Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no626.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Wed, 26 May 93 05:00:15
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #626
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 26 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 626

Today's Topics:
                              a question
                  Detecting planets in other system
                       Fred shoots from the hip
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (3 msgs)
               Hubble Servicing Mission Study Completed
                              Moon Base
       Neil's words - an analysis (was Re: Neil's first words)
                            One giant leap
             Question about B&W markings on US launchers
                Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons (2 msgs)
               Stephen Hawking speaking in Seattle, WA
               Visible Astronomy (was Space Marketing)
               Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    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: Tue, 25 May 93 14:42 GMT
From: GRZEGORZ KRUK <[e-mail]>
Subject: a question

Does anybody know if Russian satelites emit EM waves in the range of frequency
below 40kHz. What are their bands except radio and satTV ?
Please reply to [e-mail]

Thanks in advance
-Grzegorz

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

Date: 25 May 93 11:01:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ata Etemadi) writes:

(Hi Ata!)

> Anyone considered using Kilometric radiation ? I know we're being bathed in
> it but it shouldn't be too difficult to filter out the near-Earth stuff using
> two sensors (since its coming from close by). Planets with magnetic fields would
> likely be emitting coherent radiation at these wavelengths making the job a
> little easier. What you need is an underwater detector to filter out some of the
> noise, since Kilometric radiation penetrates water a long way down. This would be
> a darn good use for all those nuclear submarines out there. BTW I think the
> military use this wavelength of radiation for communicating with their subs.
>
>     best regards

I can see a few problems with this suggestion...
(1) Isn't there a plasma frequency effect in the interplanetary medium that
blocks off kilometric radioation from outside the solar system? I remember A.C.
Clarke talking all about this in Imperial Earth, but I don't remember any
scientific analysis of this...
(2) If planets with magnetic fields emit strong polarised radioation at theese
wavelengths, won't magnetic stars do it even more? Since you'd have hardly any
angular resolution at these wavelengths, how would you twell whether it was a
planet or a star?
>         Ata <(|)>.
--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 12:26:23 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fred shoots from the hip

Fred, paraprasing Tom's suggestion that He and Pat cool out a bit:
>[much blithering deleted]

T:
>>You needn't reply.  Unless you've changed you mind, any more on this won't
>>mean much.

F:
>Quite true, Tommy, but then none of it has meant anything except for
>your inane attempts to stroke your own ego, anyway.

Is there an echo here?  Wasn't this the reason I suggested you and Pat
should take your flames to private mail?  When did *your* flames turn into
a vehicle for *my* ego?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 10:05:43 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ts2nl$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Pat, you and others convienently forget recovery of several multimillion
>dollar satillites,

I would think you wouldn't want to bring those up.

>repair of solar max,

don't remember what else went up on that flight so it may have been valid.

>hubble space telescope ops,

It would be cheaper to build and fly another.

>Leasesat,

This one never flew. Shuttle proved too unreliable to attract paying
customers.

>palapa, and westar,

We spent about $400M to rescue $150M worth of hardware. Not what I
would call successful.

>most of all having intelsat snub shuttle for

No, the Reagan Administration changed the policy to encourage commercial
launchers. You got a problem with that?

BTW, since it was us taxpayers who where picking up most of the tab, you
should be glad.

>deployment of their satillite and then coming back to the US gov't to
>request a mission to rescue their spacecraft. (I'd say this is a pretty
>stellar record of space operations.)

Again, this was done at a huge loss which we taxpayers got to pick up
the tab on.

>Mass returned is important,

You haven't shown a single instance of cost effective mass return.
It therefore cannot be considered important.

Will mass return someday be importatn? Sure; but not with Shuttle since
it is too expensive.

>while not all of these missions involved
>mass returned from orbit, several did.  Other missions included options
>to return the vehicles to earth for later launch.

At huge cost to the taxpayers.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------22 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 25 May 1993 10:30:28 -0400
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Why do you assume these things require the shuttle?  The most elaborate
>in-space repair/salvage operations yet done -- Salyut 7 and Skylab --
>did not use the shuttle.

