Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 10:11:10 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #146 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 12 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 146 Today's Topics: algorithm needed An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) Are Landsat Satellites receivable? Challenger mistake (was re: Remember the Challenger...) Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - February 1993 Fred is dead again. Henry Spencer and stamps Ideal fuel for 'anti-matter' engine kerosene/peroxide SSTO (2 msgs) Lurid Space Fantasy USPO stamps NASA Seeks WAIS Volunteers NF-104 (was Re: kerosene/peroxide SSTO) Precursors to SSF/ST: TNG Data Ports. Russian Solar Sail Results and Obervations pointers Satellite Imagery Solar wind nits Space Calendar - 01/28/93 Space Colonies 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: 5 Feb 1993 18:40 CST From: "Danny Bruton, Texas A&M University, Physics" Subject: algorithm needed Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Earl W Phillips writes... >Does anyone happen to have an algorithm >to convert RA & Dec to altitude & azimuth, >as measured by a compass & quadrant? > >***************************************************************** >* | ====@==== ///////// * >* ephillip@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu| ``________// * >* | `------' * >* -JR- | Space;........the final * >* | frontier............... * >***************************************************************** The lines below were cut from a FORTRAN program used to calculate the Altitude (AL) and Azimuth (AZ)....using LATitude, LONgitude, DEClination, Right Ascsnsion, and Hour Angle. Hour Angle can be computed from Universal Time. LAT=31 LON=-96.5 P=3.1415927/180 AL=(SIN(DEC*P)*SIN(LAT*P))+(COS(DEC*P)*COS(LAT*P)*COS(HA*P*15)) AL=ASIN(AL)/P AZ=SIN(DEC*P)-(SIN(LAT*P)*SIN(AL*P)) AZ=AZ/(COS(LAT*P)*COS(AL*P)) IF (SIN(HA*P*15).GT.0.) THEN AZ=360.-AZ ENDIF Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 06:39:06 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1kugvoINN4l@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>Don't forget that it takes a week or two to really adapt to free fall and >>get good at working there, even if you don't get spacesick. At just about >>the time when a shuttle crew is becoming really effective, the mission ends. >Agreed. However, next time they go up they're way ahead of the game and >can adapt much more quickly. Uh, no, it doesn't work that way. Once you come back to Earth, you have to start all over again. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 00:41:47 GMT From: Willie Smith Subject: Are Landsat Satellites receivable? Newsgroups: sci.space ggjns@knuth.mtsu.edu (John Schmidt) writes: >araichel@cser.encore.com (Alan Raichel) writes: >> I have seen some pretty high resolution pictures taken by >>the Landsat satellites. I think that these have a resolution of >>something like 100 feet or so. I know that the NOAA HRPT satellites >>have a resolution of about 2 Km. I think that it would be interesting >>to see if I could get more. >As far as this hobbyist is concerned, I think I won't be able to afford >the reverse engineering; I'd be better off spending the money (up to >$5000 for a full-scene digital image) to just buy the desired data from >EOSAT. >Since this system was designed beginning in the late 1970s and launched >with your and my tax dollars in 1982/1983, (speaking strictly about the >LANDSATs 4 and 5) I would suppose somewhere in an archive the documents >exist. There _is_ an archive of older images from back when the government was gathering the data that's available for purchase at a modest cost. The digital images are still pretty expensive (probably due to the cost of making you the copies of the tapes), but color photos are pretty cheap (around $25?). Now of course I forget _where_ you get this stuff, but schools and govt researchers put up a big stink when EOSAT started charging an arm and a leg for the taxpayer's data, so they set up an archive somewhere. Try asking EOSAT or write me a note if you can't find it, and I'll dig it up from home. Willie Smith wpns@pictel.com -- Willie Smith wpns@pictel.com N1JBJ@amsat.org "I'll make Beelyuns and Beelyuns from the book contract and the TV show with government funding for looking for the nothing in the void where The Bang caused the hole in the middle of it all" Frank Hayes - Cosmos. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 23:11:00 GMT From: shanleyl@ducvax.auburn.edu Subject: Challenger mistake (was re: Remember the Challenger...) