Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no235.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 05:00:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #235
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 23 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 235

Today's Topics:
                "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
                 ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
                       Atlas E and F questions
                              Nova Cygni
                            overpopulation
                PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO
                   Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
               QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations
            Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
                       TOPEX Update - 09/21/92
Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct) (4 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, 17 Sep 1992 16:56 CST
From: "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\"" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)

          (Book Review):


          "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North
          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed,
          hardcover.


               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to
          most ALL astrophysical mysteries.

               This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged
          edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959.
          Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is
          "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988).

               Most books and journal articles on the subject of
          astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial
          differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS.  In this book, by
          contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except
          for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text.
          Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical
          agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual
          validity.

               Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor
          of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State
          University.  He developed the Theory described in his books
          while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the
          properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements
          they contain.

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical
          portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE,
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of
          "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and
          astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for.  It is built on two
          postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of
          space and time:

               (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE
          units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME.

               (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN.

               From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a
          COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic
          particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the
          concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational-
          vibrational motions.  At each step in the development, he was
          able to match parts of his theoretical universe with
          corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including
          EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED.  For example, in his 1959
          book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES,
          several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them.  They
          are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory.  And
          when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation
          ready for those also.

               As a result of his theory, which he called "THE
          RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the sacred
          doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists,
          including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter,
          quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure),
          "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass
          increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in
          stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be
          nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES.  He was very
          critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles,
          solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc.,
          used to maintain them.

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters.
          It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from
          the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters
          which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that
          accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in
          from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe.  (Galaxy
          formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to
          orthodox astronomers.)  He then goes on to describe life
          cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and
          solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of
          SINGLE stars.

               Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according
          to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have
          been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies
          and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
          (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME).

               Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against
          observations that contradict their theories would find
          Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an
          OPEN MIND.  For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY
          BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the
          plane or central bulge of our galaxy.  But the new gamma ray
          telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from
          ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any
          visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional
          coincidence).  Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray
          bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER
          HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic
          sector".  Because the anti-matter universe exists in a
          RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed
          of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE
          dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the
          bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly
          at random.

               Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from
          books, journal articles, and leading physicists and
          astronomers.  In this book, 351 of them are superscripted
          with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the
          end of the book.  For example, a quote from the book
          "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann,
          says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if
          we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars
          form.... Unfortunately we cannot."  Larson's book contains
          LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are
          WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists,
          astronomers, and astrophysicists.


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED.


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 10:45:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

                      ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission

               The two proposed NASA comet rendezvous and sample return
          missions are expected to cost BILLIONS of dollars, take
          nearly 20 years from now to complete, and could FAIL in
          DOZENS of ways!

               Therefore, I believe that NASA, the United States, and
          the project scientists and engineers, should all SWALLOW
          THEIR PRIDE and ask the Russians for help.  The Russians have
          some equipment that could complete a MANNED comet rendezvous
          and sample return mission, ROUND TRIP, in a matter of only a
          couple of MONTHS!  In spite of their economic and political
          problems, they are FAR AHEAD in space, militarily and
          scientifically.

               Most of the following information came from the late Dr.
          Peter David Beter, a well respected Washington, DC attorney,
          Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in
          international law, finance, and intelligence, who received
          most of his information from many associates in the CIA and
          other intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved
          of many of the things happening or being planned behind the
          scenes.  [See especially the 2-7-80, 5-14-81, 5-21-81, 5-27-
          82, and 10-14-82 back-issues of WISCONSIN REPORT newspaper,
          P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, WI  53005.]

               The Russians have spacecraft called "COSMOSPHERES",
          which were originally built and used for "Star Wars" defense.
          They are spherical in shape, INvisible to radar beyond about
          50 miles away, atomic-powered [possibly Migma fUsion],
          electro-gravitic (can hover against gravity), and equipped
          with "Psycho-energetic Range Finding" (PRF) which tunes-in to
          the actual atomic signature of an object or target.

               The 3rd-generation JUMBO Cosmospheres occupy more volume
          than the Hindenburg blimp, and are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY
          PROPELLED (can accelerate continuously and rapidly, and make
          it to Saturn in three WEEKS!).  [Many of them are armed with
          charged-particle beam weapons, neutron beam weapons, and/or
          microwave brain-scrambling equipment!]

               I would not be surprised if the Russians have already
          COMPLETED a comet rendezvous and sample return mission and
          have data and samples to share.



