Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_2/v16no213.txt

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 05:19:29
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #213
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 22 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 213

Today's Topics:
                          "Late 'L5' Society
                    *advocate* anonymous postings
                       anonymous IS accountable
                      A response from Anonymous
           Atmosphere Diving Club, was HST service mission.
                   Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
     Canadian SSF effort ??, Alaska/Son of Fred, UN Space Agency
               F-1 history (test?) Long Term Budgeting!
            F-1 History, Long Trips in C-141/C-130, UH-60
          How many RPM's around his own axle can human take?
                        leading-edge anonymity
                      Medicine/EMS/SAR in Space.
                         New name for Fred ?
                           PEGASUS QUESTION
                      Satellites or space junk?
                           Soyuz I re-entry
                          SS Kernal Project!
                           UN Space Agency?

    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: 19 Feb 93  16:17:10
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

U >
U >Responses like that one are the primary reason that no one listens to
U >any seriousness anymore regarding the postive things that you support.
U >are many identifiable advances in materials processing, life sciences
U >even from you structural and mechanical engineering knowledge to be ga
U >by putting SSF into orbit. You reply with some very inane response tha
U >become your trademark of late.
U >
U >If only one process or experiment or bit of engineering enables a brea
U >such as room temp superconductors, (This is actually a "possiblityy" d
U >the fact that the oxidations state of the material is directly infulen
U >the differing electron configurations in the oxygen atom in the matrix
U >the Atomic oxygen environment may provide a new stat that we can explo
U >raise the temp) the program will have paid for its costs.
U >It is interesting that
U >you deleted the part about incremental progress in related ground stud
U >materials processing.
U >
U >If you care to look around you materials processing on earth is the fa
U >growing segment of science today. The complementary studies of materia
U >in orbit are assured to make, and for that matter are already making,
U >an impact on the way we do research on earth. These are real concrete
U >Allen. All we get from you is bat guano.
U >
>


Hmmm...if you were interested in results, rather than dollars going to
Houston, you would support immediate studies aboard the Mir space station.
Instead, all we get from the folks from Houston are requests for billions
of $ to go their way.

Materials processing? The guys on Mir have done more than all the work on
Shuttle, and all that will be done on Fred (assuming that Fred won't be
cancelled, which is probably a bad assumption). Yet, you folks ignore all
that work, because it wasn't Invented in Houston.

___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 16:04:55 PST
From: Jason Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: *advocate* anonymous postings
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.crypt

[e-mail] (Jay Maynard) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February
> >Now that we've seen that pseudonymous postings are not an
> >unmitigated evil
>
> "What you mean we, white man?" (Misattrubuted to Tonto...)
>
> You may think you've proven that, but the tide of opinion is against you.
>
> >by demonstrating their accountability and
> >responsibility
>
> What accountability and responsibility? You haven't been held accountable
> yet for disrupting sci.space, etcetera...
>
> >True, a lot of sludge will be channeled by Anonymous.  But
> >of far more importance will the occasional Copernican theory
> >(still censored in some areas until the early 19th C.) be able
> >to surface without intimidation or retribution.
>
> Good grief. This a lot of self-righteous hooey from someone defeinding his
> right to repost from the Weekly World News to a scientific newsgroup, and
> to do so with patently false and offensive material. If that's your idea
> of a Copernican theory, what do you call relativity??
> --
> Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
> [e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
>  "Support your local medical examiner - die strangely." -- Blake Bowers

I may have missed something, but he didn't say that was a Copernican
theory.  He said the occasional anonymous post will be so useful that we
won't know what we ever did without it.  If InterNet had been around in
Copernicus' time, don't you think that his theories would have come out a
lot earlier?

                                                Jason Cooper

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

Date: 20 Feb 93 16:52:06 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: anonymous IS accountable
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,news.admin.policy

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>
> [e-mail] (Dave Ratcliffe) claims that anonymous postings are
> like CB radio because of the unaccountability of the users of the
> system.

I just love your way of reviewing my comments. Let me make SURE you
see and UNDERSTAND it this time:

In <[e-mail]> I said:
- You are not everyone. Others have and will use anonymous posting to do

- anything they feel like doing knowing there is precious little
- accountability for it.