For shame.  Docking with a controlled space station with autonomous life
support capabilities and tinkering with it is in no way comparable to working
on a free-flying satellite that is in no way cooperating with you.  99.99%
of the hardware up there that we could conceivably want to service can be done
far more easily and effectively from the shuttle.

(And before anyone points out that it is far cheaper in most cases to launch
a replacement than to fund a shuttle flight to fix it: yes, but that's not the
point here.  We're talking about what can be done *assuming* you are going to
fix the thing in the first place.)
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 15:24:33 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ts3c5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>>Why should he retract it if it is true?

>Because I'm gonna show that when you look at the mass the Saturn V delivered
>to orbit and the mass that the shuttle system has delivered to orbit, that
>the shuttle will surpass the Saturn V's record.

Even if true you won't find anybody but yourself who think it is the
least bit relevant. Let's go back to the mover analogy:

You want to move some stuff somewhere. Two movers submit bids which are
identical except for cost. Mover A offers to do it for $3,000 and Mover B
offers to do it for $9,000. When you ask about the huge cost difference,
Mover B assures you he is actually giving the better deal since his
truck weighs a lot more so your actually moving more mass per $$ than
the cheaper mover.

I, myself, would pick mover A and tell B that I don't care about his
total mass but his payload. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying
that you would pick B since he moves more mass.

Is this in fact true? If so, why?

>I am a doctor who is criticizing some of your *lack* of objectivity.

Why is holding Shuttle to the same performance spect other launchers
are held to a 'lack of objectivity'?

>Hence your desire to delete the mass of the orbiter from the calculation
>of the total mass delivered to orbit by the STS.

Your insistance on including dead weight in your calculations makes
you look like the person lacking objectivity. You want Shuttle to win and
will work backwards to justify it. The rest of us took requirements and
worked forward to conclude that Shuttle just wasn't cutting it.

>I'm not aware that Pat is an engineer.  I apparently am more realistic
>than you are about spaceflight.

Since you haven't posted a single fact or figure it is hard to see that
as a valid statement.

>I think some of you excessive shuttle
>critics are overly enthusiastic about delta clipper.

Why?

>DC is not (to my knowledge) useful in the station program

Using DC for station resuply will shave over $50 billion from
Freedom's life cycle costs. Are you saying that isn't useful?

>or in
>medical applications.  I think only shuttle can fulfill the requirements
>for medical studies on orbit.

Nonsense. What experiments couldn't be done with a suitable payload pallet?

>It doesn't take a B.S. in engineering to do budgeting calculations

Agreed. But we have seen NO budget calculations from you. I don't think
you have posted a single number at all.

>buddy.  Perhaps, you should stop being critical of the orbiter and
>prepare for your own cost-overruns in the DC-program.

Well so far, there haven't been any. They seemed to have learned a lot
on how to do procurement and are using these lessons to do the work
on time and on budget. DC-X costs $70 million to build. It would have
cost NASA four to ten times that much.

Maybe it won't pan out. If so, you can be assured I will blow the
whissle when it happens and drop it like a rock. My goal isn't DC, my
goal is low cost access to orbit.

Your goal seems to be Shuttle and nothing more.

>I'm very skeptical of the projections made by the DC-program.

Why? And don't say 'because Shuttle overran'. That is meaningless and
proves that no project will ever work.

What specific aspect of the DC effort do you think will fail and why?

>They appear
>overly simplistic and don't address several issues which have already
>been raised by others on this net.

Like what?

>I seem to recall one post which went unanswered dealing with the
>landing mode of the vehicle.  I.E. how does a pilot or computer
>land the thing?

I would suggest you watch it next month. That should end that problem.
If you want something sooner, look up a device called the "Lunar Module".
You might also go to your airport and look at helicopters.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------22 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 25 May 1993 15:36 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble Servicing Mission Study Completed
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

Mark Hess/Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  May 25, 1993
(Phone:  [phone])

RELEASE:  93-96

HUBBLE SERVICING MISSION STUDY COMPLETED

    A task force established by NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin
to review plans for the Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission
concluded that, Rthe mission is achievable." This conclusion was
driven by the fact that the spacecraft and most of its subsystems were
designed for on-orbit maintenance.

