Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no637.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Fri, 28 May 93 14:03:25
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #637
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 28 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 637

Today's Topics:
Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994 (2 msgs)
              Detecting planets in other system (2 msgs)
                Magellan Aerobraking Underway (2 msgs)
                   Mars Observer Update - 05/26/93
                              Moon Base
                        NASA CD-ROM add/price
                    New Hubble Pics: Location ???
                    Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
           Russian Mars Rover Telepresence Test - 05/21/93
       Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? (4 msgs)
    Voyager Discovers the First Direct Evidence of the Heliopause

    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: Wed, 26 May 1993 17:19:51 GMT
From: Stupendous Man <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space

>     IAU Circular 5801 further discusses the orbital trajectory of the comet,
> and indicates that it is possible that half of the pieces of the comet may
> collide with Jupiter over a three day peroid in July 1994.  The surviving
> pieces may remain as satellites to Jupiter or be thrown closer to the sun on
> short-period heliocentric orbits.

      Phil Fraering asks:

> Finally: where *do* I get those forms for Hubble Telescope
> Time?

      Sorry, Phil, but Cycle 4 proposals (which ask for observing time
during 1994) were due Friday, May 14.  I strongly suspect that Hubble
isn't the right instrument for observing such collisions - my guess
are that the exact time of impact(s) wouldn't be known very well, and
HST is too important to leave lolly-gagging at Jupiter for hours and
hours.  Furthermore, I think any _collision_ would produce much too
bright a burst to be observed with HST.

      Now, the _aftereffects_ of a collision - you might make a case
for using HST to observe them.

                     Michael

--
-----                                                    Michael Richmond
"This is the heart that broke my finger."    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 02:31:21 GMT
From: Phil Hays <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Va negvpyr <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] jevgrf...
>>      VNH Pvephyne 5801 shegure qvfphffrf gur beovgny genwrpgbel bs gur pbzrg,
>> naq vaqvpngrf gung vg vf cbffvoyr gung unys bs gur cvrprf bs gur pbzrg znl
>> pbyyvqr jvgu Whcvgre bire n guerr qnl crebvq va Whyl 1994.  Gur fheivivat
>> cvrprf znl erznva nf fngryyvgrf gb Whcvgre be or guebja pybfre gb gur fha ba
>> fubeg-crevbq uryvbpragevp beovgf.
>
>Vf gurer yvxryl gb or nal ivfvoyr rssrpg ba Whcvgre? (Zl thrff
>vf "ab" - abg rira UFG jvyy frr nalguvat, ahpyrvv cebo yrff guna
>zvyr npebff=gval pbzcnerq gb Whcvgre).

Fb ubj oevtug zvtug gur vzcnpg or?  Gur fvmr bs gur pbzrg cvrprf pna'g or xabja
irel pybfryl:  sbe qvfphffvba gnxr na rfgvzngr bs nobhg gra zvyrf.  Gur
qrafvgl zvtug or engure ybj.  Gur fcrrq jbhyq or jryy xabja,  ohg V qba'g xabj
vg lrg.  V nffhzr 45,000 ZCU.


 R   =  1/2 Z I^2 = 6*16000*16000*16000*20000*20000

     =  10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Xt*zrgref/frp^2

Gur qrcgu ng juvpu guvf onat unccraf jvyy qrgrezvar ubj zhpu bs gur raretl vf
enqvngrq cebzcgyl.  Ntnva,  V qba'g xabj,  ohg V nffhzr 10% vf enqvngrq bire n
10 frpbaq gvzr.  Guvf tvirf n "yvtug ohyo" bs nobhg:

C    = 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 J

V qba'g xabj gur rknpg qvfgnapr gb Whcvgre arkg Whyl,  fb V nffhzr 4 NH be
nobhg:

400 000 000 zvyrf.

Yvtug sbyybj gur 1/e^2 ehyr,  fb gnxr nf n ersrerapr n yvtug ohyo n zvyr njnl:

                                1 000 000 000 000 000 000
 Engvb gb Ersrerapr yvtug    =  ------------------------- = 600 J
                                      400 000 000 ^2


(V xabj,  V fubhyq jbex bhg zntavghqr)
N 600 J yvtug ohyo n zvyr njnl jbhyq or irel abgvprnoyr ng avtug,  naq zvtug or
ivfvoyr qhevat gur qnlgvzr.  Gurfr ahzoref pbhyq irel rnfvyl or bss ol n snpgbe
bs 1000 be zber.  Zvtug arrq n tbbq gryrfpbcr gb frr vg.  Zvtug or anxrq rlr
ivfvoyr.