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle >>>(Simon E. Booth) writes: >>> >>> Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST.... >>> So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place >> For the past few days, I've read responses to this post and have hoped >>the flurry of responses would die down. Each post stirs up emotions most >>of us would rather forget and I've been reluctant to add my experiences >>to the heap. My feelings were, "It's over and we've finally put it >>behind us. Let's get on with it." >> >> Well, last night I was walking past my bookshelf and next to the 20 or >>so books I have about the accident in my SPACE collection, I remembered a >>book I have called "To Engineer is Human". I bought it because it had a >>picture of Challenger on the cover. It was mostly about other notable >>failures in our transportation system, primarly the failure of bridges. >>The reoccurring theme of the book was that engineering design is a cyclic >>process of inovation and optimization followed by catastrophic failure. >>The author stated that we learn more from any one failure than we do from >>an entire string of successes. I suppose Challenger is the "Talcoma Narrows" >>of our generation and something that none of us will ever be allowed to >>forget. While I wouldn't want to compare (no implications to this poster's comment) the Challenger mistake to and us being able to "get over it" to the saying... "no use crying over spilt milk", I would agree Jim and his suggestion that we put the Challenger mistake behind us in terms of it having any impetus in the way of needlessly obstructing further exploration... ...however, this was no"Tacoma Narrows". It was not engineers doing what engineers do. It was not even a bunch of similar and disimilar 'problems' that all came to a head at T+0000:00:00:01 seconds into the launch on a pretty lousy day in January, 1986. No, I do not have any conspiracy fodder for wasted bandwidth or "TOP SECRET" information for the gullible to feed on. I do have the power of logic and hopefully some rather stringent fallacy [sic?] failsafes to see the logic through. The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB's) were manufactured by then Morton Thiokol (now Thiokol Inc.). They were designed to be segmented which presented numer- ous engineering problems in flight but many bonuses ("cost savings") in the manufacturing and delivery process. Just imagine the casting hole that would be required for a " 45.46 meters (146.6 foot [feet]) long" solid rocket booster solid fuel component. Actually, the three segments that have fuel cast in them will be approximately 36 meters long, or 120 feet. Still pretty big and then you have to transport it. So, engineers did what engineers do and came up with a more "convenient" structure but had to compromise on integrity. I (having no power, authority, or consequence in these matters anyway) can accept the trade- offs that are sometimes necessary. Integrity of the structure insofar as its intended use (a pressure and propulsion vessel), was compromised by design and several "fixes" were involved in man-rating* it. These include joint overlap devices (clevis and tang) 1) --- >--- 2) --->--- and "torturous" or labyrinthal (word?) segment insulation shapes, that when joined, made it very difficult for efollow a straight (energy efficient) path in the segment joint or "seams". The notorious "O"-rings are also part of the seal at each joint and are strategically place in the clevis/tang joint to act as final "roadblocks" for escaping plasma/gas. * much less FLIGHT rating it! The problem (sorry, I realize it's about time I got to it) : The original design called for a "clevis and clevis" with an additional O-ring ______ =======< ------z======== \_____ / _____/ placement. This design "ensured" a redundant seal when the SRB ignited due to bowing forces that acted on the joints as the SRB became "pressurized" (yes with a big hole at one end, but still pressurized). Otherwise, in a single "tang" in double "clevis" structure, one of the overlapping flanges (sorry for all the jargon) would bow out, actually causing the joint to be less sealed. Blow by of the three O-rings becomes even easier in the clevis/tang set-up but the clevis/clevis arrangement was given up for "performance" reasons. Yes, this weight savings and the weight savings gained by shaving the SRB's were heralded as Morton Thiokol PR coup to NASA by selling themselves as "High Performance Solid Rocket Boosters". I do not know the total weight reduction due to these and possibly other factors but weakinging a joint to save weight in an already untried, borderline integrity structure, to me, is wrong. This seemed motivated more by greed and deceit in the original performance claims than anything else. I say, the Challenger mistake was not "unavoidable" and the great NASA and con- tractor soul-searching that went on after that ended with the wrong fingers pointing at secondary reasons, not primary reasons for this, criticality one failure. Just a thought (a rather long one...). >>The entire experience and the years of recovery leading up to STS-26R >>deeply affected everyone here and thru failure has made space transportation >>a little safer. >>-- >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Jim Dumoulin INTERNET: DUMOULIN@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV >> NASA / Payload Operations SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::DUMOULIN >> Kennedy Space Center >> Florida, USA 32899 No flames intended towards Jim Dumoulin and I would say that I appreciated his accounting of a day he'd rather leave behind.... Sincerely, Paul Sylvester Shanley Researcher ad Infinitum et al School of Human Sciences Auburn University 308 Spidle Hall Auburn University, Alabama 36849 United States of America VOICE: 205 844 1339 office VOICE: 205 887 7440 home FAX: 205 844 1340 office e-mail pshanley@humsci.auburn.edu shanleyl@ducvax.auburn.edu ad astra per Mylanta ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 23:56:35 GMT From: Jeff Bulf Subject: Electronic Journal of the ASA (EJASA) - February 1993 Newsgroups: sci.space Revolving around a small yellow star between the celestial paths of a crater-scarred world called Mercury and our blue-white Earth lies the planet known as Venus. As I understand it, isn't the Sun a considerably larger-than-average star? Recent articles in Astronomy have gone into this some. Apparently average is around red-dwarf size. Unfortunately I have no references on hand. Anybody have serious information? -- dr memory jbulf@kpc.