Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_6/v15no614.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 05:05:48
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #614
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 31 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 614

Today's Topics:
                   *** METEOSAT weather images ***
     Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
                         fast-track failures
Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program (2 msgs)
                 Justification for the Space Program
                   Mars Observer Update - 12/30/92
                          Moon Dust For Sale
              Shuttle Performance (Was:Comparative $/lb)
             Solar system stability (Was: averting doom)
                       SSTO vs 2 stage (2 msgs)
                     two-line element info needed
                Two-Line Orbital Element Sets, Part 1

    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: 30 Dec 92 15:32:50 GMT
From: Franck Roussel <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** METEOSAT weather images ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello everybody!

I am interested in METEOSAT weather images. I know there are many
  anonymous FTP sites, such:
    - cumulus.met.ed.ac.uk  in directory /images
    - nic.funet.fi               ''      /pub/sci/meteosat
  where satellite images of World,Atlantic,Europe are displayed.

Does anybody knows about other anonymous FTP sites like those ?

Especially, is there a server at the Meteorological Space Center
  of Lannion (Brittany) ?  I tried the FTP site "lannion.cnet.fr",
  but after typing the command 'ftp lannion.cnet.fr' it answered me:
    'Connected to lannion.cnet.fr'
    '421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection'


Thanks for all answers to my questions
Roussel

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:24:16 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>It's somewhat more common for the shuttle [to fly with less than maximum
>payload] only because most shuttle missions are to low orbit

Don't forget the Rogers Commission, and the payload-weight restrictions
it imposed for safety reasons.



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

Date: 30 Dec 92 16:58:03 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>$100,000 a year is on the low side. Most companies figure it's
>>closer to $250,000.
>
>The ones that are no longer in business.

Um, gee here's a good one for me.  STicking up for gary.  Actually both of
gary's numbers are quite reasonable.  sad but true.  what he isn't
pointing out, is that these numbers are more for large organizations  and
especially defense related business.

now the accounting rule of thumb for commercial business, is that each of your
people better generate 2.5-3 times their salary in revenue, or you aren't
making money.  in defense industries,  it is not unusual for
overhead to exceed salary in an order of magnitude of 7.  example.
i have seen projects where two engineers worked, on a prototype,
they were each paid about 40k/annually,   but the project bills
would run about 15k/week.  amazing what the overhead can run.

Now what gary is missing is that thin slim organizations can run for
significantly less.  Apple, started this way.  cisco did too.
Lockheed skunk works still tries to.  but this is for small operations
only.   My dad used to run a 20 man shop on 2,000 month overhead plus
salaries.

>
>If we spent that much on each employee, personnel costs would exceed
>gross revenues.  And that allows *nothing* for manfacturing, materials,
>etc.
>
>But then, I'm not working for Gary Coffman, Inc.
>

Um,  you wonder why the B-2 costs 1 billion per?

>
>But you just said you weren't going to provide any of those things,
>Gary.  The engineers were going to live at Motel 6 and work at home.
>And it was still going to cost you over $100,000.
>
>Weasel, weasel.


 No need to call him a weasel,  just accuse him of screaming :-)
the motel 6 school of prject developement should keep costs to about
100% of salary.  the theory is rent a warehouse next to a motel.
use the warehouse and motel interchangebly.  but you do need
motivated staff to do this kind of work.

pat

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:07:06 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> Paul Dietz,
[e-mail] writes:
>prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
>climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?

The fact that you can equate these two things just shows how
out of touch with reality you really are.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 20:39:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:

>>prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
>>climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?

>The fact that you can equate these two things just shows how
>out of touch with reality you really are.

Oh I don't know about that. I see lots of similarities. Both climbers and
astronauts are small groups of well trained people. Both spend lots of
money to do what they do. Both are limited to letting very small numbers
of people do something exciting. After all, I will never climb Mt. Everest,
nor (the way things are going) will I ever go into space.