    The Task Force on the Hubble Space Telescope Servicing
Mission, chartered in late January, reviewed all aspects of the first
servicing mission which is currently scheduled for December 1993.
Dr. Joseph F. Shea was Chairman of the task force.

    RWe were asked to arrive at a judgement as to the likelihood of
success of the repair and servicing mission,S said Shea. RIn our
opinion, we think the mission is achievable."

    The task force pointed out, however, that the mission is
complex and will require more EVA (spacewalk) time than any
mission to date.  Given this complexity, the task force recommended
that a second HST servicing mission be planned 6 to 12 months after
the STS-61 flight to handle tasks that might not be completed during
the first mission or respond to failures that occur in the intervening
months.

    Shea said planning and management changes, which have taken
place over the past few months, will improve the likelihood of success.
"We support the appointment of a Mission Director, and believe that
such a position, with authority and resources, is necessary if the
mission is to be carried out with confidence," Shea said.

    The task force report also concluded that a full end-to-end
simulation of the EVA in the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator at the
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., which is currently in
the planning stage, is "essential to a successful mission."

    "There are some areas, like schedule, where we still have some
concerns," Shea said. "We think the timelines for the EVAs are very
tight and some of the hardware is not fully assembled.  But we were
very pleased to see that NASA extended the mission duration and the
number of EVAs for the flight."

-end-

NOTE TO EDITORS:  Copies of the report are available from the NASA
Headquarters newsroom by calling 202/358-1600.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 14:59:13 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>>>Ah, but they are. The first mining facilities MUST be on the moon
>>>because that's the only place where they will get a realistic test
>>>where it doesn't take years to fix bugs.

>True, if mining is the only goal of deep space missions. But if the
>purpose of a Mars mission isn't mining, they the debuging a mining
>operation isn't too usefull.

Agreed. If all you want is a few flag and footprint Mars flights there
is no reason to go to the moon. If you want to see longer term or permanent
efforts on Mars, Lunar mining facilities will be a necessay step or it
will simply cost too much.

>Also, you are assuming the problems
>encountered on the Moon would be similar to those encountered
>elsewhere. I don't se why that would be the case.

Not 100% but the closest we will come without going to Mars.

I think a 'test flight' to the moon would be a good idea to flight qualify
the Mars hardware.


  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------22 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 16:07:29 GMT
From: Roger Noe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil's words - an analysis (was Re: Neil's first words)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Darryl O. Cottle") writes:
>One poster stated that the "a" WAS said but too softly for the radio
>equipment to pick it up.

It was spoken, although hurriedly, and is easy to miss because of
radio interference.  I can hear it.

>If my memory serves Neil himself was the FIRST one to say that he had
>not said what he had intended to say.

You have a reference for that?  I've heard Armstrong speak on this
subject (albeit many years ago) and what I recall him saying is that
he did say "for a man", as intended.

>Now to the question of whether or not Neil said "for a man."  I'm
>not a speech pathologist

To my midwestern ear, Neil's "for a man" is clear as day.  Perhaps to
others, it's more like "fera man".  I can understand why those not
accustomed to the many varieties of midwestern speech patterns
continue to mishear these words.

>To say the word "a"
>in the middle, however, requires a shift of the jaw, tongue, and
>lips all three.

Not true, not at all.  Keep in mind this is a schwa, an unstressed
vowel with a sound like "uh".  Also, the o vowel in "for" is schwa'd
(phoneticists have a real term for this, I don't recall what it is) so
that it's almost the very same vowel as the "a".  If you want to speak
like Neil, you run these two together with a little r in between.

>reproduce my interpretation of what I heard.
>
>"That's one small step" <pause> "for man" <pause> "a giant leap for
>mankind."

