Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_0/v16no061.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 28.9 KB

Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 05:04:57
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #061
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 19 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 061

Today's Topics:
          "Synchronous Orbits around other planets" (2 msgs)
                       Air Force Space Command
Earth's rotation rate may be due to early collisions [Release 93-12] (Forwarded)
                           Goldin's future
                     Handling Antimatter (3 msgs)
        JPL and public info (was Re: Goldin's future) (2 msgs)
      Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
                      Magellan Update - 01/18/93
                       Organic heat shielding.
                            Parting Words
                       Railgun in Southwest US
                      RTG's on the Lunar Module
          Sabatier reactor? (was Re: Oxygen in Biosphere 2)
                        Soviet space disaster
                       Space nuclear power....
              Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
           Who can launch antisats? (was  DoD launcher use)

    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: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 19:59:04 GMT
From: "Bruce T. Harvey" <idsssd!bruce>
Subject: "Synchronous Orbits around other planets"
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

A friend of mine and I were discussing (albeit after a few drinks) the
feasibility of placing a satellite into a
'[insert-planetary-prefix]-synchronous' or '[x]-stationary orbit on some of
the more quickly rotating planets in our system.

Understanding that for our small world, geostationary means about a score or
so thousand miles out, are there any planets in our system where this type
of orbit is out of the question because rotation is too fast?  I do
understand that to synchronize with Venus would be a pain in the solar butt,
even if it is reasonably possible.

Any ideas?

Thanks.





--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bruce T. Harvey  {B-}) :::      UUCP:    ... {uunet|mimsy}!wb3ffv!idsssd!bruce
MGR-Applications Dvlpmt:::  INTERNET:     wb3ffv!idsssd!bruce%uunet.uu.net@...
INSIGHT Dist. Sys. - AD:::CompuServe:                               71033,1070
[phone] x312,x352::: SnailMail: 222 Schilling Cir.,Hunt Valley, MD 21031
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 23:39:55 GMT
From: Joe Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Synchronous Orbits around other planets"
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce T. Harvey) writes:
>A friend of mine and I were discussing (albeit after a few drinks) the
>feasibility of placing a satellite into a
>'[insert-planetary-prefix]-synchronous' or '[x]-stationary orbit on some of
>the more quickly rotating planets in our system.
>
>Understanding that for our small world, geostationary means about a score or
>so thousand miles out, are there any planets in our system where this type
>of orbit is out of the question because rotation is too fast?

Why not just use Kepler's 3rd law and use a presently known satellite?

p**2=a**3

i.e. Mars has p= .319 (Earth) days and a=9378 km for Phobos. Since the
rotaional period of Mars is 1.026 days, you can do the arithmetic

like a = 9378*(1.026/.319)**(2/3) km

For the Moon it is like 384E3/27**(2/3) so you do not even need a
calculator.

of course you can also find the K, mass, etc and plug

into Newton's improvement  M*P**2 = (4*pi/G)*a**3

where G=6.67 * 10E-11 Nm**2*kg**-2

for the outer planets you have a LOT of moons to play with and you
only have to look at tables of rotations and moons. For example:

the inner two of Jupiter's moons are below the synchronous radius
all of Saturns are outside.
10 of Uranus are inside
5 of Neptune
and of course Charon and Pluto dance together.

I believe that this means that all those inside should be tidally
accelerated inward, no?

Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain
[phone]        FAX [phone] or -0098

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 17:48:38 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Air Force Space Command
Newsgroups: sci.space

earlier I wrote:

>>While the Air Force may wish to claim space command as their own, it is
>>in fact a joint service command staffed by folks from all DoD services.
>>The USAF is the majority player at space command, but that's all.

and then Captain Samuel Bryant replied:

> Sorry Bill, but Air Force Space Command is 100% Air Force!!
> (and has about 30,000 personnel including civilians)
>
> US Space Command is the one you mean, and it is comprised of personnel
> from the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Canadian Air Force.

Which seems to agree with what I wrote earlier.  Yes, there is a very large
USAF Space Command, and much smaller US Army and US Navy Space Commands, and
they all come under a joint force command called US SPACE COMMAND, which is
what the good Captain then describes in detail.

