Date: Sat, 31 Oct 92 05:02:40 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #361 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 31 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 361 Today's Topics: Automated space station construction Comet Collision (3 msgs) Comet collision? Dyson spheres Galileo Update - 10/30/92 GEORGE BUSH'S DRUG WAR: CLAIMING VICTORY, COVERING UP LOSSES Gravity Assists (Was Re: Query Re: pluto direct) HRMS for ETI lunar phases Moving comets NBC Dateline 10/28/92 pocket satellite receivers Surveyor landings (was Re: QUESTIONS: Apollo, Earth, Moon) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests 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: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 02:31:29 GMT From: "I am a terminator." Subject: Automated space station construction Newsgroups: sci.space Can robots be launched to build the space station? They can work overtime. Henry Choy choy@cs.usask.ca ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 1992 22:35:01 GMT From: Carl J Lydick Subject: Comet Collision Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Oct30.164031.7633@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes: > When they say comets are made of "ices", they don't necessarily mean H2O. > There's lots of methane, ammonia, etc. and the even detected Cynanide in > Halley's in 1910. Not fit for easy consumtion. Er, cyanogen, actually. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 1992 22:28:09 GMT From: Carl J Lydick Subject: Comet Collision Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article , black@breeze.rsre.mod.uk (John Black) writes: >Maybe a near comet approach could be a good thing. I did a rough calculation >and estimated that there must be something of the order of 10 to the power 11 >metric tonnes of water. Maybe in 130 years time somewhere on the Earth could do >with some water, eg the interior of large continents affected by drought. I >know that one of the effects of the greenhouse effect is to make sea levels >rise, but that is salt water, no good for crops, and still would be hundreds of >miles from a continental desert region. The comet presumably is almost pure >water and therefore would be ideal for crops, drinking etc. > >So if in 130 years technology is sufficiently advanced, it could be possible >to alter the orbit of the comet so that it goes into a stable orbit around the >Earth. The trick then would be to "chip" bits off the comet and "land' them >in the appropriate region of the Earth. This would be the most difficult bit >since viz the probable cause of the Tunguska event (see previous article on >comet hitting Earth) you would end up doing the equivalent of nuking the region >The comet could also be an almost infinite supply of water for lunar bases if >there are any by then. Well, if we've got the technology to drag a comet into orbit (that sucker is BIG and moving at what, about 70,000 mph relative to earth?), then break it up and ship fragments down to the surface, don't you think it's also likely we'd have the technology to build a desalination plant and a pipeline? Cheaper? And easier? >Maybe this is all too much "pie in the sky" (no pun intended :-), 130 years is >much too short to evolve technologies to do this sort of stuff, witness what >could be viewed as comparativly slow progress in maned spaceflight in the last >20 years (still that's probably a function of the spending). So this sort of >stuff is more like 500 years off in the future. No, the problem is that you're ignoring the fact that if the technology for what you suggest existed, then we'd be capable of dealing with that sort of problem in much simpler ways. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 1992 22:39:06 GMT From: Carl J Lydick Subject: Comet Collision Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Oct30.153103.29953@pixel.kodak.com>, dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes: >One day, I'm going to sit down and work out if Asimov's Martian Way really >would have worked....soft land a chunk of Saturns Rings on Mars, when just >getting into Earth orbit takes 90% of your starting mass? Hmmm....... Ah, but if you aerobrake to get into a nearly circular orbit and use your spacefaring iceberg for reaction mass in your descent, then you don't CARE if you use up 100% of it in soft-landing it. After all, you've now got it in the Martion atmosphere, where it would've ended up had you soft-landed 100% of the mass (unless, of course, you increase the Martian atmospheric pressure considerably). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 22:19:52 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Comet collision? -From: morlan@afit.af.mil (Bruce W. Morlan) -Subject: Re: Comet Collision -Date: 28 Oct 92 18:17:45 GMT -Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology -rsb@mcc.com (Richard S. Brice) writes: ->Would anyone care to comment on how probability plays a role in the ->future interactions of earth and comet P/S-T and how much of the ->script is already written into the clock? -Sure. The script is nearly totally written. The Heisenberg uncertainty -associated with the objects in question (Earth, comet, Sun, other -planets, etc.) is practically 0 over the time frame in question. On the -other hand, the _uncertainty_ in the measurements leave much room for -surprises. I cannot comment on the measurement errors. -Bruce W. Morlan, Major, USAF Air Force Institute of Technology -Dept. Department Head AFIT/ENC -Department of Mathematics WPAFB OH 45433 Chaos is the measure of the degree to which errors in the initial measurement of a system will affect the accuracy of predictions of the future condition of the system. I don't really know how chaos is quantified or used in calculations. The degree of chaos varies widely from system to system, and in some systems it varies widely over time. For instance, the orbits of the inner planets are slightly chaotic, Pluto perhaps more so, and the degree of chaos in weather systems varies considerably over time (sometimes very good predictions can be made several days ahead of time, and sometimes the predictions for the next day are very uncertain). The net effect of chaos is that the future state of a system is not a known quantity, but a range of possible states, with a distribution of calculated probabilities. (If some future event is considered a "sure thing" that means that almost all of the probability distribution is within the range where the stated event takes place.) The long-term motion of Swift-Tuttle would have to be considered very chaotic, due to the velocity changes brought about by outgassing. As the comet moves further from the sun, the amount of outgassing decreases, to its trajectory becomes less chaotic. (That's why there's so much interest in getting precise measurement some years from now, though accuracy is still not guaranteed - I believe Halley's Comet had a major outgassing event several months ago, though it was several years from the perigee (perihelion, for the politically correct :-) of its orbit. Gravitational influences of the bodies of the outer solar system will also affect the comet, and uncertainties in those will affect the accuracy of the calculations.) As the comet comes by on its next approach, solar heating and outgassing will resume and affect the comet's path somewhat, but since those changes will have much less time to affect the comet before Earth flyby, they are of much less concern than the changes during this pass. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 21:49:06 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Dyson spheres -From: marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Admin) -Subject: Re: Dyson's Spheres -Date: 28 Oct 92 22:16:02 GMT -In article <1992Oct26.202658.154145@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: ->Why not make the radius of the DS larger than 1 AU to avoid heating ->up the inside too much? - I'm not a scientist, but how would that help?? The energy would still -be trapped, wouldn't it? Supposing a solid sphere, that is. -Marc G. Fournier | R-node Public Access Unix running UnixBBS 1.10 -Etobicoke, Ontario | 416-249-5366 24hrs 7 days/week network email If the energy is really trapped, your sphere will melt or explode. A long-term stable sphere must radiate over its entire surface at a rate equal to the heat production of the central star. For a uniform radiating surface, the radiation per square meter must equal the intensity of incident sunlight at that distance from the sun. Therefore, the greater the radius of the sphere, the fewer watts per square meter have to be radiated from the outer surface. For a given radius, you can get the most effective radiation (and thus the lowest outer temperature) if the outer surface of your sphere approximates a "black body" (completely nonreflective at all wavelengths). The formula for blackbody radiation is: power radiated = k * (Ts^4 - Ta^4), where k is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant (which is listed in the faq list as 5.6697E-8 W / (m^2 * k) (should be k^4)), Ts is the temperature of the radiating surface (absolute temperature, measured in kelvins), and Ta is the ambient temperature. The background radiation of space is about 3K, but light from stars, etc. heats it up a little more. I think Henry posted the effective temperature of the sky a few months ago, and I seem to recall it as being about 15K. In any event, the Ta term is negligible when we want Ts to be comfortable for humans. As I posted before, a sphere around the sun of 1AU radius would be much too hot for humans to live on (except maybe in refrigerated compartments). I calculated the temperature at 1AU radius (given 1370 W/m^2 at 1AU) as 394K = 121 C = 250 F (very uncomfortable!). If you want the outer surface of the sphere to be a comfortable 25 C, the power radiated from the outer surface must be ~447 W/m^2, so the radius of the sphere must be increased to 1.75 AU. There's a further complicating factor - a true black body surface is unobtainable. Given a flat spectral response (again unrealistic), efficiency of radiation is directly proportional to the emissivity(?), which is equal to one minus the reflectivity. For instance, a 90% reflective surface will only radiate 10% as much energy at a given temperature as a black body would, so for a given amount of power radiated, the temperature of the surface is greater by the fourth root of the inverse of the emissivity. So a 1AU Dyson sphere with a 90% reflective outer surface would have an outer temperature of 394 * 10^.25 = 701K = 428 C = 802 F. To get back down to 25 C, you'd have to move the radius out to 5.5 AU. Fortunately, I believe most metals have pretty low reflectivity at thermal infrared wavelengths, and black paint has emissivity of over 90%. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 05:26:54 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Galileo Update - 10/30/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Fowarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director GALILEO MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT POST-LAUNCH October 23 - 29, 1992 SPACECRAFT 1. On October 23, a routine sun vector update was performed. This sun vector is valid through November 13. 2. On October 27 and 28, delta Differenced One-Way Range (DOR) passes were performed over DSS-14/63 (Goldstone/Madrid) and DSS-14/43 (Goldstone/Canberra). Initial results indicate that the delta DORs were successfully performed. 3. On October 27, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to 264 hours, its planned value for this mission phase. 4. On October 27, a periodic RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) 10-Newton thruster maintenance activity was performed; 10 of the 12 thrusters were "flushed" during the activity. The P-thrusters were not flushed because they were used to perform science turn (SITURN) activities on the same day. Spacecraft performance throughout the activity was normal. 5. On October 27, the spacecraft performed a 17 degree SITURN. The purpose of the SITURN was to maintain the spacecraft within plus or minus 13 degrees of the sun while at the current solar distance. 6. On October 27, the Earth vector and Earth stars were updated to the spacecraft's current attitude. This change implements the attitude maintenance strategy required in the case of an AACS (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) POR (Power On Reset). If a fault occurs which terminates the currently executing sequence, the spacecraft will maintain its current attitude. 7. On October 28, Cruise Science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV). Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received properly. Subsequent to the MRO, the EUV was powered off, as per plan. The HIC (Heavy Ion Counter) will be thus able to transmit data when the Spacecraft is configured for the 7.68 kbps downlink on November 4. 8. On October 28, an Ultra Stable Oscillator (USO) test was performed to verify the health status of the USO and collect gravitational red shift experiment data; long term trend analysis is continuing. 9. On October 29, real-time commands were sent to perform a CDS (Command Data Subsystem) memory verification test. Specifically, each memory location in the standard and extended memory of the CDS A-string and B-string are being readout. The purpose is to verify each memory location and identify any bad memory locations. The test was in progress at the writing of this report. 10. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some change. The AC measurement has ranged from 16DN to 17DN and now reads 17 DN (3.9 volts). The DC measurement has ranged from 131 DN (15.3 volts) to 138 DN (16.2 volts) and now reads 136 DN (16.0 volts). These measurement variations are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team. 11. The Spacecraft status as of October 29, 1992, is as follows: a) System Power Margin - 82 watts b) Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin c) Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15 rpm/Star Scanner d) Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 11 degree off-sun (leading) and 7 degrees off-earth (lagging) e) Downlink telemetry rate/antenna-1200 bps (coded)/LGA-1 f) General Thermal Control - all temperatures within acceptable range g) RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range h) Orbiter Science- UVS, DDS, MAG, EPD, and HIC are powered on i) Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within acceptable range j) CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours Time To Initiation - 263 hours UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL: None GDS (Ground Data Systems): 1. A second Probe Mission Readiness Test/Ground Data System Test was conducted Monday, October 26 with the DSN (Deep Space Network) SPC 60 (Signal Processing Center in Madrid). Probe data were routed through the DSN station processors to the Galileo MTS (MCCC Telemetry Subsystem) where it was processed, displayed and routed to the Probe Flight Operations Equipment (PFOE) in real-time. A compressed Probe tape was created for non-realtime processing on the PFOE. Post test analysis of both the real-time data and the compressed Probe tape is continuing. The first probe MRT (Mission Readiness Test) was reported last week; analysis is complete and the test was successful. TRAJECTORY As of noon Thursday, October 29, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory status was as follows: Distance from Earth 34,380,800 km (.23 AU) Distance from Sun 181,306,000 km (1.21 AU) Heliocentric