This doesn't help your argument to get another word wrong in the
"quote".  That's "ONE giant leap" and there's a smaller pause between
"one" and "giant".
--
Roger Noe                           [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science      40:06:39 N.  88:13:41 W.
University of Illinois              [phone]
Urbana, IL  61801  USA

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 09:24:45 EDT
From: "Darryl O. Cottle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: One giant leap

Yeah yeah I know.  One giant leap.    |
                                      | "Hey diddle didle
"Anyone who says that they've never   |  The cat and the fiddle
 made a mistake has probably never    |  The cow jumped over the moon"
 done anything."                      |  . . . Hey!  That might work!
                       Me             |  Far side here I come.
(If its plagiarized its unconscious.) |                  The lurker

+- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -+
|     (snail mail)         |"I don't know what I'm doin'!|   (voice)    |
|*Darryl O. (Doc) Cottle   |  If I ever DO figure it out,| 606-257-7577 |
| Agricultural Economics   |   I'll prob'ly go HIDE!!"   |     or       |
|*431 Ag Engineering Bldg 2|   "Brother" Dave Gardner    | 606-231-6675 |
| University of Kentucky   |-----------------------------|--------------|
|*Lexington, KY 40546-0276 | "Where were you born?"                     |
| - - - - - <> - - - - - - | "Oh, are you one of them astrology dudes?  |
|* = short form of address |  I'm a Cancer with a bad moon risin'!"     |
|--------------------------|         Cheech Marin (Born in East L.A.)   |
|    (electronic)          +--------------------------------------------+
| [e-mail]    or else try    [e-mail]          |
+- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -+

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 93 10:49:09 GMT
From: Mike Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question about B&W markings on US launchers
Newsgroups: sci.space

Forgive me if this is answered somewhere deep in the FAQ but:

Why do several US launchers (especially early ones like Redstone, Titan
and Saturn) have strong black and white stripe markings?

Are they for recognition from a distance or something more involved
like thermal control?

As far as I'm aware, Russian and European launchers do not have, and have
never had, such markings. Why not?

--Mike.

--
--
Mike Parsons, YCV, ESA ESTEC (European Space Research and Technology Centre)
      +       Mail: P.O. Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
  \--[=]--/   Email: [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 May 93 07:22:27 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, jbh55289@uxa (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>[e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]>, davem@ee (Dave Michelson) writes:
>>>Note that the Soyuz-derived Zond *was* launched by a Proton (SL-12).  This
>>>may be the source of the confusion.
>
>>I thought it was the SL-13, but I don't have a reference here.  Can anyone
>>support or correct the following:
>
>>Proton 3 stage       SL-12      D1
>>Proton 4 stage       SL-13      D1e
>
>My data shows the Proton 4 stage version being launched first, in 1967, to earn
>the SL-12 designation.  The 3 stage D-1 was launched a year later and designated
>the SL-13.

Right, when I got home and looked it up, I saw Dave had it right and I had it
backwards.  Also, one source gave the "Sheffield designations" as D, D1, and
D1e for the 2, 3, and 4 stage versions, while another used D1, D1h, and D1e.
Sigh.  (And the 3 stage version now flying is supposedly called the D1h'
(that's a "prime") since the third stage was upgraded sometime in the '80s.)
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 May 93 07:50:48 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, fcrary@ucsu (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>>>               The Soyuz is launched on the Soyuz (the
>>>Soviet press named launch vehicles after the first spacecraft
>>>they launched...) aka SL-4 aka "Type A-3" launch vehicle.
>
>>The Soyuz was not the first vehicle launched by this booster.  The two Voskhod
>>flights used this launcher, as did their (and Soyuuzes) unmanned precursors
>>flown under the Kosmos banner.  I don't know what was the first use.
>
>I think the Voskhods used the SL-2, but I suspect the Soviet press
>criteria wasn't very exact: They probably used the first launch
>they reported (Kosmos imssions usually aren't) not the real
>first launch...

As I pointed out in the part of my reply you omitted, the designations SL-4, A2
(NOT A3 -- no such beast as far as I can tell), and Soyuz refer to the same
launcher.

