Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v17/v17no005.txt

Text File | 1993-08-13 | 29KB | 716 lines

Space Digest                Tue, 10 Aug 93       Volume 17 : Issue 005

Today's Topics:
     Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) (2 msgs)
                                 DC-X
                        Did NOAA-I get up OK?
                  Do Astronauts Use Sleeping Pills?
                    Donkey Drivers of the Universe
           Info Req: technology complexity metrics (2 msgs)
               Launch Advisory for 07/30/93 (Forwarded)
                      Magellan Update - 08/06/93
                 Mars Observer's First Photo (2 msgs)
                   Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93
                Planned BMDO test in Utah/New Mexico?
                        SH - this is too much
                   Space Infrasture/Old Launchers.
                 The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
                      Tracking software for SGI?
                     Tracking software fot a SGI
                     Voyager: Where to get Info?
                          Voyager Spacecraft
                     Why I hate the space shuttle

        Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
        "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
        "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
        (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
        (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 14:53:33 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (11086) writes:
>A couple of years back I was fortunate enough (at Goddard Space Flight
>Center) to hear a speech by the director of the Soviet space program. (I
>can't remember his name, unfortunately.) He made to statements that amused
>us all greately (the quotes are certainly not exact, but make the point):
>
>1) "While we were developing Buran, we kept asking 'What is its
>    mission?' We were told 'the American's have built one and they are
>    very smart, so it must have a mission.'"
>
>2) "Gorbechov (sorry, I can't spell) tried to impress Reagan when he
>    introduced me to him by saying 'He is close friends with many
>    American scientists, such as Carl Sagan!' I don't think he
>    understood American scientific politics very well."

FYI: Sounds like Sagdeyev, he was the head of the IKI - space research
institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences - for several years, a fairly small
organization responsible for managing a few scientific satellites and
probes, nothing to do with Buran. He spends a lot of time now in Maryland.

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 19:29:22 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In <north.744567699@watop> [e-mail] (Mark North) writes:

>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>In <north.744398077@watop> [e-mail] (Mark North) writes:

>>>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>>As well it should.  One of the classical historical incidents of this
>>>>type was data that Milliken decided to throw out because it didn't fit
>>>>with theory and wasn't prevalent enough to be statistically
>>>>significant.  If he had kept that data and analyzed further, he would
>>>>have discovered that there were particles with partial electronic
>>>>charges; something that had to wait quite a while before being
>>>>'rediscovered'.  Where would physics have been if we had known about
>>>>partially charged particles that much earlier, rather than going on in
>>>>the belief that charge could only exist in whole units?

>>>NOT!

>>Better go check that physics book again, son.  There's a lot more in
>>the world than protons and electrons.

>I think I'll spare you further embarrassment and not reply 8^).

One has to love the 'non-reply' -- if you didn't reply, how come I can
reply to your 'non-reply'?  All the net.clever of the typical Frosh,
Mark.  I *am* impressed.

[Is this an assertion on your part that there *are* only electrons and
protons and that I should be embarrassed at having claimed otherwise?
;-)]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 19:24:50 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In <23jm86$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lawrence R. Mead) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Snyder) writes:
>>
>>>This brings up a question that nags all experimenters, I think:
>>>When is an unusual bit of data to be ignored, set aside with no further
>>>thought, or explained way with one/some of the stock explanations
>>>of possible complications?  And when is that bit of data the indication
>>>of something new -- some new phenomenon, new observation, or the key
>>>to some new understanding, if it is only pursued further?
>>
>>As well it should.  One of the classical historical incidents of this
>>type was data that Milliken decided to throw out because it didn't fit
>>with theory and wasn't prevalent enough to be statistically
>>significant.  If he had kept that data and analyzed further, he would
>>have discovered that there were particles with partial electronic
>>charges; something that had to wait quite a while before being
>>'rediscovered'.  Where would physics have been if we had known about

>WHAT ????? WHAT PARTICLES ARE THOSE ???? PHYSICISTS HAVE FOUND NO
>FREE PARTICLES WITH PARTIAL CHARGE SO HE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED
>ANYTHING.

GOD, I LOVE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT THEIR CORRECTNESS IS IN DIRECT
PROPORTION TO THEIR ABILITY TO TYPE IN ALL UPPER-CASE!!!!!  NOT TO
MENTION HOW IMPRESSIVE THE USE OF REPETITIVE PUNCTUATION IS!!!!!!!

[Buy a clue, Larry.  Got any *proof* that he didn't happen to detect
one of the 'non-free' particles that carry partial charges?  Take the
state of your gruntlement elsewhere -- I'm not interested.]

