Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 05:00:33 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #043 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 14 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 043 Today's Topics: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ** Antarctic meteorites (was Re: Cheap Mars Rocks) DC reentry Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator? (4 msgs) Invitation to SETI mailing list Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Making Orbit '93, space/hard SF convention, Berkeley, 15-18 Jan 93 Mars Observer Update - 01/12/93 Moon Dust For Sale polar meteorites Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) (2 msgs) SNC meteorites Soviet space disaster? STS-54 launch Voyager Titan & Saturn images in GIF or JPEG formats 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: 12 Jan 93 14:27:19 GMT From: Jason Cooper Subject: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ** Newsgroups: sci.space davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: > In article lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jas > > > >So, if we have an antiproton (p-bar, was it?) then does it have the SAME > >charge as a proton? > _ > That's p-bar as in "p". An anti-proton has a negative charge. Everything > about an antiproton is "opposite" to that of a proton except its mass. > > -- > Dave Michelson > davem@ee.ubc.ca Hmm, if I'm correct though, and the little bit of magnetics that I've checked out hasn't failed me, the difference between a + and a - charged particle isn't much (in this instance), as they will just rotate opposite directions (IE where a proton would go into a clockwise spin, an antiproton will go counterclockwise). Is this right? Jason Cooper ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 10:31:20 GMT From: "S.J. Morden" Subject: Antarctic meteorites (was Re: Cheap Mars Rocks) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary The mechanism for the concentration of meteorites on Antarctic ice is this: The meteorite flux is approximately constant: more falls appear to occur in densely populated regions and those with a higher "scientific" base. Anomalies of course do occur. Most meteorites look like your average rock, and are lost in the background unless someone spots it fall, its big, or happens to drop on a building, icy lake (as has been mentioned). Therefore, Antarctica, with abundant ice, is a collecting ground for meteorites. Where the ice moves up against mountain ranges (submerged under the ice), it flows to the surface and is eroded away. Rocks entrained in the ice will remain on the surface of the ice. These areas of old ice (often "blue ice") can be spotted from the air/satellites. Favourite collecting sites include Allen Hills, Elephant Moraine, Recklings Peak. Many (most) of the meteorites found have terrestrial ages of 100,000y+. The flux is low, but concentration of samples is good. Similar situations occur in the Nullabor Plain in Western Australia, and in "blow-outs" in the Southern U.S., where the ground is eroded away, leaving concentrated meteorites. References to look up are Delisle's paper in Meteoritics (1990). Also contact NASA, who deal with the business end of Antarctic meteorite collection. The Europeans have also been collecting last year on the EUROMET programme. Any questions? Simes ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 13:12:28 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: DC reentry Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>Um, it may have shared a certain amount of design heritage with missile >>warhead, but I'm pretty sure it does *not* share the trajectory, since >>an ICBM-warhead trajectory involves retaining very high velocity down >>almost to the ground. (A certain amount of deceleration is inevitable >>in thick low-altitude air.) A spacecraft, e.g. DC, does almost all of >>its decelerating at very high altitudes where the heat load is modest. > >The heat load, remember, is the integral of the heating rate. >Gradual reentry is a two-edged sword. The heating *rate* may >be lower, but you're travelling through the atmosphere for a >longer period of time, so the total heat soak is higher. This >nose-first reentry was picked to minimize this total heat soak. I thought nose first re-entry was chosen because the rear of the vehicle, with it's multiple engine bells and plumbing hanging out, was not aerodynamically clean enough. I read that they were considering using a rear entry when and if they switched to aerospike engines. That would eliminate the tricky turnover maneuver at high Q. 