Now you might argue that space is the future of mankind and that a
spacefaring civilization is more important than rock climbing. I aggree
with that but must point out that if you think current government space
activity has anything to do with that then YOU are the one out of touch.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------115 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 16:06:48 GMT
From: Mark Benson <benson@gemed>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Barbara Trumpinski ([e-mail]) writes:

>i am NOT a scientist...or a researcher...or even anyone important.  i
>am a simple library tech.  however, i deal with the real world in ways
>you gentlemen probably can't imagine...my life has been directly
>affected by the economy...and by the lousy education system...and by
>the overwhelming lack of spirit in the u.s.

>i STILL have dreams...i know that i am never going to the stars...but
>someday, maybe, my children will...or maybe even the college students
>i know/work with will be able to have the adventures or do the
>exploring that i can only dream about in between chapters of my
>latest science fiction novel...

Barbara,

    Library techs are important.  I spent my college years as a lowly student
    assistant (UIUC Biology Library, in fact).  Between that, summer jobs,
    and loans I managed to put myself through school.  Since then I've been
    through several different industries, staying one step ahead of the axe.
    Many of my friends have not been so lucky.  The very talent we need to
    go to Mars and beyond is being "transitioned" into other "worthwhile"
    industries, like telecommunications, or PC things like electric cars.
    Or worse yet, joining the growing "service sector" of the economy.  This
    is a tragedy of near biblical proportions, and the results of this lack of
    foresight will be felt for decades to come.

    The space program in America is stuck in neutral because all the classes
    of victims created by liberal American politics are busy fighting over
    their piece of the pie rather than focusing on how to bake more pies.
    Unless this attitude changes, we will never make significant progress in
    the space arena.  Even the discussion in this group mimics politics as a
    whole - fund SSTO, dump the shuttle, screw manned space efforts in favor of
    more probes, etc.  IT IS POINTLESS TO ARGUE OVER THE MEANS WHEN WHAT IS
    NEEDED IS A COHERENT VISION!

    So back to the initial topic - how does one justify the space program(s)?
    What are the basic reasons to go into space now?  A deceptively simple
    question with decidedly complex answers:

    1.  Exploration  (To boldly go where no man has gone before...)
        This has always been a legitimate function - to seek new lands,
        resources, facts.  This part of it also requires dreams and vision,
        which apeals to young people, and may help motiviate the to study
        math, science, enigneering, and other skills which are most useful to
        society.  The best reason to explore, however, is that you simply
        don't know what your going to find.

    2.  Applications
        Recon, earth observation, and comsats now, perhaps materials processing
        soon, and manufacturing farther out.

    3.  Technology development
        Argue over spin-offs til you're blue in the face, the point is that
        large aerospace ventures (like space programs) drive both key
        technologies and engineering processes.  I would argue that the biggest
        benefit of the Apollo program was the emergence of systems engineering
        and integration as disciplines in their own right.

    A properly defined space program to adress these areas (and there may be
    others), focused on a series of objectives and milestones would be far
    better than the drift we see today.  Even better would be if this could
    be accomplished on an international level.  Finally, more resources are
    needed.  There are two ways to do this.  First, always remember that
    productivity drives programs - if you can do it better, faster, and cheaper,
    you get to do more.  And I really think the good done by a properly focused
    space program would attract the attention and funding it deserves.

    We now return to the discussion of the Nirvana of SSTO vs. the hell of STS.
    (I like 'em both - but zealots can't admit anyone elses viewpoint has
    value.)
----
Mark Benson         [e-mail]| "Are we gonna talk about it, or
GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI  USA|  do something about it?"  HRP, 10/92

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 19:27:00 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 12/30/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                     MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                         December 30, 1992
                           11:00 AM PST
                         Launch +96 Days

The Spacecraft Team reports that spacecraft subsystems and instruments
are performing nominally.  The spacecraft is in Array Normal Spin; the
downlink data rate is at 250 bps while the uplink data rate is 125 bps.