I gather from Captain Bryant's posting that I was misinformed about the
command of US SPACECOM rotating between the USAF and the Navy.  From his
information it appears the billet is always held by an Air Force general.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

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

Date: 18 Jan 93 21:08:42 GMT
From: Ray Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Earth's rotation rate may be due to early collisions [Release 93-12] (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>     "A popular theory holds that the collision of a Mars-sized planetary body
> with the Earth threw considerable debris into orbit, which then came together
> to form the moon," Dones said.  "Thus, the same impact which gave Earth its
> spin, could also have formed the moon."

How does this popular theory account for the moon having zero spin?

  Ray Davis ([e-mail])
   hplabs!hp-pcd.cv.hp.com!rayd

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 20:08:10 GMT
From: Larry Wall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goldin's future
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey David Hagen) writes:
: Besides, catch a clue about JPL. It is widely considered to be the single most
: bloated, pig-headed, and inefficient part of NASA among industry folks I have
: dealt with. Having spent some time as a student at Caltech myself, I can
: certainly see were they get that impression.

Note, that's among *industry* folks.  I think what these industry folks are
seeing is, at least in part, the academic side of JPL, which derives from
its relationship with Caltech.  Certainly industry views academia as
pig-headed and inefficient.  In my experience at JPL I didn't find an
unexpected amount of bloat.  I've also been in industry and in academia,
so I suppose I have some basis of comparison.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
: Sad but true, that impression certainly exists.  I toured a well-known radio
: observatory several years ago.  The assistant director made a comment about
: a project.  A colleague on the tour offered that at JPL, they're doing such
: and such in connection with a similar project.  The assistant director replies
: (somewhat annoyed), "JPL spends most of their time doing PR.  Here, we do
: science."
:
: I'm not in much of a position to judge whether that impression is correct,
: however.

I think it's slightly true, and slightly unfair.  (Smacks a bit of sour
grapes as well.)  Yes, JPL, does some PR, but that's demand driven.  I
can assure you that JPL also does science.  Some of you may have noticed...

Larry Wall
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Jan 93 17:41:59 GMT
From: Steve Masticola <[e-mail]>
Subject: Handling Antimatter
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:

>Imagine a molecular cage, say a buckminsterfullerene.  The cage has a
>net positive charge (missing an electron).  A negative antiproton
>could then be trapped in the center of the cage where it would
>only "contact" and be repelled by the orbital electrons.

I think it might work better if the fullerene had a net negative
charge - would tend to keep the antiproton centered, rather than
attracted to the walls. But I see a bigger problem.

How would you keep the fullerenes charged? Lose the charge and the
antiproton can go where it wants.

Also, couldn't a proton get through the fullerene? Maybe by tunneling,
if not by just going through the center of one of the benzene rings.
(Do protons tunnel?) If so, any hydrogen contamination would make the
thing blow up.

A net positive charge on the fullerene would avoid this problem by
repelling any protons that happened to show up. But then the
antiproton inside would move toward the walls, and maybe escape from
one of the windows. Same problem.

- Steve ([e-mail]).

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

Date: 18 Jan 93 21:25:11 GMT
From: Mark Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Handling Antimatter
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Masticola) writes:
>[e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>
>>Imagine a molecular cage, say a buckminsterfullerene.  The cage has a
>>net positive charge (missing an electron).  A negative antiproton
>>could then be trapped in the center of the cage where it would
>>only "contact" and be repelled by the orbital electrons.
>
>I think it might work better if the fullerene had a net negative
>charge - would tend to keep the antiproton centered, rather than
>attracted to the walls. But I see a bigger problem.
>
>- Steve ([e-mail]).

This whole approach has the problem of equipotential within a spherical
shell.  It has been long known that there is no gravitational gradient
within a uniform spherical shell of mass.  The intuitive reason for this
is the counteracting of the 1/r^2 distance factor and the r^2 mass factor
within a cones on either side of any point within the shell.  (Did this
make any sense without an ascii drawing?)  The same would be true for
a charged sphere.  Of course this assumes that the sphere is uniformly
charged, but for an electron confined to the atoms of the shell (but not
to any individual atom) this would essentially be the case.