Cuvy Unlf

"Pna'g tb onpx naq pna'g fgnaq fgvyy"

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 00:57:17 GMT
From: "Louis K. Scheffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>For Earthlike planets you'll need something along the lines of a 16m telescope
>>of the moon.

>Actually, an interferometer(sp?) array in the thermal IR has a reasonable
>chance, if you can get a couple of orbital telescopes and a baseline
>of ~500,000 km. In the thermal IR the signal to noise (i.e. star's
>flux to that of the planet) is greatest, since you are in the peak of
>the planet's Plank curve but well away from the star's peak.


This is off by a factor of 100,000!

Assume a planet 8 light minutes from a star (earth orbit).  The star is
8 light years away.  That's one part in 500,000.  So to first order, you
need your mirrors 500,000 wavelengths (NOT kilometers) apart, or 5 meters
for 10 micron IR.  This is quite doable, and several fairly detailed studies
have been done of such a configuration.  I can find the reference if anyone
is interested.

   -Lou Scheffer

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

Date: 27 May 93 10:29:38 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brenda Kalt) writes:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:
> |> In a recent issue of Science there is a discussion of a project
> |> to look for MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects - things like
>                ^^^^^
> |> planets, brown dwarfs, or even black holes in the galactic halo
> |> that might account for some of the missing mass).
> [......]
>
> Sexism in research strikes again. Obviously, a modern, non-sexist name
> for this phenomenon would be McHalos...
> --
> Brenda Kalt
> [e-mail]

It should be noted that MACHOs were so named to contrast them with the
previously suggested WIMPS (weakly interacting amssive particles).

Your post does suggest an interesting thought though...

Perhaps we could get corporations to sponsor the adopted names of classes of
objects. Thus we'd have McHalos sponsored by McDonalds, the Burger King Quark
instead of bottom, etc etc...

Any other suggestions???


--
================================================================================
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: 27 May 1993 03:17 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Aerobraking Underway
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Any images by magellan available as GIF/TIFF?
>Especially interested in the hemispherical view I've seen
>in magazines - that must be a pure computer image with zillions
>of perfect pixels just asking to be zoomed in upon?!

Over the years, I've placed about 100 Magellan GIFs at the ames.arc.nasa.gov
ftp site.  Look in the pub/SPACE/GIF directory.  Most of the Magellan GIFs
have corresponding caption files.  There is also an animation of the Venus
globe comprised from Magellan images in the pub/SPACE/ANIMATION.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 27 May 1993 04:21:03 GMT
From: "Peter G. Ford" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Aerobraking Underway
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> MAGELLAN AEROBRAKING, GRAVITY STUDIES UNDERWAY
>Any images by magellan available as GIF/TIFF?

The primary (unofficial) ftp site for all NASA planetary images is
ames.arc.nasa.gov [128.102.18.3]. Look in the pub/SPACE/GIF directory.
The pub/SPACE/GIF/index summary file is kept up-to-date.

Here at MIT, we have prepared a number of Venus altimetry and radiometry
images in GIF and JPEG format on the delcano.mit.edu server [18.75.0.80].
Look in the "mgn" directory for Magellan images, in "pv" for Pioneer Venus
(Pioneer 12), and in "venera" for Venera 15 and 16. These files can also be
down-loaded via e-mail: send a message with the subject "help" to
[e-mail] [18.75.0.10].

Peter G. Ford
Magellan Project and Planetary Data System
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 27 May 1993 03:26 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 05/26/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>When will Mars observer start imaging Mars (can it image from a distance
>or can it only scan small strips of the surface when it's in orbit?).