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 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 06:45:24 GMT From: "David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com" Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary A co-worker of mine brought up an interesting question about the service problems such as we are seeing with Galileo. How feasable would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs, articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite? This could be done with, perhaps, a variety of tooling, an articulated arm, and a track around the device so it could reach wherever it needs to go, such as, for instance, a stuck antenna rib. Obviously, this would have a bit of weight to it, but I would think the cost would be fairly reasonable compared to lost productivity & usability. If you could just work the remote manipulator and fix the problem, that would beat weeks/months of hammering or whatever. What besides weight & cost would prohibit this? How much use would something like this get, and would it be worth it? -- Dave Hinz - Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's. Obviously. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 11:31:50 GMT From: Alec Habig Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993Jan13.064524.13581@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com)) writes: > >A co-worker of mine brought up an interesting question about the >service problems such as we are seeing with Galileo. How feasable >would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs, >articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite? I think the big problem would be that this arm would be just as likely to get broken as any part that it might be able to fix. Alec ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 12:47:49 GMT From: "John P. Mechalas" Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >In article <1993Jan13.064524.13581@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com)) writes: >> >>A co-worker of mine brought up an interesting question about the >>service problems such as we are seeing with Galileo. How feasable >>would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs, >>articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite? > >I think the big problem would be that this arm would be just as likely to get >broken as any part that it might be able to fix. Another problem has to do with the attitude dynamics of spacecraft. Everytime you were to move the arm, you'd be changing the inertia of the spacecraft, and altering it's rotational behavior. This could get messy unless you were able to design the arm so that it had very little mass, though that probably wouldn't be too difficult with today's materials. -- John Mechalas "I'm not an actor, but mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu I play one on TV." Aero Engineering, Purdue University #include disclaimer.h ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 14:58:51 GMT From: Timothy Kimball Subject: Galileo Stuck Ribs / Remote Manipulator? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Alec Habig (ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote: : In article <1993Jan13.064524.13581@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com)) writes: : > : >...How feasable : >would it be to incorporate a robotic arm manipulator into these designs, : >articulated so that it could reach everything on the probe/satellite? : : I think the big problem would be that this arm would be just as likely to get : broken as any part that it might be able to fix. : Indeed, something that complicated would be the *most* likely thing to break down. --tdk Opinions are mine, not STScI's. Have a day :-| ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 09:39:20 GMT From: Del Cotter Subject: Invitation to SETI mailing list Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.anthropology,rec.arts.sf.science In article I wrote: >The message below is an invitation to join a simulation of a successful >Contact with ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence. If you are interested in >participating in simSETI, contact Jim Moore at: > > simseti-request@ucsd.edu > >Please trim the Newsgroups line as appropriate when posting followups. Please mail Jim, not me. I have no information. -- ',' ' ',',' | | ',' ' ',',' ', ,',' | Del Cotter mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk | ', ,',' ',' | | ',' ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 15:03:16 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan12.143048.5559@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>>The *redesign* (yet again) of Freedom required for it to be launched >>>by Energia would very likely cost more than any launch cost savings... >>An internal NASA group examining that posibility a year ago came to the >>opposite conclusion. They concluded that assembly costs could be cut.. >But how do assembly costs compare to *redesign* costs Allen? I'm sorry I should have been more specific. The report concluded that total costs would be reduced if Energia was used for launch. In addition, this approach would allow greater integration testing on the ground which would greatly reduce risk. Now this was a year ago and it is possible that those savings could no longer be met today. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------101 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 07:20:56 GMT From: Henry Stewart Cobb Subject: Making Orbit '93, space/hard SF convention, Berkeley, 15-18 Jan 93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,rec.models.rockets Making Orbit '93 is an informal (science fiction convention-style) space conference, taking place this coming weekend in Berkeley CA. The conference is dedicated to exploring the possibilities for near- term, affordable, reliable access to space for everyone. Making Orbit '93 is sponsored by the Space Access Society and by Making Orbit Conventions, a group of local SF fans. Registration is $40 at the door, at the Berkeley Marina Marriott, Berkeley CA, Friday afternoon Jan 15th through Monday morning Jan 18th. Get off I80 at the University Ave exit a couple miles east of the Bay Bridge, find your way onto University Ave westbound (toward the Bay), go west through the stopsign intersection next to the bay side of I80, take a right a couple hundred yards beyond, and the hotel will be on your left a couple hundred yards further on. Hotel rooms $79 a night 1-4 people, reservations 510 548-7920. If you want more info, the text of the program book has been posted to alt.fandom.cons. Hope to see y'all there... --Stu (Speaker-to-Internet) stu@leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:44:35 GMT From: Steve Collins Subject: Mars Observer Update - 01/12/93 Newsgroups: sci.space At this time, MO is far enough from both Earth and Mars, that they don't exert signifigant gravitional influence. The big player is the Sun. I am not sure what the reference frames are for Ron's velocity, but I know that in sun centered frame, MO is slowing down. The Earth is passing MO on the inside so the increase in velocity may be an artifact of the relative motion of the earth and spacecraft. The NAV team worries about the effects of all the planets on the trajectory and even includes forces from solar radiation pressure. I am told that on voyager, they can see the effects of the force generated by the infrared radiation emitted by the spacecraft's Plutonium RTG power source. Steve Collins, MO Spacecraft Team (AACS) ~rkO w3t(. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 09:18:39 GMT From: Hartmut Frommert Subject: Moon Dust For Sale Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Martino) writes: > A truly simple calculation. > (A) Determine the mass of all moon rocks recovered. (use a > REAL unit like kilograms, please) > (B) Determine the total cost of the Apollo program. (Probably > should include the cost of Gemini also) > (C) Divide (A) into (B) to arrive at the figure. > Any questions? :-) Was the Moon rocks the only output of Apollo ? - Hartmut Frommert Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany -- Eat whale killers, not whales -- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 93 19:48:19 GMT From: Joe Cain Subject: polar meteorites Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.geo.geology In article <1993Jan12.124935.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes: >Re. finding meteorites... > >>> >>>Why has no one looked in Greenland? >> >> Over 100 feet of ice pack has formed since 1944 in Greenland. >Seems to me I remember a childhood reference which stated that Peary found >a rather large meteorite (multiton) that had been mined by the local residents >for some time (decades/centuries/millenia???). Let's see, does that mean that Greenland is like a big glacier? If so, then would not debris keep moving with the ice flow and eventually come out at the edges, perhaps becoming part of icebergs!? Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain (904) 644-4014 FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 09:14:10 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan12.152136.29601@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > >>In particular do people contend that say the Kuiper Observatory >>should be put on a AA flight rather than a NASA owned Starlifter? > >If AA can do it cheaper, yes. If putting is on AA will encourage >competition (which will lower costs) then yes. I don't think AA would be too thrilled about having holes cut in the skin of their aircraft. Nor do I expect the astronomers to be very thrilled about the flight letting down at O'Hare just as the eclipse reaches totality. On the other hand, if Eastern were still flying, I think many of their flights would have been suitable replacements for the Vomit Comet. :-( 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 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 15:07:50 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan13.091410.11476@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>>In particular do people contend that say the Kuiper Observatory >>>should be put on a AA flight rather than a NASA owned Starlifter? >>If AA can do it cheaper, yes. >I don't think AA would be too thrilled about having holes cut in >the skin of their aircraft. Um, Gary, having AA operate the flight on which the Kuiper observatory is flown does not require AA to put it on a passenger flight. In addition, if paid enough I'm sure they would be happy to cut a hole in their airliner. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------101 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 06:56:36 GMT From: "James N. Head" Subject: SNC meteorites Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Why the SNCs are most probably from Mars There has been in recent days some discussion of the SNC meteorites. Put together, the articles have mentioned much of the geochemical data underlying the SNCs = Mars rocks arguement, and some of the dynamical and impact arguements as well. I thought some of you might enjoy a summary, a history lesson really, of the evidence supporting a Mars origin for the SNCs and the theoretical research this idea inspired. This article should also tie together all the loose threads--as well as provide a primer for the next person who has a question on this topic, so you might want to keep a copy. Sources:lecture notes, private discussions, Friday night beer hours, various colloquia with H. Jay Melosh, Michael J. Drake, John S. Lewis, Steven K. Croft, Robert B. Singer, and fellow grad students during my first two years at LPL, U of A. They are not responsible for any errors in what follows--all mistakes are mine. (I'm pretty sure I got it right, though). There are 8 SNC meteorites: 4 Shergotites, 3 Nahklites, 1 Chassignite. The shergotites are basalts (lavas), the rest are either olivine or pyroxene cumululates. Cumulates are the rocks you get when crystals settle to the bottom (accumulate) of a magma chamber. Geochemical analysis yields the following information: 1)the SNCs were equilibrated at ~4.51Ga (U-Pb and Rb-Sr). This is interpreted as indicating the time of late accretion or core formation. This is the same age given by lunar and earth rocks, i.e., the SNC parent body formed at about the same time as the earth and moon. 2)the whole rock Sm-Nd isotopic system was reset at approximately 1.3Ga. A thermal event this young is unique among the meteorites. Even the youngest moon rocks (that we've found) are >3.0Ga. This is interpreted as the formation age of the SNCs. This is comparable to the age of the Pike's Peak granite (=NOT age of Rocky Mtns). 3)the individual minerals show an event at ~180Ma (yes million) in the U-Pb, Rb-Sr,and Ar-Ar clocks, i.e. those easiest to disturb. No record of this event in the Sm-Nd dates. This is thought to represent the date of the impact which ejected the SNCs from their parent body. 4)Rare earth element (REE i.e., the lanthanides) analysis indicates the presence of garnet minerals in the source region of the shergotites (the lavas). This indicates a source region pressure of >~40 kbars, about the central pressure of the moon. This pressure is reached at depths of about 120km on earth, 360km on Mars. Thus the SNC parent was almost certainly larger than the moon. 5)The oxygen isotopic abundances indicate the all 8 SNCs came from the same parent body. The abundances are distinct from the earth and moon abundances, therefore the SNCs are not recaptured earth rocks. These particular measurements are tricky to make (the lab apparatus has a memory of earlier samples) but I've been told the results are reliable. 6)Noble gas signature of one SNC is "a dead ringer" for the noble gas abundances measured for the Martian atmosphere by the Viking landers. This is the coup-de-grace. The noble gas abundances of mars, earth, venus, and the moon have been measured. They are unique (read "diagnostic") to each planet. This particular rock had gas bubbles trapped in glass. Apparently, the other SNCs don't have any trapped gases, or have been too contaminated to get meaningful results. The result for the one rock depends on a correction for earth weathering. 7)Cosmic ray exposure ages range from 1-10Ma. This means the SNCs were in <1meter-sized chunks for about 1-10Ma preceding their fall to earth. This all gives a (grossly oversimplified) history as follows:final accretion, core formation(4.5Ga); partial melt of some Mars mantle material at depth, some melt reaches surface, resets SM-Nd (1.3Ga); large impact ejects some of this material from Mars (200Ma); on-orbit collisions break SNCs down to ~<1m size(1-10Ma); SNCs fall to earth(recent). I am told that at a LPSC meeting (held before the gas bubbles were discovered and the noble gas measurements were made), Chuck Wood summarized much of the above data and concluded that if the SNCs weren't from Mars, he didn't have the foggiest notion where else they could be from. This met with, to put it mildly, profound skepticism from at least two rather vocal theoretical physicists. One of them (Melosh) is a world class authority on the physics of impact events, and was very relunctant to believe that an impact could eject relatively unshocked material from a planetary body. Melosh made a careful theoretical study of impacts....and found a way to get unvaporized, unmelted, not even highly shocked material accelerated to >5km/s (Mars escape velocity). The process is called spallation and is described in Geology 13:144-148 (1985). See also Vickery and Melosh (1987) Science 237:738-743. In brief, the part of the shock wave associated with an impact near the surface (P=0) causes a slightly collosal pressure gradient which can eject material at twice the particle velocity. A lab example is fairly easy to make:whittle a knob at the end of a dowel until the last ~1cm or so is barely still attached, then bang the other end with a hammer. The hammer blow sends a compression wave down the dowel, inducing