Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 05:36:40 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #319 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 16 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 319 Today's Topics: Alignment of planets? a Plan for NASA,etc. Beyond 1000! cancel wars accountability (2 msgs) Charon: Planet or moon? Cosmonaut Georgi Grechko in USA DC-X Gaspra Animation (QuickTime) Martian Winter (When?) Response to various attacks on SSF Retraining at NASA (2 msgs) REVIEW article on crystal growth in space Road & Track road tests 1996 JPL Rocky IV Microrover Sisters of Mars Observer (was Re: Refueling in orbit) Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue Venus and Mars Venus and Mars, was Re: TIME HAS INERTIA Winding trails from rocket 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: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 00:16:52 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Alignment of planets? Newsgroups: sci.space hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes: >The planets are all in alignment right now! They are all lined up in the >SAME PLANE. I feel the energy flowing this instant.... or is that the >heating system blowing on me? If they are in the same plane, it would be a first. Maybe if you back up pretty far, like to Alpha Centauri, it looks that way, but they're not. >-- >Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX >hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah.. >"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads" >"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV." I'm not a geek, but I post to Usenet anyway. Or maybe I am... -- Phil Fraering |"...drag them, kicking and screaming, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|into the Century of the Fruitbat." - Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 93 20:50:37 GMT From: "Bill Jameson SPS Pres." Subject: a Plan for NASA,etc. Newsgroups: sci.space Someone i saw on this group recently was talking about NASA not having a plan, a long-term goal, or purpose that was well defined. Perhaps we have not been exposed to this plan (there were also complaints about NASA's poor PR), but whether it exists or not, I offer my own plan for our nation's (or, preferably, nations' ) space program. As the population of our measly little planet grows, we will need increasing amounts of the land area for food production and living space, things which would be economically impractical off-planet. (I mean LARGE SCALE living, not to say that permanent manned bases are a bad idea) Thus, it would be useful and considerate of our environment (Which includes us!!!) for the more nasty aspects of our technological life style to be carried out where they won't pollute the surface of the planet- hence, off-planet. The things which I suggest as most likely practical are off-planet mining of asteroids, moons, or other planets, and material processing up there too. Perhaps have a lunar ironworks. Also off practical possiblility is the use of off-planet solar power and beam-down to earth using Masers and rectenae. (Yes, i read _Fallen Angels_) This seems to me perhaps the _best_ selling point, especially to the eco-freaks of whom we have quite a few in this community. They are ( to my mind) unreason- ably afraid of nuclear power, and Should be concerned about coal power and coal mining. (this being a mining region), so the off-planet collection of solar energy should be an appealing thing to most people. I came up with these ideas because i find myself frequently defending the space program from technophobes. I hope someone at NASA will comment and perhaps help me to improve my arguments. I also hope that NASA will take a serious look at this, and consider a PR campaign of Its PLAN (whatever they feel it to be) ---- bill jameson. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 93 21:27:46 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Beyond 1000! Newsgroups: sci.space higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >In article <1o15ak$3e8@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>, francis@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Francis Vaughan) writes: >> In article , pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >> I find Beyond 2000 good mind >> numbing stuff when I want to veg in front of the tube, but >> painfully difficult to watch othertimes as they blithly report >> what has been common knowledge for some years as scientific >> breakthrough. >[...] >> The style of the show seeks to sensationalise and often >> trivialise much work, and has a habit of also mixing in utter >> dross and occasionally features fringe science with no caveat >> warning the naive veiwer. >As a kid my interest in science and technology was *greatly* >stimulated by the American magazines *Popular Science* and *Popular >Mechanics*, which practiced a school of cornball gosh-wow journalism >similar to that of *B2K*. I don't think it did much damage to my >scientific education, and I am inclined to be tolerant of such >popularization. I would have to agree with Bill. Unless one is involved in the relevant field or has access to good coverage it can be very hard to keep up with science and non-consumer technology. The regular media isn't worth squat for such things. I've had to wince at things in B2K or "Popular So-and-so" before, but I'm sure there are people who don't have a better source of info. The pop science people aren't the only ones who engage in gosh-wow stuff or who don't know how to use the future conditional. Lots of stuff comes out of NASA with the same sort of attitude. One solution to this is to encourage the rest of the media to pick up the slack. The Christian Science Monitor has reasonably good space coverage for a mainstream newspaper for example. Somewhere I have a Popular Mechanics whith a cover predicting hypersonic passenger travel will be available in ten years. Of course, it was written in 1959. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes seront capable de la realiser" -Jules Verne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 20:57:58 GMT From: Rex Jolliff Subject: cancel wars accountability Newsgroups: sci.space In article doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: >[...] >Or perhaps we need someone to implement an anonymous-cancel-by-mail server ? implementing an 'anonumous-cancel-by-mail server' should be considered an act of electronic mail fraud. If somebody does implement it, then I'm sure somebody will decide that your (or jay maynard's, etc.) posts are not acceptable and will cancel each and every one posted. >Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University >doug@cc.ysu.edu doug@ysub.bitnet !cc.ysu.edu!doug -- Rex Jolliff N7PCF (rex@otto.hn.com, ...!jimi!otto!rex) Teleguide/Hospitality Network |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in Your In-Room Casino Cash Source| this article are my own and in no way $$$$$$$$$$ | reflect the opinions of my employers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 22:06:17 GMT From: Jay Maynard Subject: cancel wars accountability Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy In article <1993Mar15.195406.5486@88open.org> sartin@88open.org (Rob Sartin) writes: >Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. >*IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to update@anon.penet.fi for details. >I encourage you to write if you feel the service is being abused. As if the situation were symmetrical. The coward asked folks to flood Dick Depew's superiors with mail and phone calls. Not only is admin@anon.penet.fi NOT the coward's superior, he's not even at the same institution (most likely). Anyone who incites flooding of someone's boss deserves the same thing to happen to him. The coward, by hiding behind Julf's server, has evaded the consequences of his actions. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. You won't see this on TV: (video of Mount Carmel compound) "This is David Koresh, of Waco, Texas. He cannot be seen." ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 1993 22:38 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Charon: Planet or moon? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar15.114802.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes... >Grabbing a handy table, I see that Pluto's radius is 1151 +/- 6 km, >Charon's radius is 593 +/- 13 km, and the distance between them is >19,640 +/- 320 km. The mean density of the system is 2.029 +/- .032 >grams/cm^3; nobody knows whether Pluto and Charon have different mean >densities. Let's assume they are identical. Here are the numbers I've got from the Pluto Fast Flyby folks: Pluto Charon Radius 1150-1215 km 600-640km Density ~2.1 g/cm^3 ~1.3 g/cm^3 ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | reason it was put up. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 93 01:10:37 GMT From: George Hastings Subject: Cosmonaut Georgi Grechko in USA Newsgroups: sci.space Dr. Georgi Grechko, Cosmonaut Lecture Tour of the United States Novins Planetarium in Toms River, NJ March 1 Albany Community on March 4 Albany NY Schools on March 5 Syracuse, NY on March 6 Rochester, NY on March 7 Rochester, NY WXXI-TV March 8 Hamilton/Toronto, Canada March 9 Royal Ontario Museum March 10 by AMTRAK to Flint, MI March 11 Longway Plaetarium, Flint, MI March 12 by AMTRAK to East Lansing, MI March 13 Abrams Planetarium, East Lansing March 14, 15 Champaign, IL March 16 Speak/ Radio-Theater in Champaign March 17 Depart for Colorado Springs March 18 Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs March 19 Travel to Salt Lake City March 20 Hansen Planetarium, Salt Lake City March 21 Travel to San Francisco, CA March 22 Morrison Planetarium, San Francisco March 23,24 Tour San Francisco March 25 Chabot Observatory, Oakland, CA March 26 Travel to Lafayette, LA March 28 Lafayette Natural History Museum March 29 Travel to Richmond, VA March 30 Thomas Jefferson High School March 31 Science Museum of Virginia March 31 Travel to Charleston, NC April 1 Sunrise Planetarium, Charleston April 2 Travel to Philadelphia, PA April 3 Fels Planetarium, Philadelphia April 4, 5 Travel to Chicago, IL April 6 Other speaking engagements may be added. If Dr. Gretchko is scheduled for your area, call the local planetarium for mor information. ____________________________________________________________ | George Hastings ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu | | Space Science Teacher 72407.22@compuserve.com | If it's not | Mathematics & Science Center STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533 | FUN, it's | 2304 Hartman Street OFFICE: 804-343-6525 | probably not | Richmond, VA 23223 FAX: 804-343-6529 | SCIENCE! ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 21:51:11 GMT From: "Matthew R. Feulner" Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |> In article <1993Mar13.031047.4386@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: |> >>They were MOST interested in hearing about YOUR support. |> >>I agreed to carry hard copies of posts from here to their facility as a |> >>morale booster... |> > |> >It goes without saying that the DC-X team certainly have *my* support. |> |> I think it's fair to say that almost everyone in this community is hoping |> and praying that DC-X will work (and that DC-Y will get funded and work). |> Even most of the skeptics -- who think it's a poor approach or beyond |> the near-term state of the art -- would be delighted to be proved wrong. |> -- |> C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology |> effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry I haven't been keeping up to date, so could someone give me a reference where I can read about DC-X? Matt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 22:51:26 GMT From: Eric H Seale Subject: Gaspra Animation (QuickTime) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary mike@rahul.net (Mike Smithwick) writes: >Is this file compressed or corrupted somehow? The Zmodem hurled when >trying to download this so I finally went to Kermit. But the >quicktime readers I have don't recognize it at all. Ditto. I tried downloading in binary (with / without MacBinary enabled) and ascii modes -- none of my programs can do a thing with the results either. Could this be re-posted in BinHex'ed format? Eric Seale #include ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 93 22:54:46 GMT From: 2hwwhuwa@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Subject: Martian Winter (When?) Newsgroups: sci.space I have a question that should be pretty straight forward. I need to know at what part of its orbit around the Sun is it winter in the northern hemisphere of Mars? By what part I mean, at what longitude relative to Earth's vernal equinox is the vernal equinox of Mars in the ecliptic plane or something equivelent to that. I would very much appreciate it if someone could either give me the answer to direct me to where I can find the answer. Please reply via e-mail if possible because I can't always get back to check sci.space every day. Joseph A. Huwaldt jhuwaldt@aerospace.ae.ukans.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 93 21:37:29 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Response to various attacks on SSF Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Mar15.183934.19908@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: >In article <15MAR199311323329@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> >dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes: >Would you please define the following terms used in your discussion of SSF >management? I can't find them in my dictionary. These are pretty much 'standard' terms -- jargon, if you prefer. ;-) >"flowed down", or "flowdown" Things start with high-level requirements. These must be allocated to who is going to produce the product that fulfills them, may generate secondary requirements, etc. The purpose of 'flowdown' is to make sure that all the requirements actually get allocated to somebody to fulfill, so that there's always someone who is responsible for making sure that a specific piece of hardware/software will be 'held responsible' for meeting each of the system requirements. 'Flowdown' is how you make sure that no system requirements get dropped on the floor. Then you have to do traceability from the design back to the requirements, to prove that you actually designed the system that was asked for. Kinda fuzzy, but it gives you the idea. >"baselined" This is the term used for when things are put under change control. All documents, requirements, designs, drawings, software, etc. is put under Configuration Management control. Once something is baselined, you cannot simply go in and arbitrarily change it. Any changes must be reviewed by a Configuration Control Board, approved, QC'd, etc. This is also how you 'step back' to a prior version (when talking about software). CM is responsible for knowing which baselined version of what is used to be each revision level of a system. Hope this helps clear all that up a bit. [I have nothing to do with NASA, but this isn't that unusual a way to work.] -- "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: 15 Mar 93 21:39:05 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Retraining at NASA Newsgroups: sci.space In article brian@galileo.jsc.nasa.gov (Brian Donnell) writes: >What do you call Bush's SEI? While I disliked Bush in almost all >other respects, his and Quayle's support of the Space Program was nothing >short of enthusiastic... When Griffin wanted a lousy $30M to get some *unmanned* lunar work started, and Congress balked, as best I can tell Bush did not lift a finger in support. He talked a good fight, but did not seem to be willing to commit serious time, effort, and political capital to making SEI happen. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 93 12:30:36 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Retraining at NASA Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.flame brian@galileo.jsc.nasa.gov (Brian Donnell) writes: >Major sigh...I think most of us within NASA who read these >threads look at them with a sense of resignation. People >like Nick Szabo and Tom McWilliams are so misinformed, >it's depressing to even attempt to correct them. Of course. Criticism of you means we're "misinformed." And you have to spend our tax money to sit there and upbraid us for it, meanwhile your projects slip farther behind schedule, get more functionality deleted from them and cost even more. But if we point out these embarassing facts, we're "misinformed". Now, while taking the time to "inform" us you would think Mr. Donnell's post would contain at least one piece of NASAfact, eg cost estimates derived by illegal accounting methods, how many "high-tech aerospace jobs" (really bureacratic paper pushers who could just as easily work for the HUD or VA) are created by NASA in Houston, ad nauseum. But no, not one tidbit for this poor misinformed soul! How dissapointing. >NASA's PR in general has been pathetic Spending my tax money on PR to spread your idiotic lies ("the shuttle will lower launch costs") and sadly delusional visions ("the space station is the next logical step") instead of actually making projects that work and do something useful at an affordable cost is pathetic. Get off this stupid forum and get back to work, you lazy, good-for-nothing exemplar of why socialism sucks. If you don't like this post forward it to your boss, he would be proud of you. Meanwhile, you might want to take a second look at that ex-NASA employee resume; perhaps you are the one who needs to be informed. -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 93 17:47:13 GMT From: CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON Subject: REVIEW article on crystal growth in space Newsgroups: sci.space I am having a hard time to find a REVIEW article on crystal growth in microgravity. I have contacted a guy here at NASA that works on that and he told me that there are none. There anyone in the NET knkows of any review article on that??? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 93 23:55:53 GMT From: Mike Van Pelt Subject: Road & Track road tests 1996 JPL Rocky IV Microrover Newsgroups: sci.space In article dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes: >the review I'd like to see is for the Saturn V's tractor trailer... >weight of umpity umpity tons, top speed 0.something miles per hour, >acceleration of near zero and with a pretty looooonnnng stopping distance. They did that one... I forget the year, but I've got a copy at home. It's hilarious. -- "The American Republic will endure, until Mike Van Pelt politicians realize they can bribe the people mvp@netcom.com with their own money." Alexis de Tocqueville ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 22:16:06 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Sisters of Mars Observer (was Re: Refueling in orbit) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1o2bvtINNfb9@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >|>I thought MO was supposed to be one in a whole series of spacecraft? >| >|The key word is "was". The Observer series is dead... > >How many were planned in the Mars Observer series? It was supposed to be an open-ended series, doing modest-cost planetary missions at regular intervals in the same way that the Explorer series does modest-cost space-science and astronomy missions. The intent was that it copy another important feature of the Explorer series: steady annual funding for an ongoing program, rather than a political battle to get separate approval for each mission. That part, unfortunately, didn't happen, and that may have been the death knell for the Observer series right there. There were half a dozen missions listed as early Observer candidates. Lunar Observer was pencilled in as the one after MO -- flying much the same instruments in lunar polar orbit. The Observers were also supposed to be based on a standard commercial satellite bus, with only the instruments and a few other details changing with the mission. There's no particularly good reason why a commercial comsat or something of that ilk couldn't function perfectly well around Mars or Venus, with minor adjustments to things like the size of the solar arrays. Unfortunately, while MO *is* based on a commercial bus (the one RCA builds for low-orbit weather satellites), there have been many, many, many, many, many changes and the cost has skyrocketed. > ANd why did they use >the TOS stage for the titan? launch. why not use the centaur. >a much more proven launch vehicle. Centaur is much bigger and a good deal more expensive. It's costly overkill for something the size of MO. And MO wasn't originally supposed to be TOS's first flight. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 18:20:19 GMT From: Ed McGuire Subject: Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy,news.admin.policy [Please note that news.admin is a bogus group. Use news.admin.misc or news.admin.policy. Also note followups directed to n.a.policy only.] In "William C. Hulley" writes: > - someone will try to post anonymously and when that post is > "moderatedly moderated" he or she will contact the EFF and the ACLU > and begin, probably through the courts, an action to protect our > first amendment rights. The First Amendment protects USA citizens from its government. This appears to be the action of a private citizen, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. If you can show you are substantially damaged by the action, sue him. Ignore his cancels if you like, they are only advisory. Regards, Ed -- Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780 Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234 Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110 Intellection, Inc. Raise Usenet quality. Read news.announce.newgroups and vote. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 1993 23:32:20 GMT From: Jon Leech Subject: Venus and Mars Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar15.223439.1248@cc.ic.ac.uk>, atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi) writes: |> Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Plain old moss loves the constituents |> of the Venus atmosphere, and is highly resistent to attack from UV, acid etc.. |> If its spores were released at high altitude on Venus, they would happily float |> around converting the CO2 to Oxygen. Presuming this is true, I'd think we would find large quantities of moss spores floating around in Earth's atmosphere. Are they there? If not, why not? Jon __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 22:34:38 GMT From: Ata Etemadi Subject: Venus and Mars, was Re: TIME HAS INERTIA Newsgroups: sci.space In article , et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes: -| In article abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes: -| >[...] -| >VENUS should be given an near Earth like orbit to become a Born Again Earth -| Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Plain old moss loves the constituents of the Venus atmosphere, and is highly resistent to attack from UV, acid etc.. If its spores were released at high altitude on Venus, they would happily float around converting the CO2 to Oxygen. It would take roughly 100 years for the spores to reach the surface of Venus, by which time the atmosphere would also have been converted. I think terraforming is really a branch of bioengineering. Other approaches just don't make economic, or practical sense. regards Ata <(|)>. -- | Mail Dr Ata Etemadi, Blackett Laboratory, | | Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, | | Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, | | Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, ENGLAND | | Internet/Arpanet/Earn/Bitnet atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk or ata@c.mssl.ucl.ac.uk | | Span SPVA::atae or MSSLC:atae | | UUCP/Usenet atae%spva.ph.ic@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 21:13:38 GMT From: "Grant W. Petty" Subject: Winding trails from rocket Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology In article bible@iastate.edu (Anthony E Bible) writes: > > I can respond to the question about time of day. Launches > from Vandenberg go into (nearly) polar orbits. The time of day > determines what the angle will be between the orbital plane and the > sun. For example, launch at sunset or sunrise and you get a twilight > orbit which has a 90 degree sun angle. Launch into a noon orbit (high > noon or midnight) and you have a zero degree sun angle. One of the > reasons this is important is the sun angle determines the heat loads > and distribution on the vehicle. A twilight orbit puts one side > always to the sun and the other always to outer space. In that case > you'd like to paint the vehicle so it absorbs little solar on one side > and radiates little heat on the other. Of course, after three months > all twilight orbits become noon orbits and vice versa, but for short Actually, it's very rare that the plane of a near-polar satellite orbit is fixed relative to the universe the way the last comment implies. Rather, they precess on account of the oblateness of the earth. The exact rate of precession depends on several orbital parameters, such as inclination angle, orbital altitude, etc. Most polar-orbiting weather satellites (e.g., NOAA) are placed in orbits that precess at the rate of 1 revolution per year -- this is called a sun-synchronous orbit. The result is that the satellite always views a given geographic location at about the same local time (or sun time) each day, even after years in orbit. -- Grant W. Petty gpetty@rain.atms.purdue.edu Assistant Prof. of Atmospheric Science (317) 494-2544 Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences FAX:(317) 496-1210 Purdue University, West Lafayette IN 47907-1397 ------------------------------ From: Doug Mohney Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary Subject: Re: plans, and absence thereof Date: 15 Mar 1993 20:20:39 GMT Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park Lines: 26 Message-Id: <1o2oenINN8l0@mojo.eng.umd.edu> References: Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: king.eng.umd.edu Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article , szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >(Sorry for the harsh language, but the gall of Dennis Wingo to sit >here and use my tax money to harangue me that the problem with the space >program is that everybody in the U.S. doesn't agree with and fork over >money for his archaic Plan which has already squandered $100's of >billions, just torks the hell out of me. Again my apologies to yourself >and third parties). Nick. You're a fanatic. Please. What's the difference between you and Korish? You don't live in Waco, Texas. I wasn't aware that your one penny of every dollar of tax money was bigger than the one penny of every tax dollar Mr. Wingo pays. Or your taxes paid thereby gives you exclusive rights to HARANGUE any goverment employee whom you see fit to do so. If that's the best you can come up with for a vent, the lithium is over that way... Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it? -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 319 ------------------------------