Note that "precious little accountability" != "unaccountability". If your
dictionary leads you to believe otherwise, replace it.

I note also that you totally ignored some questions:

You said:
= While the reactions in this newsgroup is slightly more subdued, the
= effect is virtually the same as the torch-bearers storming the castle in
= sci.space -- a several contributors here think that banning anonymous
= posts to technical groups is a good idea.

I asked:
- What possible need would someone have for posting anonymously to a sci.*
- group?

The question still stands.

I asked:
- Sure most adults are willing to post under their own names. Why would
- they want to hide behind an anonymous posting service? Ashamed of what
- they have to say or just trying to rile people without fear of being
- identified?

The question stands.

You said:
= if I post passwords or Secret Research Plans, the administrator of
= penet.fi will surely turn his e-mail racords over to the authorities.

I asked:
- What authorities? Usenet is worldwide.  The list of possible applicable
- authorities is endless. Violations of law in one place may well be
- perfectly ok in other places. Which law should penet.fi adhere to?
- Finnish law? OK, that means that people using the anonymous posting
- facilities can do something that violates the law elsewhere with
- impunity. I don't think that's right, do you?

The question stands.

You said:
= but my experience on the net shows that the same users who vilify
= anonymous postings are the first to write obsessively detailed
= grievances to the poster's supervisor when his or her tranquility is
= disturbed by some "intrusive" or subversive post or another.

I asked 2 questions:
- You have read a lot of SysAdmin's and supervisors mail to prove this
- assertion? Just how many of these people have you spoken to to gather
- this information? Back up your claims.

The questions stand.

Care to answer them all or would you prefer to keep calling us all
paranoid control freaks and forget the intelligent debate part?


--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 06:37:20 GMT
From: Bruce Becker <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Mah) writes:
|In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
|
| > Why is this?  Certainly most readers are adult and are able to hit 'N'
|
|Why is it that some people are afraid to take responsibility for what
|they say?  As freedoms increase, so must the level of responsibility
|taken on by those who use that freedom -- otherwise chaos reigns.
|
| > I think the fundamental issue here is control.
|
|In my view, the fundamental issue is taking responsibility for your
|own actions.  Personally, I think personal responsibility is a good
|thing.
|
| > Anonymous postings prevent just this kind of intimidation.
|
|While this is a valid point, I think it can be addressed by other means.
|
| > The settling of cyberspace will require new habits of thought from
| > the hierarchicalists: thoughts as expressed as postings are to be
| > judged by content and internal merit, if any, rather than on the
| > trappings of affiliations or other hoopla or fanfare.
|
|Studies have shown (refer to "Connections" by Sproull and Kiesler) that
|"cyberspace", in general, does just what you suggest.  We don't need
|anonymous postings to get there.


    Anonymous postings are a really good example
    of things that are to be judged by content,
    since the typical responses of "oh that's a
    posting by X, he's an idiot", or "Aha, Y is
    always making good points" are not able to
    be made.


    In addition, privacy is a right which people
    may exercise for whatever reason they wish -
    the reasons are private as well, so one must
    guess the motivation for anonymity in any
    particular circumstance.  To assume that a
    person has something to hide is at best a
    narrow attitude, at worst malicious.  They
    might wish to remain anonymous for its own
    sake, they might want to deliberately annoy
    those who don't like anonymity, they might
    have reasons you or I could never guess -
    but nonetheless it is their right to have
    privacy if they wish to do so.


    The issue of personal responsibility is a
    red herring which covers up the fact that
    accountability is a weapon which can be
    (and often is) used to enforce unequal
    relations.  Persons whose private concerns
    may be at odds with public perceptions
    have legitimate reasons for maintaining
    privacy, even though no law is broken.


    Many issues that can be discussed publicly
    in general terms may be injurious to some
    who might be particularly described, if
    such were known.  People who have the
    experience to discuss such matters are in
    fact taking public responsibility by
    making anonymous postings which communicate
    information without compromising their
    ability to inform further.


