  any claims to
>   the contrary is a fiction.
>
>This is false; you repeatedly assume that the cost per pound is the
>total operation cost+amortised cost divided by pounds flown; it is
>no such thing - if NASA stopped in its tracks and flew nothing
>it would still cost several billion per year.
>

Stein.  What do you mean.  NASA has the capacity to put up about 8-12
Shuttle flights per year.   We the taxpayers pay them 4 and some Billion
a year to do this.  Now every SSF devoted mission means somebody else
waits for a mission.  Now if NASA went to a total stand-down
it would mean they are considering terminating SHuttle Ops.  That means
Manned SPace division gets re-organized.

If they stand down for a few months, things ride,  but if they stand down
for 3 years like post challenger, believe me,  people get sacked....

Now if they terminate SHuttle,  lots of people go overboard.  If you say
they shouldn't because NASA is A JOBS Program,  then that's communism.
it didn't work there, it doesn't work here.

>   |
>   |Allen, what is the development cost of learning how to do
>   |automatic refuelling and over how many flights will you amortise it?
>   I believe allen did those numbers.  He proposed that at 8% rate of return
>   and 4 Billion up front in engineering, you payback in 4 years.
>
>Which is sheer fantasy, the $4 billion up front don't exist and
>therefore there is no payback. NASA doesn't get a tax write off

NASA has a 13-14 billion dollar budget.  THey could fund any program
ona multi-year basis.  They just odn't choose to.  They want to waste
money.  it justifies jobs better.


>for investments, if they reduce future operations they probably
>just get less money to operate with. More importantly they never

Ah.   The mind of the bureaucrat takes over.  The more we spend, the
more we get.  Not do more with less.

>get the upfront money in the first place - they certainly can't
>borrow it on the open market!
>

You could argue, given the Deficit, that NASA Borrows it's entire
budget on the open market.

Steinn.  Have you ever studied business or government?   Rate of return
analysis applies wether you are a government or a business.  it only
becomes problematic, when one is investing in a public good.
The shuttle is a very measurable Service, provided bt hte governemnt,
and as such ROI and ROR are normal measures for it.

Stick to astro-physics.  you won't be so off.

>   |    Do you propose flying fewer shuttle flights without the
>   |resupply (in which case the marginal cost on the remaining flights
>   |increase) or should NASA redirect those flights to another purpose?
>   |Or should they simply fire 20,000 support staff - in which case what
>   |is the cost of severance (including any welfare support to the
>   |government)?
>
>   Neither of these questions are relevant to the Freedom PMO.  THey are
>   a problem for Johnson, kennedy and HQ.   IT is the job of Reston to
>   do the most with the least dollars.   It's HQ's job to figure out how to
>   rebalance missions.   What if we signed a deal on 5 energiyas.  suddenly
>   26 shuttle missions go by the way.  Is that restons fault?  of course not.
>   The assumption is HQ will either direct new shuttle missions or
>   reduce the program size.   simple enough and nobody's problem
>   but theirs.
>
>This is pure nonsense. NASA is not a group of trading companies,
>and its purpose is to find out how to carry out certain objectives,
>if possible, given this years budget. They can't borrow upfront costs
>and they are not free to buy from arbitary suppliers, a significant
>part of their mission has been to find out how to carry out certain
>objectives in space and to maintain a group of people who have the
>experience of carrying out those activities.
>

IT is not the Mission of Freedom to be a welfare program inside of
NASA.  By your reasoning, now SHuttle has no raison d'etre other then
th fly SSF.  If SHuttle is a good, practical system, then it will
support other missions.  If it isn't it will die.   That's evolution!

By your reasoning, if someone invented a 10 dollar anti-gravity drive
that needed no maintenance, and meant a buick could make a good
rocket, then  it should be scrapped because it would not employ the
NASA Shuttle Army and it's political power.

Stein,  stop thinking like a communist.

NASA borrows all sorts of up-front money.  all decisions are based
upon investment vs payback  how do you think shuttle was developed.
They borrowed 30 billion  and threw out saturn, which only cost
500 million a launch.

>   Allen makes good points,  and given i have a masters in Business and
>   Public administration, I would say in keeping with accepted practice.
>   Politically naive, oftentimes, but acceptable.
>
>   I would challenge you steinn to find any textbook which dictates
>   that allen is wrong.
>
>Allen is wrong because he treats NASA as if it were a small business
>operating in a free market, and it isn't. It is not at all clear to
>me that it should be either.

Again.  I challenge you to find any text on Public Administration that
says Allens accounting is wrong.

Allen is wrong to consider ALL of Nasa a small business, but in terms of
flight operations.  THey Are.

NASA's research branches and Advanced test labs are "Public Goods".
they are not and never should be considered businesses.  But NASA's
communications  group is a service.  and is measured against public
companies, and is contracte d for as often as is provided in-house.

Shuttle operations are again a measurable service, and as such should
be run in something approximating business rules.

The federal governemnt here created WMATA, the local transit company.
SHould they force everyone who lives in DC to only ride METRO?
SHould they screw up and flluctuate rates like crazy?
SHould they stop running trains, but still keep everyone employed?

Of course not.  You find me any book written by other then Marx, that
says so, and I'll gladly change my views.  but Currently the SHuttle
system is runa s a communist state  and functions as well as one.

pat

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 17:08:52 GMT
From: "Thomas E. Smith" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supernova may have caused huge void around solar system [Release 93-36] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>     Now, researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
>Greenbelt, Md., say evidence suggests it was formed by the
>supernova or explosion of a star known as Geminga about 340,000
>years ago.

  Where did this star that no one has seen for hundreds of thousands of
years get its name?


--
____________________________________________________________________________
| It's not my damn planet, understand  | Tom E. Smith                      |
| Monkey Boy?!!       John Bigbootey   | [e-mail]       |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 19:06:31 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supernova may have caused huge void around solar system [Release 93-36] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]. (Thomas E. Smith) writes:
>  Where did this star that no one has seen for hundreds of thousands of
>years get its name?

It was named quite recently, when its gamma-ray emissions were first
discovered and nobody could find any emissions at lower energies; the
name means "it's not there" in some language or other.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1 Mar 93 11:20:37 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan balloons (was Re: Cassini Rover idea)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
> [e-mail] (BAIRD) writes:
>>    Now that I have babbled about the [Titan rover] idea, what do others think of it?
>>Too far fetched like the ice resupplying of SSF from the asteriod belt/outer
>>planets&moons?  Questions, comments, suggestions?
>
> I hate to torpedo someone who's obviously put so much though into this but I
> have a very simple reply.  Anyone who wants to design a rover for Titan that
> isn't a balloon has some serious explaining to do.
>
> Titan is probably the
> best place in the solar system for a balloon.

For people who want to investigate these ideas, let me add this
to Josh's remarks:

Friedlander, Alan L., "Titan Buoyant Station," *Journal of the British
Interplanetary Society*, V. 37, August 1984, p. 381-387.

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 23:17:36 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Apollo didn't continue?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andres C. Gaeris) writes:
>Is there any good references about the Apollo Appications Program (AAP)
>and the lunar exploration followups after Apollo?

If you find any, please let the rest of us know.  The programs that were
actually flown are reasonably well documented, with occasional annoying
exceptions (e.g. Surveyor), but it's frustratingly difficult to find
anything at all on things that were planned but never done.  You end
up having to dig through books and magazines of that era, in search of
snippets of information.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 261
------------------------------