Mark ([e-mail])

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

Date: 19 Jan 93 00:27:54 GMT
From: Sam Warden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Handling Antimatter
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

>The molecular weight of C60 plus antiproton is >721 daltons.
>Proton-antiproton annihilation would convert 2/721 or 0.28%
>of this into energy.  The energy/mass ratio of this rocket
>fuel would, unfortunately, be no better than that of U-235.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Did we get really spoiled really fast, or what?  :-)  :-)

--

[e-mail] (Sam Warden) -- and not a mere Device.


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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 19:00:59 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL and public info (was Re: Goldin's future)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey ([e-mail]) wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter J. Scott) writes:
> > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
> [at some radio observatory]
> >> The assistant director replies
> >> (somewhat annoyed), "JPL spends most of their time doing PR.  Here, we do
> >> science."
> >
> > I imagine a lot of public educational effort is mistaken for PR, appearing
> > rather similar.  Public education is one of NASA's duties.  In fact,
> > Goldin told us (general address to JPL, 11/25/92) that we weren't doing
> > enough of it.
>
> Public relations and public education. I have trouble understanding
> the distinction-- maybe somebody can enlighten me.
>
Public relations approaches public education in the limit of zero
dissimulation.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

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

Date: 18 Jan 93 19:26:15 GMT
From: Joe Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL and public info (was Re: Goldin's future)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter J. Scott) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>[at some radio observatory]
>>> The assistant director replies
>>> (somewhat annoyed), "JPL spends most of their time doing PR.  Here, we do
>>> science."
>>
>> I imagine a lot of public educational effort is mistaken for PR, appearing
>> rather similar.  Public education is one of NASA's duties.

>Public relations and public education. I have trouble understanding
>the distinction-- maybe somebody can enlighten me.

    When I worked for Goddard we were sometimes embarressed by the
PR people who often reported things about our results that were, well,
at least overstated. The people doing science and engineering at JPL
are certainly some of the best around, as is their computer graphics
group. I am extremely pleased with the support they have supplied in
many areas, including my teaching. I agree that some of the material in
their videos blows their horn loudly, and when time comes to create a
clip for class use, I copy little of such material for lack of class time.

    Now being at a University I can better appreciate the feelings of
those who are supported much less extravagently than is given to the
JPL workers. When I worked for NASA I often had to deal with
(i.e. make sure it was spent 3 months before the new fiscal year) contract
funds of the order of $300-500K while I observed those in similar jobs
in DOD who had to spend much more. When I moved to USGS the amount was
reduced to $30K and unlike NASA I had to pay for helpers, travel and
computer time. On moving to a University I am lucky to find $3K and
mostly less unless I generate it myself. Even here the administration
looks favorably on good PR and can only conclude that JPL's success is
partly due to their ability to do a good job in this department.

Public education is often the best PR and greatly needed in all areas
of science. We need to change the image of the mad scientist on
Saturday morning cartoons and help show the public how space research
is more important for our future than astronauts spinning tops for TV.


Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain
[phone]        FAX [phone] or -0098

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 17:40:13 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>are a preferred solution. Honeycomb composite structures are another good
>>solution, but remain very expensive to fabricate.
>
>Too the best of my understanding, the chinese use Bamboo heat shields
>on their rocket capsules.  The bamboo carbonizes, and becomes an almost
>perfect insulator.  A friend of mine watched a thermite lance get halted
>by a piece of plywood.  the carbon just sucked up the heat.

I heard they used oak. Dry wood char is a fairly good insulator in an
oxygen poor environment. Try hitting that plywood with an oxyacetylene
torch with the oxygem turned up, however. It will burn brightly and
quickly. A neutral lance is one thing, but 20% excess oxygen is something
else, and that's what you've got during re-entry, a hot high speed flow
of oxygen rich gas. If you can protect the wood from direct oxygen
exposure, you may have something. I think even balsa wood is heavier
than the Shuttle tiles, however.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Jan 1993 23:41 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 01/18/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                       MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                          January 18, 1993

1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally.