>Lawrence R. Mead ([e-mail]) | ESCHEW OBFUSCATION !
>Associate Professor of Physics

[The *speculation* [do you know the word, Larry?] with regard to
Milliken was raised by someone who was a Full Professor (not an
Associate).  Perhaps you need to learn to think a bit more freely?
Or, if your overzealous use of captitals and punctuation is any
indicator, perhaps the phrase "a bit more freely" could be replaced
with "at all"?  You aren't related to McElwaine by any chance, are
you?  He like upper case and overstatement, too.]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 9 Aug 1993 15:58:07 GMT
From: Scott Chisholm <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

>As Bill Clinton promised on the campaign trail, "Every American
> >should have above average income, and my Administration is going
> >to see they get it."


    Statistically impossible.

 Consider that any child that does not have
> access to a computer before she reaches the age of 15 is peranently
> and most likely extremely dissadvantaged in the working world today

   Rediculous statement. It takes 15 min. to learn how to use a computer
for
most uses like word processing and stuff.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 18:20:31 BST
From: Thomas Sandford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Did NOAA-I get up OK?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The environmental/meteorological satellite NOAA-I (to become NOAA-13 if it
works ok) was supposed to have been launched at 1002Z on 8th August. Does
anyone have any information about whether this launch took place/was
successful?
--
Thomas Sandford | [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 11:46:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: "SED::MRGATE::\"A1::AIR_PHILLIPS\""@sed.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Do Astronauts Use Sleeping Pills?

From:   NAME: CHARLES PHILLIPS D.
        FUNC: PA
        TEL: [phone]                     <AIR_PHILLIPS AT A1 AT SED>
To:     smtp%"[e-mail]"@mrgate


Gang -

It is hard to sleep in space, at least with Spacelab - it is very noisy,
with pumps and fans running constantly. It is also cold - the thermal
balance is done with a worst case heating load and so the Spacelab gets
very cool.

Several of the crew members that I have talked with have mentioned the
noise - but once you get used sleeping in space they say it is very
natural. You don't sleep under a blanket, they have sleeping bags. And
since they are in zero-g you don't have anything resting on you, you can't
pinch your arm and have it go to sleep, etc.

The other problem is excitement - eveyone wants to look out the window
sometime! At least with Spacelab Module missions there is not a window back
there, but the payload crew does escape into the mid-deck or flight deck
once in a while. And the crews are eager to get the science - so they want
to be at work.

They all come back real tired - but that does not stop them from signing up
for the next flight!

Charles D. Phillips

Internet: [e-mail]
"When You Are Cool The Sun Is Always Shining"

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 18:47:54 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Donkey Drivers of the Universe
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S.H.) writes:

>In article <244moo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof - SIO) writes:
>>[In response to S.H., a fellow Triton}:

>>>Organization: San Diego SuperComputer Center @ UCSD
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Hope this is not an insult. May I ask this:
>>>"Are you a staff of SDSC or an *user* ? "

>>Simply a user.

>   Thanks A lot.  This is All I want to know.

>    Next time, if you are just the user, do not wear the Title of
>    the Organisation which you are not belong to.  Wearing somebody
>    else's Title to send message is very ease to cause elusions.
>    Sometime, it could be taken as done intensionly for political
>    propaganda.

>    Remember this:

>    **You** do not represent San Diego SuperComputer Center @ UCSD!

Neither do you represent the University of California at San Diego,
but there it is in your 'Organization' field.  Get c clue.

[Ok, who can we write to about this idiot that just forwarded God only
knows how much kruft into this newsgroup?  I gave up on it after
scrolling the first few screensful.]



--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 16:59:52 GMT
From: Lauren Massa-Lochridge <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Req: technology complexity metrics
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.engr.manufacturing

I'm looking for information or pointers to journal articles/books/references
or reports on the following topics. Any help will be appreciated!

Basically I want to gether information on metrics for the complexity of
large scale advance technology projects, especially those that are
space and aerospace related. I would like to get a variety of different
viewpoints, such as those from different fields like Operations Research,
Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Aerospace engineering,
Manufacturing Engineers and possible other domain experts.

The primary application areas I'm interested are A.I., manufacturing
in space, large scale systems and human factors.

An example of the kind of thing I would like to be able to gauge is, for
example, the relative complexity of the space shuttle versus the space
station, or the relative complexity of *developing* technology such as
a mars lander compared to a computer hw/sw system for rapid prototyping
instrumentation. i.e. I want to be able to compare (on some level)
disparate types of things or processes - so I prefer to know about
metrics which are very general as well as those specific to a domain.