Mars Observer will start full scale mapping of Mars in October.
A couple images will be taken beforehand as the spacecraft approaches Mars,
and some test images will also be taken during the period from August (Mars
Orbit Insertion) and October.  Once in orbit, the spacecraft is much too close
to the planet to take images encompassing the entire planet in a single
image.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 06:42:06 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>+ Extraction and processing of minerals from an asteroid requires completely
>+ different techniques, and will undoubtedly face many unexpected problems.
>+ On the moon, you can use (modified) existing techniques.
>
> Exactly. And those modifications wouldn't be simple or cheap, ...

No, but they would likely be a lot cheaper than developing several completely
new technologies.  Much of the lunar processing technology can be developed
in Earth labs; zero-g technology requires zero-g, which is likely to be very
expensive for the next decade at least.

> ...but most importantly *they would have no application to space
> processing*. Therefore they are a waste of time and money unless they can
> stand on their own economic merit.

That's like saying that fossil fuel technology was a waste of time, and that
early humans should have gone directly to solar or fusion energy.  Do you
really think that the technology to mine and process an asteroid in zero-g
can be developed for a similar price tag and time frame as a lunar base?  I
expect the asteroid project would require a decade or so of LEO missions just
to figure out a processing system that will work in zero-g, and there would
probably be a lot of failed missions (more expense).

If moon mining/processing and asteroid mining/processing projects were
started today, I expect that Lunar metals and oxygen would be available in
Earth orbit a decade or more before the asteroidal materials.  Furthermore,
the Lunar materials would probably still be cheaper than the asteroidal ones
for quite a while after that, due to it being a mature technology by then.

> I'm talking here about moving the materials around for processing. You
> know, things like conveyer belts, trucks, draglines, bulldozers, etc. None
> of the techniques developed in a gravity well have any application in open
> space.

No, but they do have application on the moon, and perhaps Mercury and some of
the other moons in the system.  Some of the technology and knowledge may be
applicable to Mars as well (such as for processing Martian soil into fuel for
exploration vehicles and a return to Earth).  I doubt that all that is
learned from a lunar base would be completely useless.  Is any knowledge
completely useless?

>+ They probably would.  I can imagine improvements in small pumps and other
>+ things associated with heat transfer.  Techniques developed for turning
>+ lunar dust into shielding and structural elements should be useful, if not
>+ directly applicable to orbital structures.  The handling of dust in a
>+ vacuum is probably going to be troublesome, gravity or no gravity.
>
> In any event it's certainly going to be *different* in gravity than in free
> fall. So again few techniques would translate from one arena to another.

No, a lot of it _would_ translate.  Fluid flow in thin tubes is probably
quite similar in high-g and zero-g, since the capillary forces and other
forces would overwhelm gravitational effects.  The software developed for
running a heat transfer system might be quite similar.  Techniques for
welding thin tubing in zero-g would be directly applicable.  I expect a lot
of the knowledge gained from a lunar base would be valuable for zero-g
development.

> That depends on where you start your telepresence development. If you do it
> in LEO, the delays are even less than at Luna. And if you do it in the next
> room, with suitable delay lines, it's cheaper still. There's nothing about
> telepresence or closed cycle environment development that *requires* bases
> on the Moon, or even in orbit.

True.  However, a lunar base would be a major incentive for R&D in
teleoperation.  If the political decision is made to build a lunar base,
money will be made available for teleoperation R&D, since it should reduce
the final cost.  The same is true for asteroid mining, but the total project
cost may be so much higher that the project won't get approval.  :-/

> As I pointed out, oil companies, and others, are already operating in
> extreme environments even though lower grade temperate climate ores remain.
> That answered your objection.

Yes and no.  A mining company might find the lower cost of mining/processing
higher grade ore in a harsh environment pays for the extra R&D and other
costs. However, much of the R&D has already been done and paid for, and the
uncertainty is relatively low.  Zero-g mining/processing is essentially
completely new technology.  Try getting funding for a mine at the bottom of
the ocean, based on technology that isn't even firmly on a drawing board.

> Large LEO industrial structures would be even better markets, and they'd be
> cheaper to construct. Large active adsats would want SPS equivalent power
> levels. This would drive demand for space materials to reduce construction
> costs. Adsats are excellent examples of high value space manufacturing.

All those orbital structures/devices could be manufactured and transported
mainly from lunar dirt.