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 1993 06:27:44 GMT From: Jeff Foust Subject: Fred is dead again. Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In a recent article aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >There was a meeting on the NASA budget last weekend when Clinton was >at Camp David. Director of OMB Panetta is proposing (and Clinton seems >to be accepting) a $12 billion NASA budget. The money is to come from >ending Freedom and ASRM. According to a report on CNN this evening, George Stephanopolous (White House Comm. Director) said that the President was considering substantial cuts to both SSF and SSC, but was not considering scrapping either project. This was a change from previous reports. >[on savings from scrapping Fred and ASRM] >However, sources say that this may be used to do a serious re-write >of the NASA Act over the next two years. Interesting... any idea what changes/additions/deletions are being considered? -- Jeff Foust Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech jafoust@cco.caltech.edu jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov Final score of the Interstellar Space Deep Space 9 Station Championship Softball Game: Babylon 5 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 00:29:21 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Henry Spencer and stamps Newsgroups: sci.space 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >>>|> He's *ba-a-a-a-ck-k-k...* >>>|> :) And we're all glad! >>>who's back ? >>>Elvis ? >>Is there a Henry Spencer stamp yet? Which Henry picture did they use? ;-) >No, but I just went down to the post office to get some stamps, and, being >tired of ducks, asked what they had. >I got this cool set of 'Space Fantasy' stamps. >But Henry Spencer wasn't anywhere on them! :-) Hmm. We could lobby the postal serivce (oxymoromn?) to make a Spencer stamp. However, we'd have to kill him and then wait ten years so I don't think it's worth it. Oh well, we'll just have to wait. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Q: Why did the chicken cross the mobius strip? A: To get to the other... er, uh... ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 93 04:40:38 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Ideal fuel for 'anti-matter' engine Newsgroups: sci.space The subject pretty much says it all. If you had close to unlimited energy for input to the fuel (say from anti-matter reactions) as you exhausted it, what would be the best fuel to carry from a performance standpoint? Would you go for something relatively dense like mercury and superheat it to a plasma, do something like a buckyball massdriver, or still go for the light-weight atoms like hydrogen for maximum exhaust velocity? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 00:06:04 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: kerosene/peroxide SSTO Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > Higher molecular weight in the exhaust is what hurts the exhaust velocity, > but it actually helps on thrust. In that department, you're ahead. The > same number of engines with the same size and chamber pressure will give > more thrust, not less, with JP-5/peroxide than with LH2/LOX. Alternatively, > the engines can get smaller or you can use lower pressures, either of which > is definitely useful. Is this right? The coefficient of thrust doesn't depend on molecular weight, only on pressures, throat area and specific heat ratio k. Perhaps JP5/peroxide will produce gas with a lower k than LOX/LH2, but that won't be enough to triple the thrust. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 93 04:58:38 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: kerosene/peroxide SSTO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb6.000604.18749@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >> Higher molecular weight in the exhaust is what hurts the exhaust velocity, >> but it actually helps on thrust... > >Is this right? The coefficient of thrust doesn't depend on molecular >weight, only on pressures, throat area and specific heat ratio k... Hmm, I think you're right. Somewhere I picked up the belief that there was a dependence, but I'd never taken a hard look at the equations to try to find it, and it doesn't seem to be there. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 23:29:02 GMT From: "Frank R. Dana Jr." Subject: Lurid Space Fantasy USPO stamps Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.arts.sf.marketplace In article <1993Feb4.172915.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: |> Anybody seen the U.S. Post Office's new "Space Fantasy" stamps? |> I just got mine. [...] |> Does anybody know who the artist is? Hmm, there's a philately list on |> Bitnet, maybe I'll check there. Hey! None of that philately stuff here! How disgusting! ...kids these days. Next thing you know, we'll have mastication at the dinner table! Mark my words... 