C5 A execution began on December 19.  C5 is the outer cruise transition
sequence which is marked by the spacecraft attitude being changed from
an off sun orientation to direct pointing at Earth.  The Mission Manager
reports that we are on schedule for transition to outer cruise operations
on January 2 and to High Gain Antenna operations on January 4.

Today the spacecraft is 38,335,379 km (23,820,500 miles) from Earth,
traveling at a velocity of 9.4083 kilometers per second (21,046 miles per
hour) with respect to Earth.  One way light time is approximately 128
seconds.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 17:54:00 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Superior Galleries in Beverly Hills, California is having an auction
of space memorabilia on January 11, 1993.  One item of particular interest
is a 2 inch piece of transparent tape which has some Moon dust on it.  This is
the first time that Moon dust is being offered for sale.   The Moon dust
was collected by a NASA technician from the spacesuit of astronaut Dave Scott
after his Apollo 15 trip to the Moon in July, 1971.  It is guarantteed
to be genuine by Superior Galleries and is expected to be sold
in the price range of $75,000 to $100,000.  For more information on the
Moon dust or the auction, you can contact Superior Galleries at
[phone] or [phone].
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 05:22:54 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle Performance (Was:Comparative $/lb)
Newsgroups: sci.space

David Anderman writes:

>Using a 50,000 lb. payload for the Shuttle to calculate its cost
>per pound does not take into consideration the trivial fact that
>the Shuttle never carries 50,000 lbs into orbit. Maximum payload
>weight for a safe abort is 40,000 lbs, and the shuttle rarely
>carries that much weight.

   There are several other factors here, and I believe, a
misstatement.  The factors are that many shuttle missions do not go
to 150 nmi, 28.5 deg. circular orbits.  If the shuttle goes to a
higher orbit such as was done for Space Telescope deploy, its
performace decreases (as does every other launch vehicle).  So I
would not expect the shuttle to carry its max rated capacity for 150
nmi to 250 nmi or so.  Similarly, if the shuttle launches to a
higher inclination orbit than 28.5 deg, say to 50 deg inclination,
then its performance also decreases (as does every other launch
vehicle).  Again, I would not expect the shuttle to carry its max
rated capacity for 28.5 deg inclination 150 nmi orbits to 40 deg
inclination 150 nmi orbits.
   On that basis, yes, the shuttle rarely carries its maximum
achievable payload, if that maximum payload is measured to 150 nmi,
28.5 deg circular orbits.
   Probably a better comparision is to compare the percentage of
maximum payload possible (based upon vehicle performance to that
altitude and inclination) to what was actually achieved.  Based upon
my analysis of this, incorporating the masses of the primary
payloads (IUS/TDRS, Spacelabe etc), plus secondary payloads (middeck
locker experiments, GAS cans, crew experiments), and compared to the
expected vehicle performances into the altitudes and inclinations
the shuttle was launched into,  I find the shuttle manifest
typically runs about .95-.97 full.
   I found this result rather surprizing (I was trying to justify ET
propellant scavenging into unused payload performance to fuel a
resuable space tug), but the simple answer I found what that
secondary payloads (GAS cans, crew experiments, middeck locker
experiments) are used to fill up unused primary payload
performance -- yet typically only pimary payloads are listed on the
manifest.  And there is quite a long waiting list of secondary
payloads who want opportunities to fly ...

   The misstatement is the 40,000 lbs safe return weight.  There are
actually two safe return weights, with a much higher value based
upon a 1 time safe return, versus a routine return.  Please read the
following, which is a repeat of a November posting (which is a
repeat of an earlier posting).