>+ Private investors might be more likely to invest in a space manufacturing
>+ station if there were people regularly working in orbit, and there were
>+ supplies and services in place for them to use.
>
> I agree, but a Lunar base is "in orbit" only in a pedantic sense. That's
> why we need stations in orbit, to generate the traffic to make commercial
> ventures palatable.

Yes, and the construction of those stations would help justify the lunar
base. The savings from not hauling all the mass from Earth probably wouldn't
be enough to repay the investment, but it would help, and the mines would
still be there for other construction projects.

> Delta-v requirements to some near Earth asteroids and comets are lower than
> injection into Lunar orbit and landing. The processing facility can be
> built in LEO mostly by short lag teleoperations from major components
> assembled on the ground. This course is cheaper and more direct than adding
> the unnecessary complication of a Lunar base.

I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that the total cost would be lower.

> Metals and silicates are available from asteroids that are energetically
> less expensive to reach than the lunar surface. Add in the unavailable on
> the Moon hydrogen and carbon from comets and certain classes of asteroids,
> and you have an unbeatable combination. There's no material on the Moon
> that we can't get elsewhere, and without the penalty of fighting that
> gravity well twice.

Are the metals and silicates in a form as easy to process?  The moon's
minerals are already finely ground, and differentiated to some degree.
Extracting an asteroid's aluminum, although feasible, might be relatively
expensive.  Worse, it might require a lot of R&D time, which would make
aluminum unavailable for a long time.  :-/


> No realistic study of lunar resources shows them to be economically viable,
> now or any time in the projectable future. However, some ET materials
> studies do show that processing of comets and asteroids may be economically
> viable with technologies within our projected reach.

and...

> I agree with this progression except for the Lunar base. It is too costly
> for the benefit of Lunar oxygen and aluminum to offset.

Do you have some references for those claims?  If they convince me, I'll
concede the argument.

> Instead they can compete directly for the government's business by
> supplying ET materials. The best way to do this is for the government to
> offer a bounty of $X per pound for materials delivered to a government
> orbital station. Let the private companies decide how to do it.

I like that idea.  :)

Of course, it would take the decision-making power away from politicians, so
they won't agree.  They want to reward their friends and themselves first.
:(

--

[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 01:45:00 GMT
From: "Milo S. Medin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA CD-ROM add/price
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1u0kbo$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Carol) writes:
|> Does anyone have the price list and where to write for the NASA
|> CD-ROMs which are available?  I'm looking for the Voyager and
|> Viking CD-ROMs which I've heard about.
|>
|> I also understand the Voyager CD-ROMs are compressed, does anyone
|> know what method was used?  Is it lossy or lossless?
|>
|> I've already looked in the FAQ without luck.
|>
|> --- Thanks!
|>
|> Andrew Carol           [e-mail]

I don't know what the prices are, but we have the full set of Voyager,
Magellan, and Viking CD-ROM's online and available for anonymous FTP
from explorer.arc.nasa.gov, in the ~ftp/cdrom directory.  84 CD's
or so total.

                        Thanks,
                           Milo

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 11:09:48 GMT
From: Uwe Bonnes <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Hubble Pics: Location ???
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail] (Brian D Milner) writes:
|>
|> I'm looking for new NASA images from the HST which would have been
|> posted in the last three days. They are of a galaxy, an NGC object
|> 7572 I think.
|>
|> Can anyone point to an anon FTP location for these? I tried
|> ames.arc.nasa.gov but I couldn't find them just browsing around
|> in the directories.

HST pictures are propriatary to the observer for one year.

But where to find pictures of observations more than a year ago ?

Uwe Bonnes  [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 May 93 00:47:27 GMT
From: Dan Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Kevin Hart ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
: >I was suggesting that bipedal locomotion requires a more complex brain
: >than more stable bases. Whether one forces development of the other is
: >subject to debate. I suspect a feedback occurs. If we want to end up with
: >intelligence, we should prefer forms that encourage development of complex

: >brains. Neither 2 nor 4 limbs offer unconditional stability in motion
: >while the double tripod of the insect does.
:
: I would think that it would be more useful to develop limbs for manipulation
: than to develop any particular locomotion.  Complex things like hands would
: require a complex brain.  And this complexity would be directly applicable
: to the problem of tool use, whereas the complexity required for balance and
: coordination would not.  The advantage of bipedal locomotion is the added
: specialization of the forelimbs.  All IMO.
:
The route to intelligence used by humans is still hotly debated by
anthropologists.
1) expanded brain required to maintain social structures.
2) expanded brain required for speech and cooperation
3) expanded brain driven by increasing tool use requirements for fine
    manipulation
4) large brain required for primate binocular color vision