8) for the humour-deficient |> -- |> O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ |> - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! |> / \ (_) (_) / | \ |> | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory |> \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET |> - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV |> ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS -- /////////////////////////[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (718) (212) (516) (518) =======Amiuser============Frank R. Dana, Jr.============Doc Ami======= --------My opinions rarely reflect those of any sane person,---------- living, dead, or undead... that's gonna CHANGE. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 00:15:44 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: NASA Seeks WAIS Volunteers Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.wais,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In a joint development effort between NASA's Johnson Space Center and the Space Shuttle Program office, we are developing an X Windows/MOTIF version of the Wide Area Information Servers (WAIS) client which allows storage and retrieval of "metadata" (like Author, Title, Keywords, Document Number, etc.) in addition to the usual "search by contents." This new client talks to standard WAIS servers, but requires several extra index files (for the metadata fields) in addition to the standard WAIS index (which indexes the actual contents of the document). In support of the Space Shuttle Program's multi-center implementation requirements, we're looking for volunteers to help us test the new client/server relationship between NASA Field Centers. This would involve working with our developers to set up the necessary index files on your existing WAIS server. We estimate that this will take at least 8 hours of your time over the course of a week, but I guarantee that you'll learn something worthwhile in the process. To keep the test as close as possible to actual operating conditions, we'd prefer to find a volunteer who has a Sun at Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Rockwell International's Downey, California, installation. Failing that, we'll take volunteers from anywhere in the continental US. (I'm distributing this message to "world" FYI only.) If you are interested in participating in this project, please reply by e-mail before 02/19/93. Before you ask, no, the software is not available for anonymous FTP, nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future. Sadly, we're restricted from distributing it this way. -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 93 05:08:34 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: NF-104 (was Re: kerosene/peroxide SSTO) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb5.215620.1@stsci.edu> gawne@stsci.edu writes: >> Also of note were the peroxide monopropellant rocket engines used in the >> NF-104 rocket-boosted aircraft flown by NASA and the USAF, which worked >> quite well and were serviced and fuelled by ordinary USAF technicians. > >Isn't that the one Chuck Yeager almost killed himself in? Seems I recall >somebody saying its flight envelope had more holes in it... >I guess what I'm asking is did the engines work well, or the plane as >a whole, or both, or neither? Mitch's paper says "no rocket-engine-related emergencies were noted during eight years of operation". (It also says that I misremembered the engine cycle -- the NF-104 used peroxide monopropellant thrusters for attitude control, but the main rocket engine was a bipropellant engine, using jet fuel and peroxide.) No version of the F-104 could be characterized as a gentle or forgiving aircraft, and the NF-104 ballistic flights would have been hairier than normal flying. Yes, it was an NF-104 in which Yeager had his close call, I believe. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 02:58:50 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Precursors to SSF/ST: TNG Data Ports. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb5.034950.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Because, despite what you hear from people like Go Corp., it's still a >> whole lot more convenient to carry a piece of paper around inside Spacelab >> (for example) than to lug a portable computer around. > >Why muist it be a portable computer? Why not a data port as in Star Trek the >Next Generation.. I know it is nice to have a hard copy, but.. Why not make the >technology and computer better and have a real AI or combined system... >Kind of liek ST:TNG... Because the real world doesn't have movie special effects teams to make such systems *seem* like they work. ST science and engineering shouldn't be confused with *real* science and engineering. After 30 years of AI work, you might as well ask for ST transporters as ST computer systems. Neither is within the realm of real engineering today or any time in the foreseeable future. 