   ORBITER RETURN PAYLOD CAPABILITY
   Orbiter return capability is totally different from orbiter
delivery capability.  The orbiter return delivery capability is
calculated on an individual vehicle and mission capability - based
upon total return landing weight.  Furthermore there is a 1-time
contingency landing capability as well as a regular mission limit.
   The limit is driven at (from memory) about 240 Klbs routine
return weight on the landing gear/tires.  OV-102, since it is about
9,000 lbs heavier than any other vehicle, is certified for regular
returns of about 32,000 lbs of payload. OV's-103, -104, and -105 are
much lighter weight vehicles and can accommodate higher weight
payloads, typically in the 40,000 lb or higher category, on a
regular basis without exceeding the 240 Klb limit.
   However, there is also a higher certified safe limit for a 1-time
contingency landing.  If the shuttle is launching a 45,000 lb
TDRS/IUS, it obviously can't dump the payload before landing in a
RTLS or TAL abort, yet it must be able to land safely.  And there
might be a heavy payload that won't deploy.  So the orbiter is
certified to land, at least once, with a gross weight at landing of
about 275Klbs, which is about a 75,000 payload on OVs -103, -104,
and -105.  After such a landing, it would be necessary to reinspect
and recertify the landing gear, but it has been exhaustively
certified that it won't crash or collapse in such an event. I called
and talked to a Shuttle landing gear designer I used to work with,
and he thought an inspection would be sufficient in such an event,
based upon the landing data from the previous 45 [now closer to 52,
I believe] or so flights.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:22:09 GMT
From: Robert Frederking <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar system stability (Was: averting doom)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment

The latest issue of S&T mentions some recent work done using chaos
theory and large computers to see whether the solar system is stable.
Their finding (I forget who it was now) was that millimeter
perturbations in the orbits of the planets do cause chaotic changes in
the long run.  The good news (for people who don't like chaotic
orbits) is that the amount of time it takes for something ``really
bad'' to become probable is on the order of a trillion years [i.e.,
longer than the solar system will exist in its present form anyway].
``Really bad'' is for a planet to be ejected, a collission, etc.

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 16:57:13 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>There's a very good argument for multistage rockets - it makes the mass
>ratio much simpler to manage (see some of the books by Willy Ley).

There's also a very good argument for multistage airplanes -- it makes
the mass ratio simpler to manage.

However, while multistage airplanes have been builting and tested
in trans-Atlantic service, airplane manufacturers quickly realized
that the key to producing a successing airliner was not minimizing
mass ratio, but minimizing operating costs.

In a competitive market, a launcher with a large mass ratio and
low operating costs will beat a launcher with small mass ratio
and high operating costs every time.

Achieving this requires careful attention to sound engineering
principles including, above all, KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.
What's needed is a simple, reliable design, without bells, whistles,
or stages.


>Unfortunately, it also adds to the complexity and reliability problems of
>the launcher, which is why we'd like to go to SSTO if we can. Thanks to
>advances in technology, it may now be practical, and DC will be a great
>breakthrough if it works.

Advances in technology, perhaps, but hardly recent advances.  The old
Saturn S-IVB stage could've been turned into a SSTO launcher, with a
payload the size of a Gemini spacecraft.  The "unattainable mass ratio"
is nothing more than an aerospace legend.


>But that doesn't mean designers were foolish to
>use multistage systems in the past - and some applications, such as direct
>flight to the moon without refueling, will probably remain unattainable by
>SSTO for a long time.

Actually, SSTM (you can hardly call it SSTO :-) would be quite attainable
given a nuclear rocket engine with a sufficiently high thrust-to-weight
ratio.  Unfortunately, launching nuclear rockets from Earth was politically
unacceptable even before we had Captain Planet for Veep.

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 18:00:58 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>> There's a very good argument for multistage rockets - it makes the mass
>> ratio much simpler to manage (see some of the books by Willy Ley).

> There's also a very good argument for multistage airplanes -- it makes
> the mass ratio simpler to manage.


The mass ratio on an airliner is much less than in a launcher with
chemical rocket propulsion, for rather fundamental reasons.  It is
therefore not inconceivable that multistage launchers would be
appropriate even though multistage aircraft are not.