Yes, Voskhods were launched with this booster (I've seen a launch picture of
Voskhod 1).  I believe a skirt adapter had to be added to the upper stage since
Voskhod, which essentially was a modified Vostok, had a conical aft section
which had been designed to nestle inside the toroidal fuel tank on the Vostok
(A1, SL-3) upper stage while the Soyuz upper stage was designed to interface
with the Soyuz spacecraft, whose aft section is basically flat.  The Voskhods
were too heavy to use the Vostok launcher.  They were also lighter than the
yet-to-fly Soyuz spacecraft, so some trick with only partially fuelling the
launcher was used, but they still ended up in higher orbits than had been used
by Vostok.  The low orbits of Vostok were a safety feature; they were designed
to ensure orbital decay within 10 days in the event of a retrorocket failure,
and all flights had 10 days of consumables aboard.  In order to protect against
retrorocket failure on Voskhod one of the changes made was to add a backup
solid fuel retrorocket on the forward end of the craft.  In fact, this system
was used on Voskhod 2 when the primary liquid fuelled retrorocket failed.

The first flight of the Soyuz launcher was almost certainly a Kosmos, and these
satellites were typically announced, especially back in the early sixties,
though not much real information was released.  And to confuse things even
more, the Molniya launcher (A2e, SL-6), which is essentially the Soyuz booster
with an added 4th stage, is said to have first reached orbit in 1961 (though it
must not have been realized at that time by whoever was in charge of handing
out the SL designations, since 6 > 4).

Lastly, the SL-2 is simply the the original Sputnik (A) launcher, consisting of
the first two stages of the Vostok, Soyuz, and Molniya boosters.  It's not
clear what, if any, the differences are between the SL-1 and SL-2.  I suspect
that it was assumed at the time that a new launcher must have been used for
Sputniks 2 and 3 since they were so much more massive than Sputnik 1.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 May 93 15:46:43 GMT
From: Lab Master <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stephen Hawking speaking in Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: sci.space

Yesterday I bought two tickets to listen (?see?) Stephen Hawking speak in
Seattle, WA on July 1.  I was wondering if anyone has heard (seen) him
speak recently (read: 1993), and hopefully you can tell me what I can
(should) expect to hear.

Let me see... it's at the Opera House, its co-sponsored by MicroSoft and
Seattle University (a smallish (2500 students) private college), tickets
started at US$22 and went to $50-something (I got two at $33--24 rows
back, off to one side).  Anything else?

Email responses only, please.  I will summarize if there is enough interest.

Thanks.

-Lab Master

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

Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 15:36:37 GMT
From: Steve Willner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Visible Astronomy (was Space Marketing)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

Others have responded to most of the misconceptions, but I'll add a
few comments.

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
> Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,
> visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less
> (down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
> to me...

As others have pointed out, visible astronomy accounts for well over
50% of published papers.  Moreover, every field of astronomy is
growing rapidly.  The 1967 Astrophysical Journal occupies 10 inches
of shelf space and has 6.25 by 9.25 inch pages.  The 1992 Journal,
unbound and with a couple of issues missing, is 33 inches of 8.5 by
11 pages.  That's an increase of over a factor of 5.  My impression
is that other journals have both grown faster and are more heavily
weighted to visible observations.

Both the fraction and the growth rate would go up if you include near
infrared observations, which are usually made with the same telescopes.

> That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.

Others more knowledgeable than I have addressed this topic, but it's
my understanding that adaptive optics cannot give diffraction limited
resolution over a wide field.  Space observations will be a win for
this kind of observation, once HST is repaired.

> As for better locations, the Antarctic is one of the best and
> I'd have trouble imagining an ad in a completely polar orbit...

The Antarctic has some desirable properties, but calling it "one of
the best" is premature, if not wrong.  It is cloudy a lot, working
conditions are severe, and travel is difficult.  (Even if you observe
remotely, getting spare parts is a problem.)  Has the seeing ever
been measured?

> The next best I can think of is on the KAO (an airplane),
> considering the scedueling they put into each flight, avoiding
> an object in a known orbit should be travial.

