Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 05:29:30 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #242 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 1 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 242 Today's Topics: Blaming the Victim Blimps Cheap access to LEO Chemical rovers? (was Re: Beamed power transmission on Mars?) JPL Mission Updates - 02/26/93 Manned spaceflight vs science missions vs science? Question on getting to Mars?? Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed SETI TARGETED SEARCH SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. Soyuz I re-entry SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) (4 msgs) TOPEX Findings on El Nino 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 17:55:46 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Blaming the Victim Newsgroups: sci.space In 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >No no. You've got it wrong. The victims are completely innocent. Well, I'll agree with that. That's why I think it's a stupid position to say that if a directory is left open that it's ok to read it, notices to the contrary notwithstanding. >They are merely the ones who got raped or burglarized. >If you can't see the difference between 'watching out for yourself' >and 'taking the blame', well, no wonder you feel angry. Gee, thanks for the mind reading, Tommy. What makes you think I feel angry? Would you like to tell me what emotion I'm feeling now, too, since you must think you know better than I do? -- "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: 26 Feb 93 20:29:51 GMT From: Henry A Worth Subject: Blimps Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: > nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: > > >(Frank Crary) writes: > >> > >> Balloons are somewhat more difficult on Mars than on Earth, but they > >> are very feasible. There will be one on the Russian Mars 94 mission > >> (or so they say...) > >> > > >I more like rigid balloons (deridgebles(sp)). Powered by beamed microwaves > >either from the ground or from orbit.. > > A _dirigible_ is a steerable vehicle. It doesn't have to be rigid. Rigid > dirigibles are generally just called "rigids" (after you've established the > context) or occasionally zeppelins after Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. > > >Don't need to beam power directly at the Blimp, just to the tether that follows > >behind.. > > If you were going to use beamed power (which isn't obvious to me) you would > almost certainly use the huge surface area of the thing to mount your receiver. Missed the first part of this, our news feed must be acting up again. So please forgive if I retrace previous discussion. While it would be nice to use some of that power to run the propulsion system, how about using the beamed power - be it microwave, laser, or whatever (reflected sunlight? probably too weeak) -- to directly heat the blimp's envelope? For instance if using microwave, have a metalized layer in the envelope material that is etched into little tuned antennae and loads? Take it a step further, and assuming a decade or more of semi-conductor and materials science that we will have occurred by the time any mission is mounted :-(, make the envelope a giant integrated circuit with antennae, rectifiers, regulators, and storage capactitors/batteries integrated into the fabric (or in the case of lasers, a giant, amorphous, photovoltaic grid). Another approach would be a rigid half shell above the envelope that could contain the receivers and/or heat exchangers and would double as a shelter for the envelope and gondola. Since a hot-gas blimp would substantialy collapse when cooled, the shell could descend over the envelope and gondola, be anchored against storms and perhaps even include active aerodynamic surfaces is to counter wind loading and pitching. If the more active heating approach is used, a reversible heat pump might be used for both heating and to speed cooling and collapse of the envelope. Speaking of storms, any ideas on how much warning would be available? Since a storm would be a threat not only to blimps, but rovers and landers as well, I would assume a metorological net would need to be part of the infrastructure for any mission more complex than a plant-the-flags- and-dash. Have existing Mars proposals considered this in much detail? I would suspect that storm warning time would be a limiting factor on sortie range (giving blimps an additional advantage), and that a storm may even require an abort back to orbit, at least until later long-term missions that could build shelters for landers and other equipment. Back to propulsion for a blimp (beam powered or otherwise). Considering the thin atmosphere, and assuming a long-term/permanent presence. If substantial subsurface water were found (almost a necessity for a long-term presencence) any thoughts on what the preferable propulsion method would be; ducted fan, steam jet, H2/O2 rocket, or something even more exotic like an H2/O2 turbo-fan or a nuclear rocket using H2 or even the atmosphere as a working medium? -- Henry Worth No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 22:51:25 GMT From: "Adam R. Brody " Subject: Cheap access to LEO Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle The current issue of Earth Space Review, vol2, no.1, has an abstract for a paper in Space Commerce that apparently discusses how to get to orbit for $22/pound. Edward L. Keith has analyzed Russian experience with high rate of production space hardware and combined this with an American ELV. The paper describes how to close the gap between theory and engineering capability. Anybody get a look at the article? ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 12:55:09 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Chemical rovers? (was Re: Beamed power transmission on Mars?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb25.131408.17081@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: [lasers and powersats aren't all that great for Mars-roving vehicles] > On board nuclear power is much better for this purpose and completely > sidesteps issues of line of sight scheduling and complex systems in > orbit with single point failure modes that can disable an entire ground > fleet of vehicles and habitations. Chemical systems (fuel cells, rockets, or internal-combustion) might be pretty attractive too *if* you can make them on Mars. Some scenarios for manned Mars landings envision production of fuels on the earliest missions. The Case for Mars 1 workshop advocated solar-powered production of O2 and CO from the atmosphere. Zubrin and Baker's Mars Direct depends upon landing a fission-powered plant and a supply of H2 to manufacture methane and O2. How about landing a pilot plant for *unmanned* missions? For instance, one launch lands a capable rover powered by CH4-O2 fuel cells with solar-cell trickle backup. Another launch lands a filling station with reactor which makes more fuel and oxidizer. The rover can rendezvous with its initial fuel load, tank up, and keep exploring indefinitely to the limit of its range. Of course, we need to develop an automated docking and refilling capability. (Where have I heard *this* before?) But this is straightforward engineering, and easy to practice on Terra Firma. Land more rovers and they can take advantage of the gas station. Or land another gas station closer than the range limit and your rover can cover even more territory. You don't have to lug around a heavy nuclear reactor, or put up with the low efficiency of RTGs. As another benefit, you get experience with the Mars Direct apparatus, which can reduce cost and risks when you finally send people. I know Bob Zubrin wants to *go* to Mars himself, and soon, but his ideas can be useful to a fleet of robots too. And it would strike a blow for the use of extraterrestrial resources. "Do you know the asteroids, Mr.Kemp?... Bill Higgins Hundreds of thousands of them. All wandering around the Sun in strange Fermilab orbits. Some never named, never charted. The orphans of the Solar higgins@fnal.fnal.gov System, Mr. Kemp." higgins@fnal.bitnet "And you want to become a father." --*Moon Zero Two* SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1993 18:19 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: JPL Mission Updates - 02/26/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary PLANETARY MISSION STATUS February 26, 1993 VOYAGER 1 and 2: The two Voyager spacecraft continue their interstellar mission with fields-and-particles data acquisition. Voyager 1 was launched September 5, 1977, is currently 7.7 billion kilometers (4.8 billion miles) from the Sun after flying by Jupiter and Saturn in 1979 and 1980; Voyager 2 was launched August 20, 1977, flew by Jupiter (1979), Saturn (1981), Uranus (1986), and Neptune (1989), is now 5.9 billion kilometers (3.7 billion miles) from the Sun. Contact: Mary Hardin, (818) 354-5011. MAGELLAN: The Magellan spacecraft is continuing its survey of the gravitational field of Venus, utilizing precise navigation of the spacecraft in the near-Venus portion of its orbit through May 15, 1993. Magellan was launched May 4, 1989, aboard Space Shuttle Atlantis with an IUS injection stage; it radar-mapped more than 99% of Venus's surface from September 1990 to September 1992. Contact: Jim Doyle, (818) 354-5011. GALILEO: The spacecraft is now en route to Jupiter, scheduled to go into orbit there on December 7, 1995. Spacecraft performance and condition are excellent except that the high-gain antenna is only partly deployed; science and engineering data are being transmitted via the low-gain antenna. The Project is now planning the Jupiter mission and the August 1993 encounter with asteroid Ida assuming dependence on the low-gain antenna. Galileo was launched October 18, 1989, by Space Shuttle Atlantis and an IUS, and flew by Venus in 1990 and Earth in 1990 and 1992 for gravity assists and asteroid Gaspra in October 1991 for scientific observation. Contact: Jim Wilson, (818) 354-5011. ULYSSES: The spacecraft is in a highly inclined solar orbit, now about 18 degrees south of the ecliptic plane, in transit from its Jupiter gravity assist in February 1992 toward its solar polar passages in 1994 and 1995. On February 14, 1993, Ulysses put itself in the safe mode for unknown reasons, but normal operating condition and performance, including cruise science, were restored within three days. The Ulysses spacecraft was built by the European Space Agency and launched October 6, 1990 aboard Space Shuttle Discovery, with IUS and PAM-S stages. Contact: Diane Ainsworth, (818) 