(Actually, effectively multistage aircraft are in routine use,
through the use of midair refueling.)

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 20:32:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: two-line element info needed
Newsgroups: sci.space

Is there a FAQ detailing the fields in the two-line element sets?

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

Date: 30 Dec 92 20:23:32 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Sets, Part 1
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (TS Kelso) writes:
> The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
> carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
> possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
> system.  The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400,
> 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.
>
> Element sets (also updated daily) and some documentation and software are
> available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the
> directory pub/space.
>
> As a service to the satellite user community, the most current of these
> elements are uploaded weekly to sci.space.news and rec.radio.amateur.misc.
> This week's elements are provided below.
>
> - Current Two-Line Element Sets #117a -
> Alouette 1
> 1 00424U 62B-A  1 92351.31185290  .00000085  00000-0  96657-4 0  6941
> 2 00424  80.4638 105.5307 0023933  84.6169 275.7713 13.67741127507504
> ATS 3
> 1 03029U 67111  A 92356.07873080 -.00000078  00000-0  99999-4 0  9016
> 2 03029  14.2269  12.9755 0013676 251.9752 107.8695  1.00271641 91999
> Cosmos 398
> 1 04966U 71 16  A 92363.25204690  .00089720  26162-4  28657-3 0  9348
> 2 04966  51.4789  99.4247 1510481 348.4308   8.5162 12.75681918701420
> Starlette
> 1 07646U 75010  A 92362.67557300 -.00000055  00000-0  41575-5 0  4882
> 2 07646  49.8216 110.4936 0205622   4.3246 355.9366 13.82180394903643
> LAGEOS
> 1 08820U 76039  A 92362.15435531  .00000004  00000-0  99999-4 0  5531
> 2 08820 109.8589 311.6147 0043643  39.5522 320.8129  6.38664306132855
> ETS-2
> 1 09852U 77014  A 92334.47814434 -.00000098  00000-0  99999-4 0  7488
> 2 09852  11.1085  48.1713 0001459 200.7488 159.4019  1.00023746  4820
> GOES 2
> 1 10061U 77048  A 92361.60928397  .00000103  00000-0  99999-4 0  9183
> 2 10061  10.1533  52.3232 0003778 156.5662 330.3382  1.00293357  1728
> IUE
> 1 10637U 78012  A 92362.21904610 -.00000193  00000-0  00000+0 0  6608
> 2 10637  33.7519 103.6595 1321368  19.7172 355.4665  1.00311371  7500
> GPS-0001
> 1 10684U 78020  A 92355.99127624 -.00000004  00000-0  99999-4 0    30
> 2 10684  64.3245  61.6947 0068396 163.1714 197.1065  1.98069607 94179
> GPS-0002
> 1 10893U 78 47  A 92357.66043480 -.00000014  00000-0  99999-4 0  7414
> 2 10893  63.8502 301.6993 0203884  12.9146 347.5835  2.01626997107157
> GOES 3
> 1 10953U 78062  A 92360.55187765  .00000100  00000-0  99999-4 0  6251
