Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 05:00:00 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #013 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 19 Jul 92 Volume 15 : Issue 013 Today's Topics: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) (4 msgs) Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED Astronomy Lab Testing/Mail Problems How to find limiting magnitude? (was Re: Solar Power Satellites) Looking gif horse in mouth Manned/Unmanned (2 msgs) Mir diary pt.2 Need Testers for MS Windows Astronomy Program (2 msgs) Phobos-UFO-pic,what do You think about it ? Propulsion questions (2 msgs) Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering STS-50 postflight briefings set for July 20 [NTE 92-61] (Forwarded) Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu". Please do **NOT** send (un)subscription requests to that address! Instead, send a message of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), RICE::BOYLE (SPAN/NSInet), UTADNX::UTSPAN::RICE::BOYLE (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 21:57:34 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) Newsgroups: sci.space higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >The rest of the output, positive and negative pions, decay to muons >and neutrinos, and the muons decay to electrons and neutrinos... Are these the sort of muons that are useful in muon-catalyzed fusion? > Since >these are charged, you can in principle persuade them to go where you >want them to go (out the engine exhaust) with big enough magnetic >fields, if you grab them in the few dozen nanoseconds (pions) or >microseconds (muons) of their existence. I do this for a living. (-: > [o] > [|] /// Bill Higgins > E H /// > |8D:O: occc))))<)) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory > E H /// > [|]// Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET > [|] >Bumper sticker seen on a Soyuz: SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS > GOT HARD CURRENCY? > TRY OUR MICROGRAVITY LAB! Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV We ought to have hard currency soon. I was thinking just the other day, all we need is a war in the Persian Gulf, and the oilfield will come back! -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 "There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message "57 channels and nothing on" - Bruce Springsteen ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 92 22:11:55 GMT From: "John S. Novak III" Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) Newsgroups: sci.space This is all interesting, but (the engineering student says practically) just exactly how much antimatter are we capable of producing today, without extra tool-ups, and how much would it cost? How much cost to store it? What about if we did tool-up? What if we went insane and devoted significant amounts of time to it? Just curious... -- John S. Novak, III darknite@buhub.bradley.edu "So this is the sword of immortality, huh? What's it doing in a crypt?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:32:06 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul17.221155.25364@bradley.bradley.edu> darknite@buhub.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III) writes: >... just exactly how much antimatter are we capable of >producing today, without extra tool-ups, and how much would it >cost? How much cost to store it? Today, we make enough for experimental particle physics, which I think is in the femtograms. Storing it for days is no problem. Cost per gram is far beyond cost-effectiveness for any purpose except winning Nobel prizes. However, this is hardly a surprise: the existing hardware isn't designed for volume production. >What about if we did tool-up? >What if we went insane and devoted significant amounts of time to it? According to Forward, there appears to be no fundamental obstacle to making the stuff in fractional grams at a few million dollars per milligram. That may sound expensive, but it's cheap enough to wipe out all competition for in-space propulsion. Not just chemical rockets, but fission and fusion rockets stop being competitive. The dominant cost of all of them is mass lifted from Earth into orbit, and antimatter needs far less. Milligrams may not sound like much, but they can turn an awful lot of hydrogen into incandescent gas. This would put the solar system in our hands. The USAF, which wouldn't mind better space propulsion, has been funding a small long-term research program on antimatter propulsion. It doesn't look that far-out any more. ("This is no longer science fiction" -- Forward.) No fundamental breakthroughs appear necessary, just a lot of engineering development and considerable investment. A while ago, I read an interview with Forward on the subject. He and some others proposed a more aggressive program to SDI (which is also interested in improving space propulsion). (SDI turned it down as a bit too long-term, incidentally.) It had three phases. I think each one was nominally about five years. The first would do the engineering needed to develop practical hardware for large-scale antimatter handling. The second would build a specialized particle accelerator, about the size of Fermilab but different in detailed design, which would spend about a year making enough antimatter to test-fire a prototype antimatter rocket engine. The third would build a production facility, comparable in size to the Hanford nuclear-weapons complex, that would have the sustained production rate to support a major antimatter-fueled space program. Getting enough antimatter for interstellar propulsion is harder, because then we start needing kilogram quantities at least. That's probably going to take large-scale facilities in space. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:06:08 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >>The rest of the output, positive and negative pions, decay to muons >>and neutrinos, and the muons decay to electrons and neutrinos... > >Are these the sort of muons that are useful in muon-catalyzed fusion? Yes, although for that you'd like them at rather lower energies, if I recall correctly. I have seen mention of a design concept that exploited the muons as a fusion catalyst, but I have no idea how it was supposed to work. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 22:17:48 GMT From: Eric Bergman-Terrell Subject: Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.ibm.pc.misc,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d *** Beta Testers Needed for Windows 3.X Astronomy Program *** I need people to text version 1.09 of Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X. If you are interested, please send me an e-mail message containing the following information: (If you've already sent me your information, see if your e-mail address is in the list at the bottom of this posting) Name: US Mail Address: E-Mail Address: Version of MS-Windows: Version of MS-DOS: CPU: Math Coprocessor (not required): Memory: Graphics Card: Printer: Beta testers must agree to not distribute the test version of the software. Beta testers will be sent the final version of the software when testing is complete. Astronomy Lab is shareware. Beta software will be sent via e-mail as uuencoded .zip files. You will need to uudecode the files, and then unzip them on your PC. UNIX users: do a "man uudecode" for further information. Testers will send feedback via e-mail to ebergman@nyx.cs.du.edu. Eric Bergman-Terrell ebergman@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Astronomy Lab is one of the most versatile and comprehensive astronomy programs available for Microsoft Windows 3.X. Astronomy Lab produces 7 movies that simulate a host of astronomical phenomena, 15 graphs that illustrate many fundamental concepts of astronomy, and 14 printed reports that predict the most important astronomical events. All movies, graphs, and reports are customized for the user's time zone and location. Astronomy Lab requires Microsoft Windows 3.X or later running in standard or enhanced mode, 1 megabyte of available memory, and a mouse. Reports, graphs, and movie frames can be printed on any Windows compatible printer. Astronomy Lab will use an 8X87 compatible math coprocessor if one is installed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following people are already on my list: b-davis@jaguar.cs.utah.edu banshee@cats.UCSC.EDU beser@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu brent@syacus.acus.oz.au colaluca@cs.utexas.edu davea@hpdmmft.boi.hp.com dif@mirage.xilinx.com furballs@sequent.com gartrell@usc.edu harper@convex.com jcm3r@virginia.edu jiu1@husc.harvard.edu jpalenci@sol.ucs.indiana.edu Jpw0@ns1.cc.Lehigh.Edu labbey@gtri01.gatech.edu meikel@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de muthu@kaos.stanford.edu neyman@cmd.com paschall@utdallas.edu pitts@pulsar.astro.indiana.edu pr@umiacs.umd.edu rgaze@uk03.bull.co.uk srini@rigas.tisl.ukans.edu steinman@me.utoronto.ca theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com tmark@cognet.ucla.edu toms@ymp.esd.sgi.com wcalvin@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 92 01:40:58 GMT From: Eric Bergman-Terrell Subject: Astronomy Lab Testing/Mail Problems Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.edu,comp.ibm.pc.misc After posting my call for beta testers for Astronomy Lab for Windows, the system I am using developed mail problems, and many of the letters bounced. If your e-mail didn't make it to me, please try again. *** BUT PLEASE don't post to this newsgroup *** Eric Bergman-Terrell ebergman@nyx.cs.du.edu I have received mail from the following: b-davis@jaguar.cs.utah.edu banshee@cats.UCSC.EDU beser@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu brent@syacus.acus.oz.au colaluca@cs.utexas.edu davea@hpdmmft.boi.hp.com dif@mirage.xilinx.com gartrell@usc.edu jiu1@husc.harvard.edu jpalenci@sol.ucs.indiana.edu Jpw0@ns1.cc.Lehigh.Edu meikel@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de muthu@kaos.stanford.edu neyman@cmd.com pitts@pulsar.astro.indiana.edu pr@umiacs.umd.edu rgaze@uk03.bull.co.uk steinman@me.utoronto.ca theriaul@mdd.comm.mot.com tmark@cognet.ucla.edu wcalvin@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 92 17:16:11 GMT From: M.L.Cook3@lut.ac.uk Subject: How to find limiting magnitude? (was Re: Solar Power Satellites) Newsgroups: sci.space > When the Moon is down, our sky is still not perfectly black. There > is still a sky glow due to other, much dimmer sources. It would be > fun to investigate the more obscure ones, but the obvious ones include > starlight, planet light, and the glow scattered from sources on the > ground (as Tom Nugent mentions above). > So. Suppose we add another object to the sky, say, as bright as > Jupiter. How much will this increase the background glow? How will > it change the limiting magnitude of the dimmest object one can observe > with a telescope? (I'll bet this is a homework problem in some class > on observational astronomy somewhere.) How does it vary with angular > distance from the bright object? > If we can learn how to do this calculation, we can compare the alleged > damage that any proposed configuration of powersats will