          AIR BOOMS, 1977-78

               I wish to add that the 1st-generation COSMOSPHERES were
          deployed beginning in the Fall of 1977.  In late 1977 and
          early 1978, there was a strange rash of giant AIR BOOMS along
          the East Coast of the U.S and elsewhere.  The AIR BOOMS were
          never satifactorily explained, by either the government or
          news media.  They could NOT be positively identified with any
          particular SST or other aircraft, and indeed were much louder
          than aircraft sonic booms.

               The giant AIR BOOMS were actually caused by Russia
          COSMOSPHERES firing CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAMS down into the
          atmosphere in a DE-focused mode (spread out) for the purpose
          of announcing their presence to the WAR-MONGERS in the U.S.
          Pentagon.

               The 3rd-generation JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first
          deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space
          Shuttle Mission.  They significantly INTERFERED with that
          mission, in ways which were successfully COVERED-UP by NASA
          using techniques similar to those shown in the movie
          "Capricorn I".



          CREDIBILITY of Dr. Beter

               I wish to give some additional information supporting
          Dr. Beter's credibility, and that of his informers.

               Dr. Beter predicted the bombing of the Marines in Beirut
          A FULL YEAR BEFORE IT HAPPENED.  He warned that the U.S.
          Pentagon and the Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING to
          DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT in order to try to get Americans
          angry at the Arabs.  (It was NO SURPRISE to me when it
          happened!)

               Dr. Beter predicted the assassination of Anwar Saddat
          SIX DAYS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.

               Dr. Beter predicted what he called the "RETIREMENT" of
          Leonid Brezhnev ONE WEEK BEFORE Brezhnev "died".  [Note that
          the word "retirement" was used for the TERMINATION OF
          REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie "Blade Runner".]  He also
          predicted that Brezhnev would be quickly replaced with
          Andropov, which occurred ONLY THREE DAYS after the "death" of
          Brezhnev, to the SURPRISE of all government and media
          analysts.

               [I KNOW that we are all supposed to LAUGH at the word
          "conspiracy".  That is what the various government, military,
          political, media, banking, and corporate CONSPIRATORS have
          successfully PROGRAMMED most of us to do. ]



          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION

               I indicated that the Russian 3rd-generation "JUMBO
          COSMOSPHERES" are ELECTRO-MAGNETICALLY PROPELLED.

               I heard of that concept long before 1981, in connection
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed.

               I found a possible clue about why they might work on
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe.  I quote one paragraph:

               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that,
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space,
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron,
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later,
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level."

               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light,
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and
          "below" labels mixed up.]

               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of
          light!

               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
          fields of the Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES might be interacting
          with these electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps
          GIVING them a charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the
          rear to achieve propulsion.  (In Larson's Theory, an
          electrical charge is a rotational vibration of a particular
          frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the
          rotation of the particle.)

               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to
          confused meteorologists about how lightning is generated in
          clouds.


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC


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

Date: 22 Sep 92 02:55:15 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas E and F questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Some references like Isakowitz, identify both Atlas E and F as
>typical 1.5 stage Atlas configurations, that may be coupled with
>a variety of second stages...

This is correct.  Atlas C through F were *ICBMs*, not space launchers,
with the standard Atlas 1.5-stage configuration and no upper stages of
any kind.  When retired from strategic-missile duty, a lot of them were
used as space launchers, with a wide variety of upper stages.

Quick rundown on the Atlas versions (stopping at F because my reference
is kinda old):

A    test version, no sustainer engine
B    test version, all three engines
C    initial operational ICBM, heat-sink RV, mostly expended in training
D    first widespread deployment, ablative RV
E    better engines, longer range
F    extensive redesign for silo launch

My sources say the Mercury launcher was an Atlas D, but most of the ones
made available as satellite launchers after the ICBM phaseout were E and F.
As of mid-1978 the E/F stock had almost been used up; presumably that was
when GD produced the G.  I have dim memories that there was also an H
before they revised their designations.  I think the major differences
in the G and H were longer tanks and updated engines and electronics.

>If Atlas E or F launches implied upper stages can anybody identify
>which launches used which?

They would almost all have used upper stages, I think.  I don't believe
there has been any major use of the plain 1.5-stage configuration since
Mercury.  Bear in mind that identifying which launches used which will
be a large job, since something like 200 E/Fs were used as launchers.
Almost *any* Atlas upper stage will have flown mostly on Es and Fs.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 02:38:31 GMT
From: Earl W Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nova Cygni
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

I had the chance to photogr{aph the nova in C{ygnus
Saturday nite (9/19); I estimate it{'s mag @ 9.5 (+-.3){.
Anyone else made any recent es{timates?