--
  ,u,     Bruce Becker            Toronto, Ontario
a /i/     Internet: [e-mail]    Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e  "...symbolising Excitement and Fun."
 _< /_        -- Disneyland North investment brochure

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 08:52:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Atmosphere Diving Club, was HST service mission.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]>, kjenks@gothamcity writes:
>>>                             This is the highest
>>>non-classified Shuttle flight I can recall.        [^^^^ HST repair flight]
>>
>> The HST deployment flight was probably higher, since HST has no provisions for
>> reboosting itself, and it likely has decayed some since then.
>
> As Chris noted, HST is now in a lower orbit than it was when deployed almost
> three years ago.  Part of the service mission (if all goes well) includes
> a re-boost of HST back to the highest circular orbit the shuttle can give
> it.  So the shuttle (Endeavor ?) will have to grab HST from its current
> orbit, orbit there while the refurbishment takes place, and then blast
> for higher orbit before re-deploying HST.
>
> At this point Storey Musgrave, the payload commander and an avid sky
> diver, plans to don his parachute and attempt an all time altitude
> record for sky diving.  (Really folks, he talked about it while we
> were knocking back Lone Star's in the bar at the Nassau Bay Hilton!)
> <insert desired number of smiley faces>
>
> -Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
>
>  "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
>   are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

Hum, that would be fun.. how about using ablative shielding, some asbestos,
mayeb a asbestos suit and go atmosphere diving.
I bet it would be fun!!! Anyone want to go with me in 2000 and do it??
Anyone want to start an Atmos Diving Club??


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 21 Feb 1993 13:15:02 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Disk Drive? Why have a drive at all.. maybe a RAM Drive or have a set channel
>that the book sends its info to and fro the shuttle.. Why have a disk drive as
>long as you are close the the shuttle. Have a RAM driver and have a auto dump
>feature (where the RAM Drive would dump its memory to the Shuttle, to clear out
>the memory and to save what needs to be saved). Why radio? maybe a laser (lower
>power) when the down load happens..

Where exactly would the shuttle be storing this (the auto-dumped material)?

This seems to me to be a rather dangerous idea (the RAM drive) for EVAs and
such.  You would need to put in some kind of radiation hardening to prevent
what are called Single-Event Upsets.  The satellites I have worked with that
have any kind of processor are prone to these, they happen when a cosmic ray
comes through the processor and causes a bit-flip.  It may not be a big deal
for data gathering etc but any kind of processing is sure to be screwed up
if the bit flip occurs in part of the RAM drive that stores executables or
any other kind of command sequences.

I don't know if someone else has already addressed this, I fell behind in
my sci.space reading and must confess I hit the "c" key...if they have my
apologies for redundancy.

--
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |        [e-mail]
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    [e-mail]
                      The above opinions are solely my own.

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 01:38:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Canadian SSF effort ??, Alaska/Son of Fred, UN Space Agency
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rohit Sharma) writes:
>>: Unless this is handled very skillfully indeed, NASA is going to have real
>>: trouble lining up international "partners" for future projects.
>>
>> Given a high degree of collaboration between ESA and CSA and
>>possibly between these two and JSA, would a non-US-Govt space station be
>>feasible ?  This might be incredibly naive but except for the politics of
>>this whole thing, what are the other loopholes in this line of thinking ?
>
> There's nothing very much wrong with the idea, actually, except the
> difficulty of convincing these agencies that it can be done at a sane
> cost.  (If they're sure it's going to cost a bundle, you can bet your
> booties that their contractors won't argue.)  Between them, ESA+NASDA+CSA
> (I should have said NASDA, not JSA -- I don't think there is a JSA)
> certainly have better technology and more money than was used to build
> Mir or Skylab.
>
> ESA has the launch capability, which NASDA could supplement.  The main
> gap in the combined resources is manned-spaceflight experience and
> hardware, so you'd have to start by developing something like a semi-
> ballistic manned capsule for Ariane 4 and flying it at least a few times.
> You'd also need spacesuits, a rendezvous/docking system, and probably
> a couple of data-relay satellites (to avoid having to set up a global
> network of ground stations).  A second launch pad at Kourou would be
> useful, since this kind of program would mean a noticeably brisker
> Ariane launch schedule.  None of this is particularly hard; ESA is
> already working on data relay, for example, and you could just buy
> the Russian spacesuit design.  Given enlightened management and a firm
> determination to cut red tape and get results rather than build empires,
> it might even be in orbit before son-of-Fred.
>
> The political will to do it -- even the belief that it can be done --
> is not there, I'm afraid.
> --
> C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Why have a data-relay or ground network.. why not use a few cargo ships with
hardware to track the space craft.. Well sounds like us the people who want to
go into space need to start a good campaign for "Space or Bust" kind of like
the Perot "United We Stand Campaign" idea.
Working on finding info On Alaska Aerospace, a semi-private/semi-state of
Alaska corp for Space Research here in Alaska.. Using Poker Flats Rocket Range.
I got some info from the UN on their goals for space and netting (computers).