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 05:33:15 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: Russian Solar Sail Results and Obervations pointers Newsgroups: sci.space In article Glenn Chapman, glennc@cs.sfu.ca writes: >[a very helpful prediction report for Znamya, and] ... >By the way on Radio Moscow they announced >that the sail, when reflecting on an area, will illuminate a ground area >4 km in diameter. I guess I should point something out which has not been mentioned here, perhaps because any physicist will say "of course" to this, and many others don't care. That size is not a function of the size of this particular sail; it is the minimum size spot the best optical converging mirror in the universe could make from 400 km up, no matter how large you make it. The minmum size depends only on the angular diameter of the sun (which is approximately .01 radians) and the distance from the mirror to the ground (400 km). The minimum spot size is the product of those two numbers, and that would obtain not for Znamya, but for an ideally focussed off-axis f/20,000 paraboloid of focal length 400 km. A floppy mirror flat to a small fraction of a degree will produce an image a scant twenty meters larger in diameter, so don't order a mirror from Roger Angel's optical shop yet. The image on the ground is the same as would be formed by a pinhole box camera 400 km long. You terrified Yankee ants can come out of your bunker-anthills now. Leigh ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 1993 07:11:51 GMT From: Jody Fraser Subject: Satellite Imagery Newsgroups: sci.image.processing,sci.aeronautics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.misc,sci.space,alt.sci.image-facility I am seeking information for a colleague concerning space borne platforms for synthetic aperture radar imagery that is in the public domain. As an example, SEASAT which I believe was orbited in the mid 80's and managed by NOAA. If anyone out there on the Internet either knows of or is involved with present or past systems of this type, would they please email Richard Bence at rbence@logiconultra.com to begin a dialog. Also anyone with any information on side-looking synthetic aperture radar implementations on air borne platforms would also be welcome to communicate. Thank you all in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 00:25:21 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Solar wind nits Newsgroups: sci.space 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >Tom said: >>>Further nit: If light has momentum and protons have a wavelength, >>>how do you classify one as wind and not the other? They are both >>>"stuff emitted from the sun at supersonic velocities" after all. I tried to explain this to Tom once and failed. >I didn't call them the same. I suggested that the definition of solar >wind is a bit arbitrary, since it's based on proton-ness, rather than >wave-icle-ness. Does the difference in their momentum make the defintion >any less arbitrary? Tom, the solar wind is made up of protons AND electrons. If the sun were selectively spewing protons out it would do some impressive things to its net charge. Now there are fundamental differences between protons/electrons and photons. Photons travel faster and have no rest mass. You can't fuse photons. Please check your freshman chem or physics text for more information. The fact that they can both be modeled as waveicles is irrelevant. You can be modeled as a waveicle. However this would mean that you would increase the solar luminosity or cause auroras. >Aaaand, since we were talking about solar-sails, which are just ways >of catching momentum, it doesn't matter what you use; Solar sails (more properly "lightsails") just plain don't use the solar wind and no amount of assertion will change that. The solar wind imparts a tiny fraction of one percent of the momentum of the light. If you want to play with the solar wind go build a magsail. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Q: Why did the chicken cross the mobius strip? A: To get to the other... er, uh... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1993 22:27:00 -0500 From: Mark Prado Subject: Space Calendar - 01/28/93 Newsgroups: sci.space > January 1994* > Jan 24 - Clementine Titan IIG Launch (Lunar Orbiter, Asteroid Flyby Mission) Does anyone have more information the above? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 03:55:27 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Space Colonies Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1kufceINNngn@digex.digex.com> mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney) writes: >The L-5 society is not "moribund" - it merged with the National Space >Institute in 1987(?) to form the Nationa Space Society (NSS). NSS is >headquartered here in DC, at 922 Pennsylvania Ave SE, 20003; the phone >number is (202) 543-1900. I don't know if there's an NSS chapter in >your area; give 'em a call... L5 isn't moribund; it's dead. NSS ate what was left of it. The chapter organization is the only part of NSS that is recognizably a survival of L5. I would second the recommendation to find a local chapter, if any. The better local chapters are nearly the only thing about NSS that is worth saving. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ From: Jeff Bytof Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: SS Freedom and Supercollider again on chopping block Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 21:21:46 GMT Organization: sio Lines: 7 Message-Id: Nntp-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU I just heard on the radio that the Space Station and the Supercollider are up for discussion by Clinton officials. The broadcast gave little in the way of details. The report mentioned the "30 billion dollar pricetag" for the space station. Curiously, Clinton's job stimulus package is pegged at $31 billion... -rabjab ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 146 ------------------------------