*****************************************************************
*                                    | ====@====      ///////// *
* [e-mail]|     ``________//         *
*                                    |       `------'           *
*                 -JR-               | Space;........the final  *
*                                    | frontier...............  *
*****************************************************************

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 04:37:19 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: overpopulation
Newsgroups: sci.space

Those interested in this topic should check out the nonsense in
sci.environment.  The most recent was this gem: "it would be plain
silly to argue that population is not growing something like
exponentially, at least in the short term."

It would be "plain silly" to tell the truth?  Wow.  Population growth
is not a simple function; it is rather unpredictable in the short
term and is following an S-curve over the long term as birth control
and economic disincentives to childbirth diffuse around the globe. The
world population growth rate has _fallen_ from over 2.0%/year to less than
1.7%/year, so let's cut the simplistic nonsense about "exponential".
Those who jaw about the "exponential" population growth rate don't know
what they are talking about, and it makes them lose credibility on
anything else they want to say.  In the developed countries, the sphere
where most readers of this forum operate politically, the birth rate is
_below replacement_ and the biggest problem is long-term population
_decline_ and the problems it brings, like labor shortages and loss of
cultural and genetic diversity.

For those of us interested in the prospect of civilization's expansion
into space, this is an especially serious problem.  The concept of
expanding space colonies, or a growing population on a terraformed Mars,
is in jeopardy if, as demographics indicate, a technologically
sophisticated population with perfect birth control would have
birth rate of less than 1.0 per couple per lifetime, or a population
decline of 50%/generation.  To those who argue "but they will have
new resources we don't", I ask why does not this apply to developed
countries, where couples have less than 2.0 children per lifetime,
and the resources are much greater than in Africa, with 7 children
per lifetime?  More resources are more likely to cause further fertility
decline than increase.  Fertility, not physical resources, is
the main barrier to human expansion through the cosmos.


--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 02:47:22 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>We need a new "Grand Tour" flight.  The Pluto direct flights should be directed
>to fly past Chiron (I think thats the name of the thing discovered in the
>neighborhood or Saturn), then Pluto, then past this new planet.  Perhaps a
>few new objects will be sighted beyond Pluto in the mean time that can be
>added to the mission.
>
>Since you cannot get much of a direction change when flying past small
>objects, would a flight like this be possible?

No

>  Do these objects line
>up or are they even in the same plane?

I'm not sure if they are even in the same plane, but their orbital
periods are hundreds of years long. Waiting for a good alignment
for a mission isn't practicle.

>Could one get gravity assists
>from some of the larger planets in order to fly by these smaller objects?

A Chiron-Neptune-Pluto trajectory _might_ be possible, but _everything_
in the outer solar system moves slowly (including spacecraft). At a
guess, such a mission would require decades in transit.

A Chiron/TAU or Ort Cloud/TAU mission might be possible: I don't think
the TAU mission specifies a direction, just a distance...

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 02:41:39 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

David Knapp writes:

>> The criterion was given right in the earlier message:  "...which could be the
>> case if methane frost is everywhere."

> This does not preclude temperature gradients.

No, but methane apparently reduces the temperature gradients substantially.

>> It all depends on the material.  For
>> example, consider a swimming pool, half of which is in sunlight, and half of
>> which is in the shade of a house or tree.  Walking around the concrete deck,
>> you may notice that the temperature of the concrete is different whether it
>> is in the sunlight or in the shade, but the temperature of the water will be
>> much more isothermal.  It's all a question of energy transport, the thermal
>> inertias of the materials involved, and so on.

> In that pool, if you add a dye, you will notice convection currents driven
> by the temperature gradient induced by the sunlight.

The point was that the water has less of a temperature gradient than the
concrete.  I did not intend to imply that there would be NO temperature
gradient.  By "much more isothermal" I meant "smaller temperature gradient".
Poor choice of words, because once isothermal, it's not possible to become
more isothermal.  I should have said "much closer to being isothermal".  How
close to isothermal I cannot say.  I'm not that familiar with the thermal
properties of rock and methane frost.

> I still do not understand why a person would posit that the surface or
> atmosphere of Pluto would be isothermal.

Should have asked Alan Stern while he was there.  We talked about this very
subject last week while he was in Boulder.  He posits an isothermal surface,
but admittedly, neither of us has committed to any particular upper limit
on delta-T.

> Isothermal to within, perhaps
> .5 K, but even a differential of .5 K is enough to drive some convective
> processes.