a particle velocity vp. The end of the dowel will fly off at 2*vp because of the interaction of the wave with the free surface. Only a very small amount of material is "spalled" off the planet, no more than roughly 10% of the impactor mass. But it is theoretically possible. By some coincidence, at the conference where Melosh first presented these results, there were the first announcements of meteorites that had almost certainly come from the moon (we have real moon rocks for comparison), thus demonstrating that you can get rocks from A to B, even without a spaceship. So you ask, are there any 200Ma craters on Mars overlying 1.3Ga terrain? Maybe. Lyot (~50N 330W?) is the best bet as of the Vickery & Melosh paper. There are 12 candidates in all. Note well:spallation does not require very oblique impacts, so circular craters (incidence angle <~80) are fair candidates. Of course, we'd really like a sample return mission before laying this whole question rest. But on the whole I think it would be a great shock if such a sample disproved the SNCs=Mars rocks theory. For then we'd *really* be at a loss. Volcanic ejection:We had a homework on this...eruption velocity is due to exsolution of gases. Most common gas in terrestrial volcanoes: H2O. Enthalpy is conserved during expansion and converted to kinetic energy. Then Vej = sqrt(2*h/u) where h = CpT= (7/2)*RT is the enthalpy and u is the molar mass. For H2O at 1200C (earth upper mantle T) Vej ~1km/s. This velocity is consistent with the maximum reported range (~10km) of volcanic bombs (ballistic). The 100km plumes on Io are consistent with the enthalpy of SO2. To get Vej~5km/s at 1200C you need a real light gas, like H2... but you'll have a hard time convincing me H2 is the most abundant gas dissolved in the Martian mantle. For an H2O rich mantle, you need an eruption T of ~7100C to get to Vej~ Mars escape. If you don't know, this temperature is probably much higher than the central core T of earth or Mars, and much much too high to be at all plausible for an eruption temperature. So our natural geologic cannon is just too feeble to get rocks off Mars. More references:Impact Cratering as a Geologic Process (H.Jay Melosh, Oxford Press) for spallation. Jagoutz & Wanke (1986) Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta p.~946 for isotopic studies of SNCs. -JazzerJim ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 93 08:10:15 EST From: Chris Jones Subject: Soviet space disaster? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <20639@ksr.com>, I wrote: >(I have received email from Ken Schmahl which says that near the end of >_Spycatcher_ there is a report of a Soviet cosmonaut being stranded in orbit >and transmitting for hours before dying. My first impression is that this >sounds a lot like the other unreputable reports I have read, but since I think >this source is supposed to be more reliable than average, I'm going to give it >a look). I took a look at _Spycatcher_ in the library last night and I couldn't find this reference. I read the index, and skimmed the last 200 pages of the book. I'm fairly confident I would have picked out any reference that was at least a paragraph or two long, but it's not a sure thing. So ... If anyone can give me a more precise reference to *where* in _Spycatcher_ this story might be found, I would appreciate it. (While there, I also checked out Oberg's _Uncovering Soviet Disasters_ (that may not be the exact title). He has more than a complete chapter on spaceflight, and concludes that the only Soviet inflight fatalities have occurred in the two announced incidents. He has quite a bit about unannounced launch failures of unmanned rockets, some discussion about training accidents,, etc., but he pretty much debunks the reports of other manned disasters.) -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 09:11:46 EST From: John Roberts Subject: STS-54 launch STS-54 launch nominal to main-engine cutoff and external tank separation. Launch was at about 9:00 AM EST. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 11:06:48 GMT From: Tero Siili Subject: Voyager Titan & Saturn images in GIF or JPEG formats Newsgroups: sci.space Question: is there a FTP site, which would have Titan and possibly also Saturn images in GIF or JPEG formats? I would like to use those for preparing overheads and various reports. I tried the AMES archive, but found nothing from /pub/SPACE/GIF. All pointers - preferably via e-mail to one of the addresses below - are appreciated. Best regards, Tero Siili Tutkija Scientist Ilmatieteen laitos Finnish Meteorological Institute Geofysiikan osasto Department of Geophysics PL 503 P.O. Box 503 00101 Helsinki SF-00101 Helsinki Finland Puh. (90) 192 9533 Tel.: +358-0-192-9533 Telekopio: (90) 192 9539 Telefax: +358-0-192-9539 FUNET: pouta::siili SPAN: 22104::pouta::siili Internet: Tero.Siili@fmi.fi X.400: c=fi;admd=fumail;o=fmi;giv=tero;sur=siili; c=fi;admd=mailnet;pr=il;giv=tero;sur=siili; -- Tero Siili Tutkija Scientist Ilmatieteen laitos Finnish Meteorological Institute Geofysiikan osasto Department of Geophysics ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 043 ------------------------------