Maybe it is time for a UN Space Agency (Yes I'm a trekkie) (Is there already a
UN Space Agency) to act as a clearing house/bargaining table for
International/group space research/exploration..

Son of Fred, maybe it canbe part of the North American Trade Treaty package?

Im having a brain storm so my thoughts might be a little off/rambling.. sorry.


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 08:44:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: F-1 history (test?) Long Term Budgeting!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) writes:
>>Random F-1 factoid... apparently the application used to justify the F-1
>>project when it was under USAF was that it was needed to build ballistic
>>suborbital troop carriers.
>
> Actually, there wasn't any particular mission for it.  (This is something
> I meant to mention in my history posting.)  Believe it or not, there was
> a time when agencies actually invested money in long-lead technology that
> they were pretty sure they were going to need but weren't sure what for.
> The USAF was simply sure that if things went on as they were going, they
> were going to need big rockets, and it was time to start developing an
> engine for them, since engines typically take longer than airframes.
>
> One of the worst things that has happened to spaceflight in the last
> 25 years or so has been the near-total lack of funding for technology
> work not immediately tied to specific applications.  The trouble is that
> this quickly becomes a vicious circle, because nobody wants to bet his
> precious application on not-yet-available technology.  This is why the
> West has never tried to build an SSTO, even though there is wide consensus
> that it's possible and could open a new era.
>
> I suspect the troop-carrier story is confusion with the Army program that
> eventually became the Saturn I.  The USAF wasn't interested in troop
> carriers!
> --
> C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Might be a good reason why the Japanese are doing as well as they are. They
work on the long term, steady. We are to pragmatic. OR to wanting a sure
thing.. We migth try for steady risks..

Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 08:32:26 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: F-1 History, Long Trips in C-141/C-130, UH-60
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>
>>Random F-1 factoid... apparently the application used to justify the F-1
>>project when it was under USAF was that it was needed to build ballistic
>>suborbital troop carriers.
>>
>>gary
>
>     Oh, lordy. And I thought fifteen hours in a C-141 jumpseat was bad.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
> [e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
>                                                 -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------


Try flying from Nome Alaska to Reno Nevada in a C-130.. Of course long distance
flights in a UH-60 (Blackhawk) is an interesting experiance or so my Aviation
friends have told me.. Namely cross country. East Coast to Alaska.. gag.

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:12:49 GMT
From: Joni Jarvenkyla <[e-mail]>
Subject: How many RPM's around his own axle can human take?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.med

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>Since you said "on a table", I assume the person will be within
>a few meters of the certer of rotation, so as much as 70 rpm
>would be reasonable.

Oh sorry I was inaccurate. I meant that the thing was a rotating base,
on which a human would rotate around his/hers own axle, f ex a chair
with seatbelts connected straight to an electric motor.

What I am mainly worried about are the effects of the rotation, as this
would press the brain halves to the inside walls of the head (or would
it?).

human     O
      |
     /|\ So our test subject would rotate around his spine clock or
      |  anticlockwise, head always up
     / \
    |   |

Would it be safer/more dangerous to design a thing which would rotate
one around the pelvis axle, so that head and legs would be in the far,
rotating ends? There are probably hazards relating to the blood
circulation system?