Theoretically, 0.000000001 K is enough to drive some convective processes,
and I'm in no position to say just how much methane might reduce the
temperature gradient.  This all came about because somebody asked about
the possibility of a snow "storm" on Pluto, as opposed to frost forming
like dew.  The main difference here is the strength of the convection,
and in relative terms, a methane covered Pluto will have less stormy
conditions than a blotchy part-methane, part-rock surface.  And because of
the very low surface pressure, Pluto will have less stormy conditions than
Earth.

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 02:30:20 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
>I think the Apollo CSM News Reference and LM News Reference are pretty close.
>The folks who publish 'World Spaceflight News' used to sell copies for
>a reasonable price...

I believe they still do.  It's the best reference on the subject I know of,
substantially more detailed than the SSOM.  The quality of reproduction
isn't always outstanding, and in their zeal to minimize page count by
eliminating white space they've occasionally eliminated bits of text
too, but on the whole it's pretty decent.

I wish they'd do a similar job on the corresponding Saturn V document.

I would love to see a proper technical history of Project Apollo.
Even the NASA History books tend to talk more about events and people
than about technical problems and how they were solved.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 00:30:16 EST
From: jason Think! steiner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou

hanging over my desk i've got a sign that reads simply:

        greed
          &
         fear

which are, of course, the 2 prime human motivators.
i wouldn't have thought you could apply them to scientific
development. shows the limits of my imagination.

bravo.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` [e-mail] `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 11:27:57 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: TOPEX Update - 09/21/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. [phone]

                  TOPEX/POSEIDON STATUS REPORT
                       September 21, 1992

          The TOPEX/Poseidon satellite successfully completed the
last of six maneuvers today that places the satellite in the
required orbit and ground track to begin the operational orbit
phase of its mission.   The TRIM maneuver was performed at 12:43
p.m. PDT.

          The Global Positioning System Demostration Receiver
(GPSDR) Almanac was loaded and placed in track mode at 7:30 this
morning PDT.  The GPSDR appears to be working nominally.

          The NASA Altimeter automatically reset itself Friday
after it experienced a single event upset.  The instrument fully
recovered within a few minutes of the event and was tracking
nominally until the CNES SSALT Altimeter was turned on this
morning.   The SSALt will operate for four days while the NASA
Altimeter is in the idle mode.

          The navigation team reports that data received over the
weekend showed the satellite's orbit has leveled off with no
unexpected decay.
                             ######
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 02:38:23 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>Maybe we
>need a new NASA flight program where technology development is first
>priority,  with science along for the ride?  This seems to be what
>SDIO is doing with Clementine.

This is a very good idea, and I'd like to second it.  NASA does
$billions of tech development every year, but practically none of it
directed at supporting NASA's own space science or planetary exploration
programs beyond the next mission, and these missions are given no incentive
to develop new technology.  The viability of such projects is predicated
on restoring the historical level of planetary exploration funding at
NASA, though.  If NASA is really planning to make planetary exploration a
tiny little sideshow for most of the next century, as it (and Congress
and NSS) has made it now, we don't need to spend any money on new technology
for it.


--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 03:40:26 GMT
From: "robert.f.casey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Possible test mission for ion engines:  Launch it to an Earth orbit high
enough to be out of the atmosphere to work (LEO?).  Then fly it around
(maybe spiral out to the Moon's orbit) the Earth for a while.  Then
fly it back down to LEO, and have a shuttle pick it up and bring it back
to your lab for a complete examination.  Spend a few years cruseing the
space near the Earth (changing orbital plains, etc).  Put a few ion
engines on your test craft, so you can do statistal studies when you
get it back.  Can we afford this sort of test?

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 03:26:01 GMT
From: "robert.f.casey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Is there a chance that the ion drive might pollute the environment that some
scientific instrument on the probe is trying to measure?  Like an instrument
measuring concentrations of natural ions in the area around some planet's
magnetic field? Sure, turn it off before you measure, but how long does it
take for the pollution to clear?

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

Date: 22 Sep 92 04:44:21 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Electric Rockets for Science (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (robert.f.casey) writes:
>Possible test mission for ion engines:  Launch it to an Earth orbit high
>enough to be out of the atmosphere to work (LEO?).  Then fly it around
>(maybe spiral out to the Moon's orbit) the Earth for a while...

It's not hard to find a test mission for ion engines.  Look at the
Lunar GetAway Special proposal a while ago:  a little spacecraft, small
enough to fit in a GAS can, deployable on any shuttle mission.  Mission
is to carry one instrument -- a gamma-ray spectrometer -- to lunar
polar orbit.  Kills two birds with one stone:  a lunar geochemical map
(including resolution of the all-important question of whether there
are buried volatiles at the poles) and space-qualifying ion propulsion.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 235
------------------------------