> 2 10953   9.0606  54.9971 0005783 105.1292 317.7889  1.00275303  6324
> SeaSat 1
> 1 10967U 78064  A 92361.68414599  .00000304  00000-0  14321-3 0  9468
> 2 10967 108.0173  69.7024 0002673 239.5484 120.5412 14.37741821759101
> GPS-0003
> 1 11054U 78093  A 92361.27782999 -.00000013  00000-0  99999-4 0  8535
> 2 11054  63.5557 297.5739 0043375 173.9532 186.0857  1.93505072104101
> Nimbus 7
> 1 11080U 78098  A 92356.71295490  .00000050  00000-0  60623-4 0    92
> 2 11080  99.1200 247.5974 0009313 142.2812 217.8998 13.83695022715058
> GPS-0004
> 1 11141U 78112  A 92358.65105742 -.00000004  00000-0  99999-4 0  5556
> 2 11141  64.3200  61.9450 0048417  23.3034 336.9759  1.92894801102578
> GPS-0005
> 1 11690U 80 11  A 92358.40404322 -.00000003  00000-0  99999-4 0  5015
> 2 11690  64.6662  63.5992 0137624 200.1893 159.3533  2.00550072108693
> GPS-0006
> 1 11783U 80 32  A 92354.40994259 -.00000012  00000-0  99999-4 0  7405
> 2 11783  62.9734 296.4672 0200332  28.7266 332.3422  2.03456474 92870
> GOES 5
> 1 12472U 81049  A 92359.11764426 -.00000236  00000-0  99999-4 0  4612
> 2 12472   5.6690  64.3110 0002964 322.1155  37.6763  1.00242181   358
> Cosmos 1383
> 1 13301U 82 66  A 92354.07963295  .00000057  00000-0  59835-4 0   148
> 2 13301  82.9303 349.4104 0027210 154.2096 206.0414 13.68026896522891
> LandSat 4
> 1 13367U 82 72  A 92362.13378847 -.00001419  00000-0 -31016-3 0  6046
> 2 13367  98.2568  56.9910 0007958 113.2609 246.9406 14.57076561555852
> IRAS
> 1 13777U 83  4  A 92356.08548060 -.00000045  00000-0 -19164-4 0  3008
> 2 13777  98.9864 186.9157 0012776  16.5345 343.6233 13.99144606175285
> Cosmos 1447
> 1 13916U 83 21  A 92361.59845866  .00000059  00000-0  56115-4 0   948
> 2 13916  82.9456  49.2899 0039043  86.1367 274.4253 13.74274332489494
> TDRS 1
> 1 13969U 83 26  B 92361.18439608  .00000121  00000-0  99999-4 0  8832
> 2 13969   6.6069  56.7441 0002205 275.2577  18.4083  1.00268919  8668
> GOES 6
> 1 14050U 83 41  A 92360.57089103 -.00000076  00000-0  99999-4 0  8250
> 2 14050   4.4452  67.0839 0003079 268.2480 219.1407  1.00327076  7381
> OSCAR 10
> 1 14129U 83 58  B 92362.21185627 -.00000019  00000-0  99998-4 0  9545
> 2 14129  27.0008  47.5477 6016919  44.6562 350.5126  2.05877651 43751
> GPS-0008
> 1 14189U 83 72  A 92359.49999999 -.00000005  00000-0  99999-4 0  3795
> 2 14189  63.8951  59.0031 0137510 233.8774  68.5094  2.00563848 69245
> LandSat 5
> 1 14780U 84 21  A 92362.65516929  .00000489  00000-0  11874-3 0  4091
> 2 14780  98.2386  59.7723 0005496 114.8036 245.3718 14.57105565469343
> UoSat 2
> 1 14781U 84 21  B 92360.59548196  .00000821  00000-0  14843-3 0  3913
> 2 14781  97.8293  28.5366 0011415 186.2765 173.8299 14.68801991471231
> GPS-0009
> 1 15039U 84 59  A 92356.76015314 -.00000006  00000-0  99999-4 0  7631
> 2 15039  63.6475  58.0635 0045728 218.9038 140.8200  2.00567143 62466
> Cosmos 1574
> 1 15055U 84 62  A 92353.69713457  .00000056  00000-0  53870-4 0  3464