354-5011. TOPEX/Poseidon: The satellite is healthy, and all scientific instruments are performing normally, typically providing three playbacks per day. Initial results from the mission to map ocean circulation are being presented at a press conference February 26. TOPEX/Poseidon was launched August 10, 1992, aboard Ariane 52. Contact: Mary Hardin, (818) 354-5011. MARS OBSERVER: Spacecraft health and performance are normal, and Mars Observer is on its planned trajectory leading to Mars orbit insertion August 24, 1993. It completed its second trajectory correction maneuver of about 9.6 meters per second on February 10. It is now in the "outer cruise" flight mode, communicating via the high-gain antenna. Mars Observer was launched aboard a Titan III/TOS vehicle on September 25, 1992. Contact: Diane Ainsworth, (818) 354-5011. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | for anything. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 22:06:03 GMT From: "Monaldo Francis M. S1R x8648 " Subject: Manned spaceflight vs science missions vs science? Newsgroups: sci.space I recently heard a talk about future justifications for the manned space program which kindled soom thoughts I am submitting for your consideration. Over the years there have been numerous arguments about the relative merits of unmanned vs manned space flight. Many of these arguments have been replayed again and again in this news group. I don't want to rekindled that debate, but I am interested in the structure of the arguments. The classical argument in favor of reduced emphasis on manned space flight is that with unmanned mission we get more scientific bang for the buck. If science is the motivation, then choose unmanned spaceflight. However, lets suppose there is no manned space program to contend with and we pour all the money into science. If the space science mission were to compete with other science, eg the SSC or AIDS research or any of a host of other projects would science space missions fare as well? To carry the argument one step further, given a limited total pie, would science research in general compete well against applied research with more immediate returns, or against feeding th hungry. I am not sure where this argument leads, except that if we focus too much (too much of course) being a matter of judgment very littel science gets funded Frank ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 03:14:58 GMT From: Mark Smilor Subject: Question on getting to Mars?? Newsgroups: sci.space Just two simple question on a some ideas I have read about on getting to Mars. The first one involves a plan put together by Buzz Aldrin. The article I read was in Air&Space (Oct/Nov 1990). The plan involved a space craft that would take advantage of a natural earth/mars orbit. According to the article BuzzAldrin called the vehicles cyclers. Does anyone know where I could get some solid information on this plan? The article was kind of sensational and void of any real data. The second plan that I read was in the Final Frontier (July/Aug. 1992) about a plan to 'travel light' to Mars. The plan was developed by Robert Zubrin at Martin Marietta in Denver. The quoted price was $50 billion, but was more of a flag pole and footprint scenario. Still it was an interesting Idea, the article was called the 'Direct Route to Mars', anyone know where I could get some more solid information on this program? I am interested in the vehicles (ie thrust, type of engines, size, fuel/oxidizer type, etc) as well as orbit used and what ever else. Thanks Ms ***************************** Mark Smilor smilor@aludra.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 20:58:28 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb26.165948.12214@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Kenneth C. Jenks [GM2] (713) 483-4368) writes: : Dime a dozen Dennis. Hell, I have friends at the Reston Program office : who do that to amuse themselves on coffee breaks. Anybody who thinks : a little about it can save $20 billion or so in life cycle costs without : breaking a sweat. : Getting the change implemented, THAT'S the hard part. >Change costs money. Even if the change saves money in the long run. If people (including Congress) saw the money being spent better they may not gripe as much. >Maybe more important is the idea that changing something which has >already been approved implies that the managers who originally approved >it made a mistake, and now you're correcting that mistake, putting egg >on the faces of those going before you. In a healthy organizational culture that's not the case. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 17:15:00 GMT From: Geoff Mutton Subject: SETI TARGETED SEARCH Newsgroups: sci.space Original to: Andy@osea.demon.co.uk -=> Quoting Andy@osea.demon.co.uk to All <=- An> Talking of which, is Sirius A, B and C targeted? Hi, Andy, Forgive my ignorance, but Sirius C???? I have only ever heard of A and B. A1V primary, DA white dwarf secondary, and nowt else. Can you explain further, please? Cheers from sunny Australia, Geoff --- TMail v1.31.3 * Origin: Prophet BBS - Western Sydney, Australia (3:54/54) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 19:58:28 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. Newsgroups: sci.space In addition to a direct solar gravity assist for a Pluto, there might be some benefit in carrying propellant deep into the energy well of the sun, and burning it there to provide a boost to Pluto. Is anyone familiar enough with the calculations to estimate what the benefit might be? -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 05:50:00 GMT From: Bill Edwards Subject: Soyuz I re-entry Newsgroups: sci.space In Message-ID: <132021040@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org wrote: DD>The Soviets *could* have launched Soyuz 2 unmanned to rendezvous wi DD>the stricken Soyuz 1, and allowed Komarov to spacewalk over to Soyu This assumes that Soyuz 1 was capable of a rendezvous. One of the oft touted theories is that the solar panels failed to deploy, starving the craft of electrical power. If this was the case, the rendezvous equipment may not have functioned. It looks likely, too, that time was running out. Finally, would Komarov have had an EVA suit? Bill / Usenet: bill.edwards@almac.co.uk --- . Orator V1.13 #7 . A good masochist takes a lot of beating! ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 20:30:21 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb26.001132.28457@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tomas o munoz 283-4072) writes: >I'd like to hea the astronaut office express their views on >putting crew on top of a Titan IV in a vehicle with no >manual control capability. We have in the past. Works just fine. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 93 20:55:33 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26FEB199300340539@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>Are you actually saying that saving $12 BILLION isn't a good reason to >>incur that upfront expense for something you say is simple to do? >Na I would say that it is Sherzernomics at work again. You are assuming >that there will be missions devoted to this one task (Not True). Not according to Tom Munoz. He said the missions would be dedicated. >You are also assuming a freight value charge that even trucking companies >do not use. How about an experiment to see if that is true. You claim that Shuttle shouldn't charge or account for transport costs for the engines since there will be deadhead space anyway. Now go out and buy a brick. Wrap it in paper and see if you can find a company who will ship it to me for free. If they balk, explain to them how they have deadhead space and so it doesn't matter. If you manage to do this, I'll accept your arguement. >When you have a Shuttle working at anthing less than absolute >capacity on lauch you have deadhead. Engines by all accounts will add up to about 20+% of the Shuttle lift capacity. That is a significant added weight and should be well above any spare space they have. >Well the thrusters could be charged >off to deadhead miles and so your 12 billion number goes out the window. The other problem is that it eliminates all concern with weight throughout the entire program. Am I over my weight budget for this experiment rack? No problem. Charge it to deadhead. Why should some users worry about weight if others don't without consequence? If the thrusters are allowed to double their weight without penalty, why not me? This results in overall waste and adds billions to station costs. >How can we do this Allen derides? Well the fuel and the tanks go up >anyway for refueling, Except that with automated refueling we can use $35 million Delta's instead of half a billion $$ shuttle flights for refueling. If we re-fueled automatically and left the thrusters in place we would go from ~50 shuttle flights costing $25 billion and go to ~50 Delta flights costing less than $2 billion. A savings of over $23 billion. You see Dennis, the $5 billion you boast about maybe savings is chicken feed compared to what can be done *IF YOU HAVE A MANAGEMENT WHICH WORKS TO REDUCE COSTS*. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 17:41:02 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In <26FEB199300340539@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >Na I would say that it is Sherzernomics at work again. You are assuming >that there will be missions devoted to this one task (Not True). But the person who is arguing that there is no cost difference has said that they made *exactly* this assumption, which you say is not true (which makes more sense to me). Now, what could we put on that mission for the extra 12k mass or so and the extra volume of using thruster units rather than a refueling unit? Mass delivered to orbit costs money, Dennis, as I'm sure you must know. When you launch with loads of excess capacity (as oppose to within 80% or so of max weight or volume), you are *squandering* money. Now then, the Shuttle has a usual capacity in the 40k range, the *hardware* part of the fuel modules weighs about 6k each, so even if we assume relatively heavy refueling equipment, you've probably wasted at least 20% of your 'normal' lift capacity. Note that this is *not* cheap and is probably *not* the way you would normally want to utilize a launch system. >You are >also assuming a freight value charge that even trucking companies do not >use. When you have a Shuttle working at anthing less than absolute >capacity on lauch you have deadhead. Well the thrusters could be charged >off to deadhead miles and so your 12 