2.  All starcals (star calibrations) and desats (desaturation
of the reaction wheels) over the weekend were successful, with two
partial scans.

3.  The TWTA (Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier) experienced another
spurious shutoff which was corrected automatically.  A memory readout
was commanded early this morning to determine the time of the TWTA SSO.
No further commanding is scheduled for today.

4.  The Magellan Project continues a systematic process of archiving
its scientific data products and other records.  The radar images,
altimetry/radiometry, and gravity data represents a data set many
times the volume of all previous planetary missions, but the process
of distributing this data to the science community has gone extremely
well.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Every once in a while,
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | try pushing your luck.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 09:42:15 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Organic heat shielding.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>Too the best of my understanding, the chinese use Bamboo heat shields
>>on their rocket capsules.  The bamboo carbonizes, and becomes an almost
>
>Actually, I think they use(d) oak....
>
>>any low cost vehicle plans ever look at these?
>
>Well, obviously the chinese have...
>Josh Hopkins

I remember reading that the Germans had something to do with the use
of plywood. During the war and those later taken to the US and Russia were
working on seperating warheads from ballistic missiles for greater accuracy.
Of course, the Germans were into alternate materials during the war
and this may have something to do with the use of wood.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 23:30:25 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parting Words

-From: [e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff)
-Subject: Re: Parting Words
-Date: 18 Jan 93 02:32:56 GMT
-Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

->> "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
->>        -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry
->
->Are these perhaps the *last* words spoken on the moon ?
->If not, what *were* the last ?
->* Fred Baube         ..when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter

-It was probubly "ignition"...

How about "Wait! I forgot..."

Or "Hey look! There's Elvis!"  :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Jan 93 02:27:27 GMT
From: Bruce McKenzie <bruce@sugarbowl>
Subject: Railgun in Southwest US
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>  writes:
> Evidently, it's a two stage light gas gun, 425 ft. long, built by
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for $4 million over the last
> three years.
 ...
> "When the final pieces are in place late this fall, the Super High
> Altitude Research Project (SHARP) gun is expected to send a projectile
> weighing 5 kg. (11 lb.) hurtling into a pile of sandbags at 4 km./sec.
> (8,945 mph.)."

This beastie had a successful test firing ~last week. Reported in the
local (San Jose) paper. I had thought that they had test-fired an even
smaller version last fall, but I must have misread it.

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

Date: 17 Jan 93 23:13:32 GMT
From: Kenneth Ng <sugra!ken>
Subject: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
:In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
:>> The radiation hazard from plutonium 238 is insignificant; it's pretty much
:>> a pure alpha emitter, and human skin stops alpha particles completely.  (A
:>> sheet of paper will do likewise.)  You don't want to eat the stuff...
:>Somewhere in the recesses of my mind lies a memory of a scientist
:>who offered to eat some plutonium if the journalist covering the
:>event would eat the same amount of caffeine.  No takers, obviously,
:>but does this mean that it would be safe to eat plutonium?
:Plutonium 239 would not be very toxic if eaten as the metal, I would think.
:(Whereas caffeine in bite-and-chew quantities would be lethal.)  I don't
:know as I'd call it "safe", but it might not be certain death.  Inhaling it
:into the lungs as fine dust is the quick way to die from plutonium.  The
:metal probably wouldn't be absorbed very efficiently when eaten.

In his book "The Nuclear Energy Option" by Bernard L. Cohen, Cohen said that
he had offered to publically inhale many times as much plutonium as Nadar said
was lethal.  Also to inhale 1000 particles of plutonium of any size that
could be suspended in air, in response to "a single particle...will cause
cancer", or eat as much plutonium as any prominent nuclear critic will eat
or drink caffeine. (reference page 251)  However, he does not say whether
it was plutonium metal or oxide.  My suspicion is oxide, since the stuff
is relatively inert.