> 2 15055  82.9572 107.3228 0026936 297.6219  62.2218 13.73570411425741
> GPS-0010
> 1 15271U 84 97  A 92362.68610872 -.00000012  00000-0  99999-4 0  4048
> 2 15271  62.6754 295.8717 0129116 341.0922  18.4480  2.00565797 59693
> Cosmos 1602
> 1 15331U 84105  A 92360.13481630  .00001529  00000-0  18197-3 0    28
> 2 15331  82.5352 222.2059 0019673 178.9471 181.1790 14.83670261444563
> NOAA 9
> 1 15427U 84123  A 92359.44956228  .00000015  00000-0  18545-4 0  2575
> 2 15427  99.1251  30.4248 0014314 302.2612  57.7191 14.13466209414092
> GPS-0011
> 1 16129U 85 93  A 92360.41681461 -.00000005  00000-0  99999-4 0  1093
> 2 16129  64.4051  59.6937 0129548 143.7947 217.1631  2.00564424 52852
> Mir
> 1 16609U 86 17  A 92362.85469299  .00019202  00000-0  26322-3 0  7864
> 2 16609  51.6218 359.5906 0001301 166.5921 193.5058 15.57386335392415
> SPOT 1
> 1 16613U 86 19  A 92362.59354133  .00000179  00000-0  10155-3 0  9538
> 2 16613  98.7441  73.1550 0005249 264.2994  95.7644 14.20256511 40409
> Cosmos 1766
> 1 16881U 86 55  A 92363.28376100  .00001661  00000-0  20218-3 0  8515
> 2 16881  82.5226 277.5293 0018631 188.3294 171.7614 14.82771988346027
> EGP
> 1 16908U 86 61  A 92356.31659748 -.00000025  00000-0  99999-4 0  6391
> 2 16908  50.0101 313.3895 0011424  17.8460 342.2774 12.44405939289170
> NOAA 10
> 1 16969U 86 73  A 92359.41695375  .00000091  00000-0  46994-4 0  1058
> 2 16969  98.5269  13.5489 0014319 104.9392 255.3415 14.24743749325749
> MOS-1
> 1 17527U 87 18  A 92362.73579045  .00000117  00000-0  99999-4 0  3923
> 2 17527  99.0973  69.8903 0000407  72.2228 287.8968 13.94869545298157
> GOES 7
> 1 17561U 87 22  A 92360.64177812 -.00000018  00000-0  99999-4 0  2751
> 2 17561   0.3442  84.9682 0002899 309.2126 178.9600  1.00268602  4575
> Kvant-1
> 1 17845U 87 30  A 92362.85468102  .00021425  00000-0  29285-3 0  2344
> 2 17845  51.6228 359.5914 0001431 163.0112 197.0197 15.57387316392419
> DMSP B5D2-3
> 1 18123U 87 53  A 92361.08694645  .00000172  00000-0  10798-3 0  6884
> 2 18123  98.7946 189.4052 0013602 275.9504  84.0127 14.15225160284893
> RS-10/11
> 1 18129U 87 54  A 92362.52435170  .00000097  00000-0  99999-4 0  5052
> 2 18129  82.9259   5.4940 0013370  74.8978 285.3654 13.72304193276301
> Meteor 2-16
> 1 18312U 87 68  A 92354.85133072  .00000089  00000-0  74908-4 0  9894
> 2 18312  82.5542 283.5477 0011004 199.1406 160.9341 13.83974432269763
> Meteor 2-17
> 1 18820U 88  5  A 92353.10621057  .00000075  00000-0  61699-4 0  8462
> 2 18820  82.5413 342.9471 0015645 278.8714  81.0679 13.84664706246785
> DMSP B5D2-4
> 1 18822U 88  6  A 92361.11411469  .00000398  00000-0  19369-3 0  5897
> 2 18822  98.5127 225.2642 0007380 109.3245 250.8726 14.22771070254002
> Glonass 34
> 1 19163U 88 43  A 92354.60961811  .00000017  00000-0  99999-4 0  6431
> 2 19163  64.9449 128.6664 0007505 178.1720 181.8039  2.13102517 35059
> Glonass 36
> 1 19165U 88 43  C 92350.44222314  .00000017  00000-0  99999-4 0  8408