billion number goes out the window. >How can we do this Allen derides? Well the fuel and the tanks go up >anyway for refueling, and the structure for it goes up anyway so what is >the big deal about sending up another few thousand pounds in the form of >the thrusters. It would matter if this would bump another payload but this >is not the case. Most trucks on the road run with lower than max >payloads. They are thrilled to have extra weight added. It adds to the >profit margin. You entire assumption is based upon the unfounded premise >that there must be dedicated missions for this effort. Without that you >actually save money by utilizing the capabilities of the system more fully. Are you postulating that the typical Shuttle launch will be going to the station with over 20% deadhead carge space? Sounds like time to build another vehicle and switch to it, to me, if that's the case. -- "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: 26 Feb 93 21:02:48 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb26.192024.991@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >I'm saying the reality of SSF upfront funding (remember the chart >you so convienently deleted?) is so constrained that we're using >hydrazine thrusters because development money wasn't available for >H2/O2 thrusters. Who said anything about H2/O2 thrusters? Even if you wanted to use H2, the RL-10 should be just fine. No, I'm talking about using existing hydrizine thrusters and automatic refueling. Almost all is off the shelf technology although we may need to licence docking technology from the Russians. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1993 22:07 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: TOPEX Findings on El Nino Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology Forwarded from: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. (818) 354-5011 Contact: Mary A. Hardin FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 26, 1993 JPL Press Release #1494 Scientists studying data from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite have observed an ocean phenomenon in the equatorial Pacific that indicates a new El Nino event may occur in late February or early March off the western coast of South America. The scientists have been analyzing a prominent Kelvin wave which has appeared in recent TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data. A Kelvin wave is a large warm water mass that moves along the equator in the Pacific Ocean, and such Kelvin wave pulses sometimes give rise to El Nino conditions in the eastern equatorial Pacific. The same Kelvin wave pulse that was seen in the TOPEX/Poseidon data was predicted by the global ocean numerical models developed on supercomputers at the Naval Research Laboratory. This particular Kelvin wave pulse, which was excited by westerly wind anomalies in the western Pacific in December 1992, is projected to arrive at the South American coast in late February or early March. The analysis of the TOPEX/Poseidon data indicates an arrival in the early part of the window, while the Navy model points to a slightly later date. The imminent arrival of this Kelvin wave pulse suggests that the current warm conditions in the eastern Pacific will continue or possibly intensify during March. JPL manages the NASA portion of the joint U.S./French TOPEX/Poseidon mission for the Earth Science and Application Division. Launched Aug. 10, 1992, it is the second satellite in the Mission to Planet Earth program, a long-term effort to study Earth as a global environmental system. ##### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | for anything. ------------------------------ Newsgroups: sci.space From: Paul Carter Subject: Re: Human Distance Record:Apollo 13:Correction Message-Id: <1993Feb25.123158.11376@unisys.co.nz> Organization: Unisys New Zealand X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6] References: <1993Feb23.111910.16787@unisys.co.nz> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 12:31:58 GMT Lines: 30 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU CORRECTION CORRECTION CORRECTION CORRECTION CORRECTION CORRECTION In a previous post I wrote: : : The answer to who holds the record distance from Earth is the crew of : Apollo 13. They achieved 400,187 km (248,655 imperials). : The crew were Capt. James Lovell, Fred Haise and John Swigert. In a private email, Mark Brader (msb@sq.com) pointed out: > > The ratio of these numbers is 1.6094066; the correct conversion factor, > assuming that "imperials" means "miles", is 1.609344. Care to clarify? Mark's right, "imperials" IS a reference to miles, and the kms & miles figures do NOT equate. I rechecked the figures in two editions of the Guinness Book of Records. Both the October 1976 edition and the October 1991 edition have the figures I gave above. I suspect a Guinness typo caused 248,655 miles to be published instead of 248,665 miles. I'll write to Guinness and ask for a correction to be made. Does anyone have an alternative (non-Guinness) source ? Regards, -- P A U L P A U L P A U L P A U L P A U L C A R T E R C A R T E R C A R T E R C A R T E R C A R T E R 3d signature 3d signature 3d signature 3d signature 3d signature Focus lines: | | ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 242 ------------------------------