--
[e-mail] | PGP 2.0 key available | PGP 2.0 avain saatavilla

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 16:06:55 PST
From: Jason Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Richard Treitel) writes:

> While I regard anonymous posters as invertebrates (speciesist but not
> sexist, OK William and Mary?) and wish they would give their names, I
> uphold their right to post.  And ours to criticise them.
>
>         - Richard

Well, while I uphold your right to critisize them, I more than discourage
the criticism based on insignificant items (like that the poster is
anonymous).  Go ahead and criticize, just don't criticize because he's
anonymous.

                                                Jason Cooper

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 02:33:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Medicine/EMS/SAR in Space.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Question how do you do an IV (Interveneous) in space? What about other gravity
related procedures?
Im an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician for those who don't know the
abbreviations). And I would love to practice my sills in space..

EMS (Emergency Medical Service), Search and Rescue (SAR) in Space what an
interesting thought.
Im sure those who are there will create their own procedures and protocols.

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:04:40 GMT
From: Paul Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: New name for Fred ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

First there was Space Station Freedom, then cutbacks led to Fred.
What name should be given to the newly announced redesign of the redesign ?

Ideas for some candidates:

MacFred   - Son of Fred
Fre       - allows for three more redesigns: "Fr", "F" and ""
Freddie   - there was some Horror movie character by this name
FCFG      - Freedom come, Freedom go ( sung to the tune of the song of the
            same title ).
Fort Tune - Sounds similar to Freedom, but costs more.
Freeom    - Freedom without a truss.


Post your ideas to me, I'll collate them and put up a summary
of candidates. If there's enough interest, a vote can be organised.

My mail address: [e-mail]

--
     P A U L        P A U L         P A U L       P A U L         P A U L
     C A R T E R   C A R T E R    C A R T E R    C A R T E R      C A R T E R
      3d signature 3d signature  3d signature      3d signature    3d signature
Focus lines:            |             |

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 11:38:00 -0500
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

In the years that I've been on the network, I've never disagreed once
with Henry Spencer's posts, so this is a something of a first. It's a
very minor nit though. Initial velocity isn't *entirely* irrelevant to
stability in a system that isn't aerodynamically stabilized. A faster
rocket will be less affected by atmospheric turbulence, whether or not
it uses fins/wings. Velocity vectors normal to the direction of motion
are proportionately smaller in a faster rocket. To that extent,
stability must be somewhat easier to maintain in a rocket with a solid
initial velocity, as long as you're starting it within some kind of
atmosphere.

-Larry C.

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 06:11:12 GMT
From: jim jaworski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellites or space junk?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello, I am a Amateur Radio Operator that is interested in the Satellite
end
of things.  As I was learning what all the numbers below meant, I sat in
awe
that satellites that were launched more than 30 years ago are still
represented as part of the keplarian data set.  Are these satellites
space
junk or are they still operational?  For those of you who don't know how
to
interpret the data the part we're concerned about here is in line 1,
column
10-11 after each satellite name.