Speed 108,300 km per hour Distance from Jupiter 958,755,200 km Round Trip Light Time 3 minutes, 48 seconds SPECIAL TOPIC 1. As of October 29, 1992, a total of 8584 real-time commands have been transmitted to Galileo since Launch. Of these, 3613 were initiated in the sequence design process and 4971 initiated in the real-time command process. In the past week, 227 real time commands were transmitted: 227 were initiated in the sequence design process and none initiated in the real time command process. In addition, 5911 mini-sequence commands have been transmitted since March 1991; 3753 were pre-planned and 2158 were not. In the past week, no mini-sequence commands were transmitted. Major command activities this week included commands to reset the command loss timer and perform a CDS memory verification test. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | If God had wanted us to /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | have elections, he would |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | have given us candidates. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 22:01:46 GMT From: "I am a terminator." Subject: GEORGE BUSH'S DRUG WAR: CLAIMING VICTORY, COVERING UP LOSSES Newsgroups: sci.space In article <29731@life.ai.mit.edu>, Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com> writes: |> |> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |> October 20, 1992 |> |> GEORGE BUSH'S DRUG WAR: CLAIMING VICTORY, COVERING UP LOSSES |> [Statement by Bob Boorstin, Deputy Communications Director] |> |> George Bush just doesn't get it. He's shown time and time again he |> doesn't understand America's economic problems. Now he's showing |> again he doesn't understand America's drug problem. etc. |> Bill Clinton will lead a national and international crusade against |> drugs. He knows we have to tackle both demand for drugs and the |> supply of drugs. He sees the drug problem from a personal |> perspective, not a political one. And he knows we can do better than |> George Bush's cynical, failed drug war and attempted coverup. Let's beam George Bush into a wall. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 05:33:00 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Gravity Assists (Was Re: Query Re: pluto direct) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct30.163302.15547@rcvie.co.at>, se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor) writes... > >While I'm here, anyone know if a gravity assist trajectory can be used to >*reduce* speed? Sure. Mariner 10 used a gravity assist of Venus to help it decelerate towards Mercury. Voyager 2 lost speed when it flew by Neptune on its way out of the solar system. Ulysses utilized a gravity assist of Jupiter to leave the ecliptic plane, which in turn cut the spacecraft's heliocentric velocity in half. Galileo will be using a Io gravity assist help it slow down enough to go into orbit around Jupiter. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | If God had wanted us to /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | have elections, he would |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | have given us candidates. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 92 01:44:26 GMT From: Stanley Friesen Subject: HRMS for ETI Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio In article nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes: |In article <1346@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes: | |But what we do know is that simply putting lots of organic chemicals, |amino acids, what-have-you together, even in planetary quantities for |billions of years, is not likely to `generate life forms'. ... Yep, can't disagree here. But whatever the process, I think it likely to be an ubiquitous one. | The |current idea is that one starts with a self-reproducing system that |does not _need_ such a finely-controlled environment (such as a clay |mineral), that such a system can, over time, select to control more of |its environment (a `cell') and that this environment may be suitable |for the development of nucleic acids (or something similar). But it's |a very long and precarious chain to get from clays to algae (or even |to viroids). And clay minerals aren't going to be sending us any radio |signals. Well, here you are talking about Cairns-Smith's hypothesis/model. I would scarcely call this the principle 'current idea', most people studying the problem are still approaching it from the RNA/DNA angle [based on the realization that RNA can have catalytic properties, so proteinaceous enzymes are unnecessary]. Actually, I personally do favor Cairns-Smith's approach, but only a small handful of people are acutally working on it. [I disagree with him a little on a couple of issues, such as the extent to which the early 'hybrid' forms would have "fed" on pre-existing oranic goo and the tining of the origin of photosynthesis, but those are fairly trivial details]. |Lest you misunderstand me, I fully support spending money on SETI: |it's not expensive, and it attempts to answer one of the really big |questions about the universe. But none of us really expect to find |high-tech civilizations everywhere (for the simple reason that we |haven't