do to > ground-based astronomy. As Phil Fraering suggests, the effect is > probably meaningless for people close to any illuminated town. But it > may be significant for deep-sky professional observers. > I've checked at least one handbook but it's a tougher problem than > applying one simple formula. Perhaps someone else will *ahem* shed a > little light on the problem. Hmmm. First of all I think it should be said that the greatest risk to professional astronomy from large, bright satellites is not the fact that they contribute ever so slightly to sky glow. Much more of a risk is one of these satellites accidentally drifting into the field of view of a telescope fitted with a highly sensitive detector. The William Herschel telescope is kitted out with software to stop astronomers accidentally pointing the telescope at the moon and thus wrecking the detectors, but imagine a scenario where scores of bright satellites were swimming about the sky with much faster and unpredictable orbits than the moon. The oppurtunity for a calamity would be quite great. Going back to the sky glow problem, well to work out the amount of glow caused by an object rigourously would be quite difficult, but a simple back of the envelope calculation indicates that this is not really likely to be *too* much of a problem. Say we have a fullish moon at magnitude -12 or so. The brightest satellites about these days are no brighter than about -2, hence their luminous flux will only be one ten thousandth that of the moon, and even a super bright satellite at -7 one one hundredth. I think it is fair to assume that the level of skyglow caused by a satellite or other object is in proportion to its brightness. Hence, it seems to be there is unlikely to be any significant brightening of the sky background unless there are an awful lot of these powersats about. Martin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ___ ___ ___ ________ | Martin Cook, Dept. Computer Studies, | | /_ /| /__/| /_ /| /_______/| | Loughborough University of Technology, | | | | | | | | | | | |__ __|/ | Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU,| | | | |__ | | |_| | | | | | | United Kingdom. | | | |/__ /| | |/__| | | | | | | | | |_____|/ |_______|/ |__|/ | e-mail: M.L.COOK3@UK.AC.LUT (UK) | | | M.L.COOK3@LUT.AC.UK (Elsewhere)| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 92 16:47:49 -0500 From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu Subject: Looking gif horse in mouth Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul17.172705.14090@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes: > > All of the CD-ROMs that have been mounted at ames are available from the > National Space Science Data Center at cheap prices. The disks are $20 > for the first in an order, $6 each after that. For more info, send > email to: request@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov and they will send you a catalog > by email in a week or so. > > Included are Viking, Viking Orbiter, Voyager and Pioneer data. Note > that most of what is send is RAW DATA, not the pretty pictures you see > on TV and in magazines. Some software tools for PCs and Macs for > looking at the images and limited processing is available too. > > > > -- > | Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX > | hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL > | **** Papoon for President! You Know He's Not Insane!! **** I should have written diskette as in 5 1/2. I am still chipping my own hand axes. Sorry. Thomas Freebairn TFFREEBA@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 92 14:05:49 GMT From: ryan korniloff Subject: Manned/Unmanned Newsgroups: sci.space The Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) has been cut from the NASA budget. Megellan will be turned off while in Venus orbit and still fully funtional next year. Cassini, mission to Saturn, is in great danger of meeting the same fate as CRAF. And intruments have been stripped from The Mars Observer Orbiter to further conserve funds. All this is happening while space station Freedom is being issued all the funds it is requested. Yet an army of advisers to Congress from many space interest groups insist that Freedom if poorly designed and not up to par on the capabilities it is intended to fulfill. Congress has ignored all of the contrary statements conserning Freedom and approved of the budget that is crippling unmanned planetary science. Don't get me wrong, I am very much for our manned space program. I, myself intend to be walking an Mars in the next 15-20 years, but we can't continue to push forward the manned program at the expence of all other mothods of getting knowledge about he universe around us. And where does congress get the idea that they know what makes a space station useful or not? What do YOU think. -- Ryan Korniloff NYX BBS -- Internet: rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:54:14 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Manned/Unmanned Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul18.140549.19705@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (ryan korniloff) writes: >The Comet Rendezvous Asteroid Flyby (CRAF) has been cut from the NASA >budget. Megellan will be turned off while in Venus orbit and still fully >funtional next year. Cassini, mission to Saturn, is in great danger of >meeting the same fate as CRAF. And intruments have been stripped from The >Mars Observer Orbiter to further conserve funds. >All this is happening while space station Freedom is being issued all the >funds it is requested... Not this again... CRAF was cut from the NASA