These are only some of the theories I have seen.  As for limb specialization
our hands are designed for grasping tree branches, look at how they curl in
a relaxed state.  Now using the hand in a delicate manipulation does require
a larger area of the brain to coordinate.  But the real story is probably
some mix of theories.
--
-------------------/\/\__/\/\-------------------------------------
Daniel J. Williams \/0~__~0\/ These opinionated statements are mine!
Email:             (  /oo\  ) and no-one elses.
 [e-mail] |/VVVV\|
 450-8569            \_**_/   Sometimes the Dragon Wins.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 07:31:46 GMT
From: Terry Fong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian Mars Rover Telepresence Test - 05/21/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,comp.robotics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chuck McManis) writes:

>So how come you have to do all of this stuff so expensively?

Well, actually, the testing we did last week was quite inexpensive.
The Russian Marsokhod rover, which resides at the IKI Institute or
Babakin in Moscow (and not usually anywhere near Death Valley) was
controlled from Ames using a relay provided by CNES in Toulouse. The
connection from Ames to CNES was made via Internet (using a TCP stream
socket). From CNES to IKI, a dedicated land line (existing) was used.
Only existing hardware (i.e., the control station at Ames, the Marsokhod,
etc.) was used in this test. No special hardware or costly
communications lines were required. Overall, very little expense
(other than late hours and the international conference calls) was
incurred by any of the involved parties.

>Not to be critical but why couldn't you set up a rover in Death Valley and
>hook it up to the telepresence operator via a dual rf link an
>via a delay/error injector simulator to give some feel for a "real"
>Mars mission?

This would be lots of fun to do. However, if you ask me, the logistics
(e.g., setting up communications & equipment in the desert) might
quickly turn a "cheap" test into a "not-so-cheap" test.

--
_______________________________________________________________________________
A straight line may be the shortest     Terry Fong <[e-mail]>
distance between 2 points, but it is     NASA-AMES M/S 269-3, Moffett Field, CA
by no means the most interesting-Dr. Who    [phone] office, 604-6081 lab

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 23:53:59 GMT
From: Kennith Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

[e-mail] (Claudio Oliveira Egalon) writes:
> 1) she admited she really got mad about the way
> they were treated (which confirms one of the
> things that Tom Wolfe wrote) BUT

Okay...

> 2) she did not mentioned about threatening
> Guss to cut her own wrist and

Let me ask you this.  If you were writing a book about your
experiences as the wife of Gus Grissom, would YOU mention the
fact that you might have considered slashing your wrists?  I
wouldn't.

> 3) according to Star Fall Guss Grisson just
> understood the way his wife was feeling and
> went along with her request without feeling
> surprised.

Why does it matter so much whether or not Gus (it's spelled with
one 's', by the way) Grissom (with an 'm') was surprised at the way
his wife reacted?

     ksj

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 05:01:38 GMT
From: Robert Casey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Tilden) writes:
>I remember riding my bike to Patrick AFB to watch the homecoming 'parades'
>for the Mercury astronauts. They were usually hot, dusty, glaring affairs
>with people lined up on either side of A1A and a small motorcade of
>convertibles moving by at a leisurely pace. Didn't seem very heroic at the
>time.

I grew up in the same town where Wally Schraw(sp) also grew up years before.
Oradell, NJ. A suburb of NYC.  If memory serves rightly, he flew a Mercury
for 6 orbits.  Oradell had a town parade in his honor when he paid us
a visit, and we all went to listen to him speak at the local high school
football field (during some warm part of the year in the early 60s).  A
small park in the center of town is named after him.  I vaguely remember
a dedication speach or something held near that park, and upon seeing
a reel to reel tape audio tape machine, saying to my mother "Look Mommy,
a tape deck!"  I was around 8 then.  The press guy using the tape machine
was somewhat suprised that a young kid would know what it was.