- Current Two-Line Element Sets #136 -
Alouette 1
1 00424U 62B-A  1 93 32.49430359  .00000079  00000-0  89190-4 0  6987
2 00424  80.4642  58.9883 0022992 325.7245  34.2415 13.67749410513953
ATS 3
1 03029U 67111  A 93 28.97099264 -.00000079  00000-0  99999-4 0  9129
2 03029  14.2699  12.4807 0013329 252.2309 107.6573  1.00272965 92383
Starlette
1 07646U 75010  A 93 31.95907509 -.00000042  00000-0  14420-4 0  4926
2 07646  49.8329 331.2596 0206182 120.9291 241.2047 13.82181674908527
LAGEOS
1 08820U 76039  A 93 33.42304243  .00000003  00000-0  99999-4 0  5687
2 08820 109.8621 324.3850 0043779  31.6072 328.7005  6.38664552135235
ETS-2
1 09852U 77014  A 93 27.46401879 -.00000300  00000-0  99999-4 0  7578
2 09852  11.2164  47.5877 0001396 245.5728 114.5083  1.00007047  5412
GOES 2
1 10061U 77048  A 93 32.22427916  .00000105  00000-0  99999-4 0  9405
2 10061  10.2226  51.8574 0004414 221.2524 164.0939  1.00258154  2093
IUE
1 10637U 78012  A 93 33.07916666 -.00000190  00000-0  00000+0 0  6834
2 10637  33.8095 103.0584 1318620  20.8479 345.2936  1.00300123  7873
GOES 3
1 10953U 78062  A 93 32.06880247  .00000104  00000-0  99999-4 0  6523
2 10953   9.1406  54.5274 0003823 120.2932 167.1556  1.00268759  6704
SeaSat 1
1 10967U 78064  A 93 34.29908533  .00000234  00000-0  98666-4 0  9523
2 10967 108.0088 149.6067 0002113 263.7111  96.3789 14.37764214764650
Nimbus 7
1 11080U 78098  A 93 32.72447822  .00000029  00000-0  42071-4 0   221
2 11080  99.1189 288.3352 0009647  38.0583 322.1251 13.83699807720866
GOES 5
1 12472U 81049  A 93 33.02271373 -.00000216  00000-0  99999-4 0  4771
2 12472   5.7622  63.9033 0003815 326.7766  33.2568  1.00228876   751
LandSat 4
1 13367U 82 72  A 93 33.14724940  .00000184  00000-0  46002-4 0  6512

For example, Alouette I (a Canadian satellite) was launched in 1962 THAT
WAS 30 years ago.

Jim

Jim


[e-mail]
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

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

Date: 19 Feb 93  16:10:08
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Soyuz I re-entry
Newsgroups: sci.space

CJ>I'm not sure if the Soviets or Russians ever acknowledged this, but it
CJ>generally accepted (and there is some pretty suggestive photographic e
CJ>to back it up) that Soyuz 1 was supposed to be the first of a double f
CJ>involving rendezvous, docking, and crew exchange (a mission later acco
CJ>by Soyuzes 4 and 5).  So, there would indeed have been
CJ>another Soyuz available.
CJ>HOWEVER...  I don't believe there had ever been a completely successfu
CJ>unmanned flight of the Soyuz (and there had been at least two pretty s
CJ>failures), there had been resistance to launching the Soyuz 1 flight a
CJ>which was overriden from above for political reasons, and the flight t
CJ>take place was reportedly problem-plagued from the start.  Trying to l
CJ>(from all evidence) unreliable spacecraft to rendezvous and
CJ>perhaps dock with a
CJ>malfunctioning spacecraft seems awfully foolhardy.  The Soviets were p
CJ>doing the best they could do simply by trying to get
CJ>Komarov back alive (unless
CJ>you believe that they and he knew he was doomed in any case).

The Soviets *could* have launched Soyuz 2 unmanned to rendezvous with
the stricken Soyuz 1, and allowed Komarov to spacewalk over to Soyuz 2.
Their decision not to indicates that they felt Soyuz 1 had a good chance
to land safely.


___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 02:18:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SS Kernal Project!
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Space Commerce Corp., a few years ago, estimated $500 million, although I
> think that was for a somewhat more modest station.  That assumed launch by
> the lowest bidder (that is, on Proton) and hardware built by construction
> companies (who build things heavier but much much cheaper than aerospace
> companies).
>
> Double it for greater capabilities, double it again for use of US launchers
> (real competitive bidding would keep costs down, but not to Proton levels),
> and you've still got a factor of two in hand for overruns.  Sounds feasible.
> --
> C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto
Zoology
> effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

I think what is needed is to get a kernal space station up.
Then work on add ons. Kind of like a computer program or a "tinker toys"
setup.. Question who licenses orbits/L-? positions in space (how big are they
generally)...

Space Station Kernal? Why must space stations be "whole" projects..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 01:41:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: UN Space Agency?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Is there a UN Space Agency and if there is can someone post info here and
forward the info to me here: [e-mail]

I can give you my snailmail address to (later).


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 213
------------------------------