seen them yet) and I think the reason lies in that term of the |Drake equation. When we get out there, I don't expect to find |universal dumb life, I expect to find no life at all. Actually, I rather expect to find bacterial level life most places. I suspect that Earth is rather typical of planets at this distance from stars of this class. So the ratio of complex life forms to 'prokaryote' type life forms is probably about the same as the *time* ratios on Earth. It is the startling *speed* with which life appeared on Earth that convinces me. Any process that was not nearly inevitable would not be expected to happen in the time frame that it now appears to have happened in (unless Hoyle is right, that is - but that would make life even *more* ubiquitous). The *earliest* rocks that are sufficiently intact to retain traces of life in fact have such traces, so life appeared within a few 10's of millions to a few hundred million years of the termination of the massive bombardment phase (with its liquid or near liquid surface). -- sarima@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima) or Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 00:25:29 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: lunar phases Newsgroups: sci.space In article spitz@irb.uni-hannover.de (Jan Spitzkowsky) writes: >Please help, > >I need an algorithm for calculating the lunar phases. >I need it for computing the red letter days, most of them >depend on the moon like Easter. I'd really like to know what red letter days are. I've heard the phrase but I've never known what it meant! Please let the rest of us know. The computation of the date of Easter is done by numerological rather than astronomical algorithm, and that may help answer your question. See "Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Ephemeris and the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac" in your library, the chapter on Calendars. You will learn that the algorithm has nothing to do with the physical moon for most Christians. Orthodox Christians are the only ones who calculate the phase of the physical moon, and they reckon day of the week by the longitude of Jerusalem. I don't know whether they use apparent solar time or mean solar time. Leigh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 20:37:56 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Moving comets -From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) -Subject: Re: Scenario of comet hitting Earth -Date: 29 Oct 92 18:16:02 GMT -Bombs are actually a relatively good way to move asteroids. Comets -are a difficult case, because they are probably fragile and because they -probably have a thin crust with concentrated volatiles underneath. A -small nearby nuclear explosion would blow off the crust on one side, and -the result would be a tremendous spill of gas from the comet itself. -If you knew what you were doing, and did it carefully, this could permit -steering a comet with far less effort than the brute-force approach. How far could a well-placed 10-magaton explosion divert the path of Swift-Tuttle over the course of 120 years? I've seen calculations of this type in the past, but I don't have access to them now. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 01:13:40 GMT From: Rod Beckwith Subject: NBC Dateline 10/28/92 Newsgroups: sci.space I know how you guys hate posting this sort of thing over here & I normally refrain, but I have not been able to get any information on this in A.A.V. Please help me out if you are able. Thanks in advance.....Rod >pjweaver@ralvm29.vnet.ibm.com (Paul Weaver) writes: > Did anyone else see Dateline NBC last night (10/28/92)? There was a story on > computer hackers near the end of the show, and they showed how these guys get > into the computers of the phone companies, banks, and the government. In one > brief glimpse, there was a shot of a computer screen after they had logged >into Wright Patterson AFB, and the subject on the screen said something to the >effect of "Catalogue of UFO parts list"!! > > Did anyone else catch this? They did not talk about UFOs on the show as it >wasn't the subject of the report, so you would have had to have seen the actual >computer screen. > -- >>Yeah! I saw that too. They were some output from a defense computer and >>something about 'UFO Parts List' scrolled through the screen... >>-Garrett >>> Well,well, >>>I guess this thing is just going to slip through the cracks again. Everyone >>>is always bitching in this group that there is no serious discussions or no >>>evidence to research. A question was brought up about some hackers video >>>screen on NBC Dateline that had a UFO parts list on it. I find reference to >>>a project that an official at JPL posts, that appears to be a legit Acronym >>>for some program that nobody has heard of & NOBODY IS INTERESTED? >>>I know it is not sensational, but it is something. >>>I will ask again, has anyone heard about the UFO Atlas launch? See Below: ========================= SPACE CALENDAR September 27, 1992 ========================= >>>* indicates change from last month's calendar >>> October 1992 >>> ?? - Galaxy 7 Ariane Launch >>> ?? - UFO Atlas Launch >>> 04 - 35th Anniversary, Sputnik Launch (1st Satellite ever) >>> 05 - Progress Launch (Soviet) >>> 09 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver 15 (TCM-15) >>> 10 - Draconid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 197.0 degrees) >>> *10 - Mars Observer, 1st Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-1) >>> 12 - SETI Scanning Begins >>> 12 - 500th Anniversary, Columbus Discovers America >>> *12-15 - Galileo, Dual Drive Actuator Test #4 (DDA-4) >>> *12 - DFS-3/Kopernikus Delta 2 Launch >>> 15 - STS-52, Columbia, Laser Geodynamics Satellite (LAGEOS-II) >>> 15 - Freja Long March Launch (Sweden/China) >>> 20 - AUSROC II Launch >>> 21 - Orionid Meteor Shower (Solar Longitude 208.4 degrees) >>>What do you think the acronym stands for? >>>Uranium Freqeuncy Oscillator? >>>Under Funded Orbitor? >>>Unearthly Fungus Observer? >>>OR WAIT, Mabye (now hold on to you hats) UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT! >>>Probably something much more mundane, but I can't believe that nobody has >>>shown any curiosity in this. >>>One reaps what one sows......nuff said. >>>Rod -- Rod Beckwith |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Datacom I/S |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance, rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge." |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$  ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1992 00:37:15 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: pocket satellite receivers Newsgroups: sci.space There is now a yuppie tempter for sale by Sony. It's called a "Pyxis" and it is in a really slick package, advertised by the Manufacturer for C$1199 here in Canada, so it must be well under US$1000 real price. They tout it as a marvelous Christmas gift for the outdoorsman, sailor, etc. It comes in two parts, the antenna being connected to the computer by a two meter cord. Incidentally, I have heard that full available (to the US military) precision can be deduced from data collected by these civilian devices if one integrates over long time periods. The numbers do seem to jump *around* the correct value, as I've observed in my backyard with one of these units, owned by a friend. I've never done the integration. Can anyone provide information about this rumor? Leigh ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 23:27:56 GMT From: Ed McCreary Subject: Surveyor landings (was Re: QUESTIONS: Apollo, Earth, Moon) Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <1992Oct30.033908.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >I've played Lunar Lander (being a relic of the compter dark ages >beforre Flight Simulator and Sim City), so I can appreciate the >usefulness of a throttlable engine. So how did Surveyor manage to >land? I recall a big solid-fuel motor and small liquid-fuel "vernier" >engines. Was there a computer playing Lunar Lander on board? Was >there a radar altimeter? Or did they just get the probe to >*approximately* zero velocity with the big motor, and build it >extra-sturdy to survive a drop? How does this compare with the scheme >Luna 9 used to land, which I understand was rougher? from "Solar System Log" by Andrew Wilson, a fine book I picked up for $2.00 new at a used bookstore... At an altitude of about 96km, a marking radar mounted inside the retromotor nozzle signalled that braking should begin. the 94cm in diameter, 35.6-44.5 KN Thiokol motor was ignited 7 sec later at about 76km altitude to cut the 9600km/hr approach speed to about 400km/hr in a 42sec burn. On Surveyor 1 this motor accounted for 655kg of the 995kg launch weight. The three liquid engines were commanded by the autopilot to provide stability during this phase. A radar altimeter Doppler velocity-sensing (RADVS) system provided the data for vehicle control once the solid motor had been ejected about 40km above the surface to clear the legs for landing. At this height radar returns from the groud were excellent and the RADVS fed the information into the computers for closed-loop control. Surveyor was an important step in provin this concept for the ApolloLunar Module. The three liquid thrusters continued to fire to chop the descent speed to5 km/hr some 4.3 m above the surface. To avoid disturbing the landing area with plume impringement, the thrusters were shut off and Surveyor free-fell to an 11 km/hr landing. >(I recall that one of the Surveyors was moved after landing with the >verniers.) from same... On November 17, 1967, 177hr after landing, Surveyor 6 became the first spacecraft to be launched from the lunar surface when a 2.5 sec burn of its three thrusters, comsuming 0.7kg of propellant, lifted it 3m high and a 7 degrees tilt moved it 2.5 meters to the west. It's a wonderful book covering all of the unmanned missions in detail up to Giotto and Suisei. I recommend it to anyone who can find it. -- In the midst of the word he was trying to say,|McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com In the midst of his laughter and glee, |Me, speak for Compaq? He had softly and suddenly vanished away--- |Yeah, right. For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see. |#include ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 361 ------------------------------