> 2 19165  64.9397 128.7943 0003435 342.9958  16.9770  2.13102533 35582
> METEOSAT 3
> 1 19215U 88 51  A 92360.63215277 -.00000258  00000-0  99999-4 0  5556
> 2 19215   0.5308  73.5524 0001638 277.6121 281.7485  1.00267118  4517
> AO-13
> 1 19216U 88 51  B 92358.05962542 -.00000248  00000-0  99999-4 0  5496
> 2 19216  57.6197 342.9243 7279566 303.9629   6.7970  2.09726878  3165
> OKEAN 1
> 1 19274U 88 56  A 92358.09837837  .00001176  00000-0  14618-3 0  5503
> 2 19274  82.5148  21.6921 0020755 354.5668   5.5318 14.81618953240947
> Meteor 3-2
> 1 19336U 88 64  A 92353.37685565  .00000028  00000-0  59652-4 0   133
> 2 19336  82.5421 349.8976 0016229 184.8458 175.2509 13.16953549211414
> Glonass 39
> 1 19503U 88 85  C 92354.21889855 -.00000021  00000-0  99999-4 0  8976
> 2 19503  65.6826   7.6724 0006719 180.9233 179.1402  2.13101714 33154
> NOAA 11
> 1 19531U 88 89  A 92359.38964199  .00000339  00000-0  20292-3 0   106
> 2 19531  99.1086 325.9471 0011309 207.8510 152.2083 14.12799241218992
> TDRS 2
> 1 19548U 88 91  B 92361.53852566 -.00000258  00000-0  00000+0 0  5681
> 2 19548   0.0185  97.7881 0002716 176.2710 312.9725  1.00265127  2828
> Glonass 40
> 1 19749U 89  1  A 92362.70651816  .00000017  00000-0  00000+0 0  9126
> 2 19749  64.8876 128.0082 0005453 262.4957  97.4212  2.13101773 30861
> Glonass 41
> 1 19750U 89  1  B 92354.31713466  .00000017  00000-0  99999-4 0  8507
> 2 19750  64.9073 128.3302 0006333 248.0785 111.8384  2.13102015 30689
> GPS BII-01
> 1 19802U 89 13  A 92358.26890323  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0  5486
> 2 19802  55.0451 161.1324 0040596 169.9239 190.1468  2.00570217 28208
> Akebono
> 1 19822U 89 16  A 92362.84935894  .00021192  00000-0  12032-2 0  7306
> 2 19822  75.1332 120.5889 3904965 318.7153  17.5516  7.61973302 67963
> Meteor 2-18
> 1 19851U 89 18  A 92354.68639557  .00000108  00000-0  91451-4 0  7904
> 2 19851  82.5210 218.0108 0014087 319.8565  40.1552 13.84313836192358
> MOP-1
> 1 19876U 89 20  B 92357.00000000  .00000015  00000-0  00000+0 0  4941
> 2 19876   0.2410 343.1358 0001625  22.3646  84.9190  1.00264121  1474
> TDRS 3
> 1 19883U 89 21  B 92361.39288328 -.00000241  00000-0  00000+0 0  5626
> 2 19883   0.0305 208.1361 0002845  43.2349 304.0732  1.00265451 84100
> GPS BII-02
> 1 20061U 89 44  A 92358.60933317 -.00000032  00000-0  99999-4 0  5545
> 2 20061  54.8606 338.4722 0105038 200.7788 158.7559  2.00560294 25957
> Nadezhda 1
> 1 20103U 89 50  A 92352.99830476  .00000049  00000-0  45551-4 0  6988
> 2 20103  82.9592 330.5354 0038908  12.6835 347.5290 13.73804306173319
> GPS BII-03
> 1 20185U 89 64  A 92361.44197573  .00000015  00000-0  99999-4 0  5018
> 2 20185  54.8898 161.7116 0010040 188.3799 171.6883  2.00576536 24580
> --
> Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
> [e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 614
------------------------------