If you can point me to any related information, I'll be grateful.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  Lauren Massa-Lochridge
  [e-mail]           Systems Integration Lab IEOR
  [e-mail]           CIM/BCAM (Comp. Automated Manu.)EECS
                University of California, Berkeley
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  Lauren Massa-Lochridge
  [e-mail]           Systems Integration Lab IEOR
  [e-mail]      CIM/BCAM (Comp. Automated Manu.)EECS

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 17:05:57 GMT
From: Lauren Massa-Lochridge <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Req: technology complexity metrics
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.engr.manufacturing

I'm looking for information or pointers to journal articles/books/references
or reports on the following topics. Any help will be appreciated!

Basically I want to gether information on metrics for the complexity of
large scale advance technology projects, especially those that are
space and aerospace related. I would like to get a variety of different
viewpoints, such as those from different fields like Operations Research,
Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Aerospace engineering,
Manufacturing Engineers and possible other domain experts.

The primary application areas I'm interested are A.I., manufacturing
in space, large scale systems and human factors.

An example of the kind of thing I would like to be able to gauge is, for
example the relative complexity of the space shuttle versus the space
station, or the relative complexity of *developing* technology such as
a mars lander compared to a computer hw/sw system for rapid prototyping
instrumentation. I.E. I want to be able to compare (on some level)
disparate types of things or processes - so I prefer to know about
metrics which are very general as well as those specific to a domain.

I you can point me to any related information, I'll be grateful.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  Lauren Massa-Lochridge
  [e-mail]           Systems Integration Lab IEOR
  [e-mail]           CIM/BCAM (Comp. Automated Manu.)EECS
                University of California, Berkeley
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

Date: 9 Aug 1993 10:03:27 -0400
From: "Michael K. Heney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Launch Advisory for 07/30/93 (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
>|LAUNCH ADVISORY:  STS-51 LAUNCH DATE MOVED TO AUGUST 12
>|
>|The decision was made after the Shuttle team received a
>|briefing and reviewed the latest data on the upcoming Perseid
>|meteor shower activity in Earth's upper atmosphere which is
>|scheduled to take place the evening of August 11.
>
>The STS-51 mission has been postponed until the 12th for fear that those mean
>ole meteors will hit our precious little shuttle. The Russian cosmonauts,
>aboard the Mir space station, who have apparently inherited the "Right Stuff",
>will remain in orbit. They may get the treat of observing meteors from 350 km
>altitude looking *down* towards the earth as Perseids burn up at about 100 km. <
>                                                                               <
>If *any* of the hundreds of working satellites already in orbit is damaged by
>the possible Perseid storm on the evening of Aug 11th, I will apologize here.
>But don't hold your breath.                                                    <
>
>--
>Bruce Watson ([e-mail])

The *estimated* probability of something shuttle (or HST) sized taking
some sort of hit from the Perseid shower/storm has been quoted at 0.001 -
1 in 1000.  Personally, I avoid standing under trees during thunderstorms,
even thought the odds of taking a strike are much longer than 1 in 1000.
I have no problem with NASA not taking any unnecessary risks.

BTW, I understand that HST's cover will be closed to protect the mirrors
during the storm as well.  Again, better safe than sorry ...

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

Date: 9 Aug 1993 17:05 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 08/06/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                         MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                             August 6, 1993

1.  Aerobraking the Magellan spacecraft into a near circular orbit on
Venus was successfully completed on Tuesday, 8/3/93.  The apoapsis was
reduced from 8460 to 540 km, and the orbit period to 94 minutes.

2.  Magellan's periapsis was lifted out of the upper atmosphere by a
series of five Exit OTMs (Orbit Trim Maneuvers) which began early Tuesday
and finished on Thursday.  The final orbit is 540 x 197 km.

3.  The Magellan Transition Experiment demonstrates a significant new
maneuver technology by achieving a major orbit change with minimal
propellant and enabling new scientific observations near the poles of
Venus.

Magellan Significant Events for Next Week

1.  A press conference on Magellan's successful aerobraking will be
held at JPL on Tuesday, August 10 at 10:00 A.M., and broadcast on
NASA-Select.

2.  Tuesday also marks the 3rd anniversary of MagellanUs arrival at
Venus.

3.  Circular orbit operations will officially begin on August 16th.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | When given a choice between
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | two exciting things, choose
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | the one you haven't tried.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 93 03:09:24 EDT
From: Aaron Smith <p-cove!wolfman>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (John Manuel) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>
> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
> > If all they want to do is degrade
> > resolution, dynamic range, etc., that is easy to do digitally, without
> > the cumbersome kludge of printing the image out and re-scanning it.
>
> A friend of mine had one of those printed-and-then-re-scanned images
> from a previous mission (I can't remember which) and did some image
> processing on it to see if he could sharpen it up a bit... he found
> fingerprints!

 No kidding?? I have tried to enhance pictures that I have scanned in
before only to ruin them..

Aaron Smith

----
Wolfman (Aaron Smith) SysOp - Pirate's Cove BBS [phone]
Home of the Swashbuckler's!