First of all, the airflow pattern limits the KAO seeing to roughly 5
arcsec, unless there has been a big improvement in the last couple of
years.  Second, it is only a 0.9-m telescope.  (SOFIA will be around
3 m.)  Third, it makes fewer than 80 flights per year with a maximum
of 6.5 hours of observing time.  (SOFIA might make 120 flights if
fully funded.)  Fourth, flight scheduling is already difficult.  The
aircraft heading is entirely determined by the object being observed,
and the pilots get upset if you pick objects that don't get you back
to the base before running out of fuel.  Plus you have to avoid
restricted areas, allow for winds, and keep the objects within the
elevation limits of 35 to 75 degrees.  Adding another constraint
would not be trivial.

Then in  <[e-mail]>:
> And also great limits: Adaptive optics don't work in the visable, and
> don't work well in anything I'd call the near infrared. They are
> very impressive below, say, 25 THz but that's hardly "visable" light.

That's 12 microns, for those who prefer wavelengths.  In fact, most
of the work is devoted to visible wavelengths with some applications
in the 1 to 3 micron range.  Adaptive optics are unnecessary at
longer wavelengths because 8 to 10 meter telescopes at good sites are
diffraction-limited at 10 microns even without adaptive optics.  It
is true that adaptive optics systems are not widely available as
facility instruments.

Then in <[e-mail]>:
> To be as bright as the full moon, in a 300-km orbit, it would
> have to be about 1-km across.

Roughly correct.

> A balloon cuts down on launch weight immensely, but it
> also gives you a very low-density object. Atmospheric
> drag would pull it out of orbit in a matter of days.

One would expect balloons to be in a higher orbit.  There's enough
slop in the "1 km" figure to allow that.  (The effective albedo of
the full Moon is 0.11.  This is higher than the Bond albedo since the
surface is highly backscattering.)
--
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 May 93 07:38:37 GMT
From: Joseph Askew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1tqukk$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <1tovt2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Timothy Banks) writes:
>>In article <1tiqpo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Before my mailbox fully overflows with outraged aussies and kiwis,
>I guess i should clarify my remarks.

Lucky for you I read this first coz I was about to seriously flood your
mailbox. The next time someone tries that I think I might post the name and
address of every dead Australian soldier I can get my hands on. I think
that would teach something close to manners perhaps :-)

>I was referring to the
>Post WW2 era.  Specifically,  the 50's - 90's.  The Australians
>regiments fought amazingly well in Both world wars,  as did Indian
>and African regiments.

I notice you left the Kiwis out - too right too. O.K. I'm kidding.
(BTW It is usually polite to Capitalise 'Aussie', which many people
do not like foreigners using as they usually use inappropriately, as
well as Kiwi.) Anyway just to put the record straight, 6.8% of the
Australian population fought in WW2 with no conscription. All were
volunteers. 64.8% of them became casualties. This is the highest
number for any nation in the war and the percentage fighting is
higher than the US or the Soviet Union or I believe the UK. In fact
the only other country that is in the race is New Zealand who might
tip us out marginally.

>Australia and NZ both also contributed
>during the Korean and Vietnam wars, but the fact is neither country
>was supporting Serious deep water Navy capabilities,  nor a
>Nuclear weapons program,  nor serious extra territorial military
>programs.

That is because we never had to. We paid for our own defense and
them some. We sent soldiers to die in Vietnam and Korea and Malaya.
None of these were our wars in the sense that they threatened us or
that we took part for any other purpose but loyalty. The US has paid
for all these things you mention but they have also reaped the
benefits. They have nuclear power not us. They have a space program
we don't. They can screw countries they don't like even if it is in
defiance of international law we can't or at least don't. The US can
and has defined other countries policies including ours much to the
worlds benefit (at least usually.) The US has benefited most from
this. At least until Japan came along they did. You get what you
pay for. Who would say that the US has been cheated these last 50
years? Besides our spending would be much lower if it were not for
our alliance with the US.

>WW1 and 2 are over.  My remarks are aimed at the current.

Not in Luxemborg they are not.

Joseph Askew

--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
[e-mail]  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 626
------------------------------