The town seal includes a Mercury space ship, along with Indians and
settlers and such.  This is Oradell's one claim to fame, other than
that, it's just yet another surburban town of a large city.  2 miles
east of exit 165 of the Garden State Parkway.  Not really much to see
there.

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

Date: 27 May 93 02:47:11 GMT
From: Mark Taranto <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

[e-mail] writes:

> Mark Taranto writes:

>> The only Wolfe I've read was BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES.  I thought it a
>> fascinating book which had lots of interesting things to say about
>> society (paricularly about New York society).  But I thought the book
>> was *very* poorly written -- a classic example of substance winning
>> out over style.

> _Bonfire_ is not poorly written at all!  I can see how one might
> think so, however, if one is unfamiliar with Wolfe's idiosyncratic
> style.

I don't know, Heather.  Opening up BONFIRE randomly, I see things like:

    Weiss gazed down upon 161st street like a shepard upon his flock.

and

    He *detected* it -- righteously! -- amid the great bondscape
    of writhing limbs and torsos.

and

    In blithe moments, when King Priapus reighned, with no crises
    in his domain, Sherman made his climb up to Maria's with a
    romantic relish.

And everywhere I look, there are all those question marks and
exclamation points.  In addition, I found his dialogue stilted, and I
found it *incredibly* annoying that he wrote in dialect, and then felt
it necessary to translate the New York dialects into proper English.

But, looking through the book again, I can see why it might appeal to
you.  His style reminds me a lot of that of a baseball writer.

>> From Jeff's comment, I gather that THE RIGHT STUFF is
>> more than substance.  Is this true?  WHat about Wolfe's other works?

> Like all of Wolfe's works, it's a balancing act between style and
> substance.

Well -- I guess we're just destined to disagree on this.

> Wolfe's most brilliant stroke, in my opinion, was the discovery
> of Chuck Yeager, who was, to most people, a footnote in the history books
> up to that point.

Really?  I was under the impression that he was already well known.


Mark




Note:  Followup to rec.arts.books

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

Date: 27 May 1993 07:50:45 +0100
From: Alan Hunter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

[e-mail] writes:
>Like all of Wolfe's works, it's a balancing act between style and
>substance.  Wolfe's most brilliant stroke, in my opinion, was the discovery
>of Chuck Yeager, who was, to most people, a footnote in the history books
>up to that point.  Granted, Yeager has a lot of substance, but it was
>Wolfe's style that brought that substance out vividly.

Recall that it originally started as a series of long articles for Rolling
Stone. The discovery of Yeager by Wolfe was a profound difference between
the articles and the book.  (Here I go writing 50,000 words about the
Right Stuff and then I find that its not quite the Right Stuff after all,
there's even Righter Stuff in the desert). Unfortunately the film obscures
the book which obscures the articles in my mind, but I have a clear
feeling that the original articles were as close to good clean journalism
as Wolfe has come and that he actually lost something when he transformed
for the book, despite the immense strength of the Yeager material. I
assume that the articles are in print somewhere, my copies are browning
out nowadays.

Rgds
Alan

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

Date: 27 May 1993 09:39:12 GMT
From: Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager Discovers the First Direct Evidence of the Heliopause
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>VOYAGER SPACECRAFT FIND CLUE TO ANOTHER SOLAR SYSTEM MYSTERY
>
>     Nearly 15 years after they left home, the Voyager 1 and 2
             ^^^^^^^^
>     "It's this Voyager radio data combined with the plasma
>measurements taken at the spacecraft that give us a better guess
>about where the heliopause is.  Based on the solar wind speed, the
>time that has elapsed since the mid-1992 solar event and the
>strength of the radio emissions, my best guess for the upper limit
>of the heliopause currently is about 90 to 120 astronomical units
                                      ^^^^^^^^^
>
>     Voyager 1 currently is at 52 AU (4.9 billion miles or 7.8
                                ^^^^^^
>billion kilometers from the sun), and Voyager 2 is at 40 AU (3.7
                                                       ^^^^^^
>billion miles or 6 billion kilometers) from the sun.
>

Thus the voyagers are 15 to 30 years away from crossing the heleopause.
Thus it does not sound like their power will hold out that long :-(
How much longer do they have?

What other evidence (short of crossing it) can the voyagers provide to "find"
the heliopause?

-gregw

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 637
------------------------------