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

Date: 9 Aug 1993 15:14 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes...
>Why scan photos, instead of directly converting the data stream to
>GIF or other format?

I guess because only the photograph has been released.  The raw data has not.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | When given a choice between
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | two exciting things, choose
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | the one you haven't tried.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 16:53:58 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

|>[e-mail] (Dave Michelson) Pontificated:
|>>
|>>Anyone have any bright ideas for an appropriate name?  Maybe it's not
|>>too late....   :-)
|>>
|>

How about the Lowell Observatory?  :-)

Burns

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 16:33:00 GMT
From: Gary Hughes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Planned BMDO test in Utah/New Mexico?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In the past, Athena vehicles have been launched from Green River into WSMR.
The Athenas are large multistage solid propellant vehicles designed to
accelerate test packages to ICBM reentry speeds by firing the last one or two
stages during the descending part of the trajectory (there have been different
models of Athena over the years).

fwiw,

gary

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 03:13:10 GMT
From: Cobalt Stargazer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SH - this is too much
Newsgroups: sci.space

Its so nice to see SH invading this group - NOT.

I think it is time for a moderated space group.

McElwaine
Abian
Hannu
SH

the list is growing.

c.

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

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1993  09:47 EST
From: Mike Packard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Infrasture/Old Launchers.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In Article <[e-mail]> "[e-mail]" says:
> Here is how it works: Atleast how to get into space and such, namely
> commericial space.. Is to sell off many of the old launchers (atlas/titan and
> such), to get the cost of launchers down, and then as the old launchers wear
> out, and such, you then start building newer model lauchers.
[other stuff deleted]
Wait, how do you suppose to sell off the old launchers?  And why R&D is
not cheap.  With this mode every new launcher will be a proto-type.
And what is 'it' in your intorductory sentence "Here is how it works:"
is it the economy, NASA, Lockheed, etc.
mike
[e-mail].e

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 17:52:23 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>[e-mail] (Ward Paul) writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S.H.) writes:
>>>
>>>What is your backgroud?
>>>Who do you speak for ?
>>>
>>>What do you do besides writing posters ?

>>Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.

>Same here. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

No one expects the Spammish Inquisition!

[I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam.]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 10:20:51 -0500 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Scott Gennari)
Subject: Tracking software for SGI?

Hello

        I'm a graduate student at the University of Maryland
and need to find a satellite tracking program (graphics) for
a Silicon Graphics Indigo workstation. Programs like Tracksat,
Sattrack, and xsat are not compatable with either the function
calls or the graphics library on my machine. Does anyone know of
such a program for a Silicon Graphics? If not, could you circulate
this message to some folks who might be able to help?

Thanks !

Scott Gennari
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 10:16:11 -0500 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Scott Gennari)
Subject: Tracking software fot a SGI

Hello

        I'm a graduate student at the University of Maryland
and need to find a satellite tracking program (graphics) for
a Silicon Graphics Indigo workstation. Programs like traksat,
sattrack and xsat are not compatable with either funtion calls
or the graphics library.  Does anyone know of such a tracking
program for a Silicon Graphics? If not, could you circulate
this message to some folks who might be able to help?

Thanks !

Scott Gennari
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 14:01:13 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager: Where to get Info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 9 Aug 1993 04:08:56 GMT, [e-mail] (Eric Shafto) said:
ES> Dead Head ([e-mail]) wrote:
ES> : I am interested in information on the Voyager spacecraft itself, as
ES> : opposed to all the wonderful .GIF images and data that it produced.

ES> : I'm especially interested in what exactly is on the "gold record"
ES> : which was attached to the spacecraft, as well as any pictures and
ES> : descriptions of the construction of the spacecraft.

ES> The story of the record is told well in a book by Carl Sagan called
ES> _Murmurs from Earth_.

There's also a CDROM you can buy with all of the images and music along
with the book by Sagan.  I've been told the disk is of so-so quality
so I haven't plonked down the ~$50 yet.
--
Eddie McCreary            [e-mail]

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith."
Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 10:58:03 GMT
From: Mark Elowitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager Spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

I need to find out where I can obtain the current state
vectors for Voyager 1 and 2. If anyone has the current
state vectors could they please post them. By state
vectors I mean (x,y,z,xdot,ydot,zdot) with respect to
the solar system's barycenter.

Thanks...

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

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 16:05:37 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>There are airliners that don't have big wings.  (Hint:  Chinook.)
>>
>>I thought those big things on top that go round and round were called
>>rotary wings.
>
>They aren't big by wing standards.

The true determinant of wing size is swept area. Since the rotary
wing travels faster than the vehicle, it's swept area is bigger than
a fixed wing. So these *are* big by wing standards.

Gary

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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 17 : Issue 005
------------------------------