budget because CRAF/Cassini appeared to be firmly on track to overrun its budget cap, and Congress had already warned NASA that CRAF was the more expendable of the two. Cassini is still in danger, despite semi-protected status as an international program, precisely because its funding requirements continue to skyrocket. Turning off Magellan *is* a pretty dumb idea. I haven't heard that Mars Observer has lost anything lately; this would in fact be difficult, since the spacecraft is in final checkout at the Cape for launch this fall. And no, the station has *not* been issued all the funds it has requested. It's been fighting for its life against repeated attempts to cancel it, and so far has squeaked by with substantial cuts. >... Congress has ignored all of >the contrary statements conserning Freedom and approved of the budget that >is crippling unmanned planetary science. Unmanned planetary science has been crippled by its own inability to control costs and regulate its program starts to survive on stable funding. Its budgets have *risen steadily* in recent years. They just haven't risen enough to go on supporting a whole bunch of simultaneous megaprojects. Some have been warning for quite a while that this wasn't going to work. >Don't get me wrong, I am very much for our manned space program. I, myself >intend to be walking an Mars in the next 15-20 years... My. Such optimism. *NOBODY* is going to walk on Mars in the next 15-20 years unless we can somehow break out of the mess we're currently in. I like Cassini... but frankly, we would be a hell of a lot better off if we killed it dead and spent the money on DC-Y instead. The same goes for the space station. Our whole system for doing *both* manned and unmanned space exploration has bloated to the point where it is incapable of getting results on reasonable budgets. Trying to continue "business as usual", with or without specific projects, is not going to work; at most it will postpone the reckoning a few more years. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 92 17:53:31 GMT From: Bruce Watson Subject: Mir diary pt.2 Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1412@grivel.une.edu.au+ tfreer@metz.une.edu.au (TIMOTHY FREER) writes: + + +MIR DIARY Pt.2 (Aug89 to Jul92) +------------------------------- + + This diary continues on from my first posting, listing major events +during manned operations with the Mir space station between August 1989 and +July 1992. Once again the listing includes all launches to Mir, all +dockings, port transfers, spacewalks, undockings and re-entries, that +occured during this period. All dates are in GMT, and are reasonably +accurate. + I trust that you will find this diary a usefull reference for major +Mir space station activities. If you have any corrections, please post +them to me. + .... +---------------------------------------------------------------------------- + 1992. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------- +20 JAN Progress M-10 undocks and is directed into the atmosphere to + burn-up. Recoverable capsule re-enters. +25 JAN Progress M-11 launched. +27 JAN Progress M-11 docks with Mir's extreme forward port. .... 23 JAN I observed Mir as it passed almost overhead at 1:24 UTC at 0 visual magnitude. It was preceded by 3.5 seconds of time by an object at +3 visual magnitude and varying in brightness which was probably due to tumbling. Thanks for this list, Tim. I see now that the object I observed was probably Progress M-10. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 07:53:21 GMT From: bill nelson Subject: Need Testers for MS Windows Astronomy Program Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu,comp.ibm.pc.misc ebergman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Bergman-Terrell) writes: : : Eric Bergman-Terrell : ebergman@nyx.cs.du.edu Yep, the address doesn't work. I am going to try mnemosyne.cs.du.edu. I will let you all know if it works. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 18:12:08 GMT From: Steve South Subject: Need Testers for MS Windows Astronomy Program Newsgroups: sci.space My mail bounced with "user unknown" too. Please add me to the list. Steve (and I thought it was just my mailer) South ssouth@hpsid.sid.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 92 13:03:33 GMT From: Thad P Floryan Subject: Phobos-UFO-pic,what do You think about it ? Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.space,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic In article leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes: | I have just posted the Phobos2 Ufo-picture in JPEG format in | alt.binaries.pictures.misc | | What do You all think about it ? Utter waste of net bandwidth. Well, you did ask! :-) I, too, thought the picture appears to be a ``Mr. Potato Head'' construction. Sorry, I realize you meant well, but that picture contributed nothing to any understanding of the purported subject. I wonder if the original is available from any CIS (ex-USSR) agency in its digital form? Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ] ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 92 04:45:18 GMT From: James Davis Nicoll Subject: Propulsion questions Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >You can also build an antimatter-powered Bussard ramjet, which scoops >interstellar gas for reaction mass but is powered by antimatter. You're >still limited by the size of your antimatter tank, but it's better than >an antimatter rocket and doesn't have the fusion-reactor problem. The >design of the scoop is still problematic. How does one calculate the mass ratio for such a beast? James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:36:53 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Propulsion questions Newsgroups: sci.space In article jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >>You can also build an antimatter-powered Bussard ramjet, which scoops >>interstellar gas for reaction mass but is powered by antimatter... > > How does one calculate the mass ratio for such a beast? Mass ratios are really useful numbers only for rockets; this is a jet. You need to make some assumptions about scoop area and efficiency, and decide whether your priority is fuel economy or high acceleration. Then you can start looking at optimizing mixture ratio; I'd guess that the optimum ratio changes as you accelerate. There have been papers about such concepts -- one buzzword is RAIR, the Ram-Augmented Interstellar Rocket -- in JBIS. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 92 18:13:56 GMT From: Josh Woolard Subject: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering Newsgroups: sci.space BHBJ> In article <20549@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, BHBJ> slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks) writes: >>STNG is very interesting from the viewpoint of >>science and engineering - they >>*must* have a few staff members or consultants >>checking things out and coming >>up with ideas. I wouldn't sat they get everything >>right, and they do take a >>little dramatic license, but at least they >>introduce the ideas to the public. > > You are correct. I know a couple of graduate > students at UCLA that perform > this service for Paramount on a volunteer basis. > (They are volunteers, but > still get all the perks, if not pay.) BHBJ> Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda, the guys who handle art direction and BHBJ> design for *Star Trek Lite*, are technically-hip guys. Sternbach is a BHBJ> Hugo-winning illustrator specializing in astronomical art and BHBJ> spaceships, and Okuda was a PLATO user in the Seventies. Possibly the BHBJ> writing/story-editing end of the show is as technically literate. BHBJ> They do okay (for television SF) by astronomy, but have you noticed BHBJ> how bad the chemistry is? They are constantly mentioning substances BHBJ> unknown to 20th-century chemistry which just happen to have the BHBJ> properties required by the plot. Rarely do you hear them talking BHBJ> about "hydrogen" or "uranium." It's always "dilithium" and BHBJ> "unobtanium..." > ...just an aside...has anyone noticed the > similarity between the colored > insert-things for in the original Star Trek's > computer and 3.5 floppy disks? BHBJ> Yes, this is very evident in the current *Star Trek* exhibit at the BHBJ> National Air and Space Museum. (Capsule review: Somewhat interesting BHBJ> but not worth going out of your way to see-- unless you're a BHBJ> worshiper. *Star Trek Classic* costumes are probably the best BHBJ> feature. Props, models, scripts, and other documents are also on BHBJ> display. Two stars.) BHBJ> Bill Higgins | In the distant future, BHBJ> Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | nuns will be bartenders BHBJ> Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | aboard starships BHBJ> Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | and Sternbach paintings BHBJ> SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | will hang on every wall. BHBJ> --- BH Oribibigiallas/Ft.Worth Usenet Gateway (1:124/2206.0) I think that Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda do a very good job of the props, space vehicles, and all the computer panels. Some of the ideas they have had are very realistic and some of them, I believe that may become part of nanotechnology. The communicators are very realistic, so are the personnel phasers. Even the turbolifts. Josh * Origin: FamilyResearch (817) 571-1373 V.32 (1:130/44) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 92 14:37:59 GMT From: Mike Schatz Subject: STS-50 postflight briefings set for July 20 [NTE 92-61] (Forwarded) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul14.200240.22630@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > The STS-50 U.S. Microgravity Laboratory postflight crew press > conference will be held Monday, July 20, from 1-3 p.m. CDT at the > Johnson Space Center, Houston, in building 2, room 135. The crew > members will describe their record-setting 14-day flight while > narrating film highlights of the mission. > The conference will be carried on NASA Select television with > two-way audio for questions and answers from NASA Headquarters > and centers. NASA Select programming is carried on Satcom F2R, > transponder 13, located at 72 degrees west longitude. Can anyone tell me what I need or where I can go to access this program? Thanks Mike ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 92 20:47:24 GMT From: Jon Leech Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and sci.space.shuttle. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below). The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting: (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory pub/SPACE/FAQ. (2) Otherwise, send email to 'archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov' containing the single line: help The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines: send space FAQ/Index send space FAQ/faq1 Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer your questions. Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings. Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 013 ------------------------------