--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to [e-mail] for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!

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

Date: 18 Jan 93 21:09:24 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier reactor? (was Re: Oxygen in Biosphere 2)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>Pat, could you explain, for the benefit of chemical engineering
>illiterates, what the heck is the "sabatier" reaction and how you can
>make a chemical reactor gadget so small?

It's a chemical process that, as I recall, uses heat and a few
catalists to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and waste cardon.
There are one or two other artificial processes that do the same
thing, but the sabatier process (apparently) has some advantages
in terms of size, effecience, etc... A fair amount of research has
gone into it, and it's a common part of closed or partially closed
spacecraft life support systems. (The shuttle doesn't use it, since
the oxygen carried versus sabatier machinery trade off favors open
life support systems for missions under a few weeks... But I think
Freedom is supposed to use it.)

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 09:19:19 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet space disaster
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Edwards) writes:
>But - and correct me if I'm wrong - the Soviets said that they never
>intended going to the moon.  And now we have seen film of the booster
>that would have taken them there and and pictures of the spacecraft
>they would have travelled in.
>Just playing devil's advocate.

Ah, how well the propaganda works. There was plenty of man on
the moon talk from the Soviets up to 1969, and they weren't talking
about US astronauts. You'll have to look elsewhere for a comparison
to pre-Vostok cosmonaut fairy tales.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 23:24:08 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space nuclear power....

-From: [e-mail] (IGOR)
-Subject: Space Nuclear Power....
-Date: 18 Jan 93 03:30:00 GMT
-Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services

-I was attending last week, the Space Nuclear Power Symposium
- in Albuquerque and had the
-confirmation that they have been doing that for years. Most of them were
-called RORSAT and were used  at very low altitude, the most recent ones were two
-Topaz-I reactors sent on two cosmos missions ( i will get the numbers for
-people interested ).

-Igor Carron
-Department of Nuclear Engineering
-Texas A&M University

The Soviets have used nuclear reactors for low-altitude military radar
satellites. They were probably chosen mainly because drag on solar panels
would be a problem at low altitude. Before the satellites fail, the
reactors are usually jettisoned and boosted to a high orbit to avoid
near-term reentry.

Much of the US interest in nuclear reactors appears to be directed toward
propulsion, which could be used in interplanetary flight, for instance.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 18:40:50 GMT
From: Larry Wall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
: Elijah otis certainly did a lot ofr elevator safety, but as mary shafer
: says, life aint perfect.

And sometimes life is downright hostile.  Elevators have a nasty habit
of going to the floor with the fire, due to heat-induced shorts in the
up/down buttons.

Myself, I never cared much about my chance of dying as expressed either
per mile, or per boarding.  I'd rather know what chance I have of dying
per minute.  THAT'S the curve whose integral I try to keep low, in the
absence of higher goals...

Larry Wall
[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Jan 93 15:26:00 GMT
From: "Geoff C. Marshall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was  DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

 SysMgr....

 sy> Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical
 sy> weapons against allied forces in Desert Storm?

 Perhaps because he lacked the organisational capability to see that they
 were properly maintained or could be fitted to SCUDs ?

I really doubt S.Hussein has ANY care about 'public opinion' as where it
counts (for him) he makes his own 'public opinion'.

Count.

 * Origin:  The Gate - Melbourne, Australia - [phone]  (3:633/159.0)

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


    id AA01036; Mon, 18 Jan 93 21:22:09 EST
Received: from crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa19831; 18 Jan 93 21:16:45 EST
To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!news!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!decwin.enet.dec.com!fisher
From: [e-mail]
Mmdf-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Parting Words
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 18
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mmdf-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
References:  <[e-mail]>
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 17:39:15 GMT
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554")
writes:
|>
|>> "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto
|>Zoology
|>>        -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]
|>utzoo!henry
|>
|>Are these perhaps the *last* words spoken on the moon ?
|>If not, what *were* the last ?
|>
|>--
|>* Fred Baube         ..when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter

Probably "3-2-1-Liftoff" or something similar!

Burns

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 061
------------------------------