Date: Tue, 18 May 93 06:10:17 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #587 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 18 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 587 Today's Topics: Adaptive Optics DC-X Publicity EarthSat close encounters GIF/TIF/etc dither/half-tone? I want to be a (NASA) space cadet Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) (2 msgs) Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones) (2 msgs) Over zealous shuttle critics Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Questions for KC-135 veterans Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games Saturn (was Re: Dance of the Planets) SDIO kaput! (2 msgs) Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs) Space Marketing would not be wonderful! 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, 18 May 1993 02:54:52 GMT From: Mark Elowitz Subject: Adaptive Optics Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In regards to adaptive optics working better in the IR region rather than the visible region of the spectrum, define the following parameters: theta = Angle of reference star object tau = Coherence time of the atmosphere r = Characteristic size of about 20cm Since these parameters all increase with wavelength to the power of 1.2, the most rapid progress has been made in the IR, because The number of characteristic-sized patches across a telescope is much smaller in the IR than in the visible Corrections are needed less frequently, and Fainter, more numerous reference stars can be used. Instead of using natural reference stars, could lasers be used by scattering the beam off of the sodium layer in the upper atmosphere, etc. , to act as an artifical reference star? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:51:37 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: DC-X Publicity Newsgroups: sci.space steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >In article <1t48no$gip@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > No. Do this. > Have the DC-X1, make an unscheduled landing at teh 50 yard > line during the halftime show of This years Superbowl. >It is hard to know which would have greater impact on humanity, >the incineration of the half-time entertainer on live TV (maybe >pepsi could be a co-sponsor), or the effect of the exhaust footprint >sweeping across the luxury seats at the 50 yard marker... >;-) Can't we just have it land at the Campaign '96 Presidential Debates instead? -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:06:54 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: EarthSat close encounters Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Jost Jahn used to post close approaches of asteroids to one another. I was wondering, wouldn't the same approach be possible for artificial satellites? i.e. I doubt if ground controllers would spend much time ensuring that their satellite is continually moved to avoid all the thouandsoof objects being tracked, I presume the chances of collisions are very small and they're prepared to take their chances. Still, it would be interesting to see a list of the closest approaches of one satellite to another each day. A second list might be those visible to eye or binoculars? Suppose I could write the software in a few weeks, but does anyone know if exists already or have something that could be easily modified? -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address). Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.035%) growing fast! up another notch by mid May 1993!-----^ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 03:34:47 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: GIF/TIF/etc dither/half-tone? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.astro.fits Does anyone know anything about software and hardware to produce half tones (suitable for making plates for printing) from GIF/TIF/FITS/etc format files? Packages I have produce 'dithers' which I don't think are the same. -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address). Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.035%) growing fast! up another notch by mid May 1993!-----^ ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 1993 21:24:43 -0400 From: Pat Subject: I want to be a (NASA) space cadet Newsgroups: sci.space In article CZ45@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ45000) writes: > What does a mission specialist really do - both during a mission > and between them? Lot's of PR. pat ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 93 19:01:50 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <17MAY199315161242@juliet.caltech.edu> irwin@juliet.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes: In article <1993May17.123001.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes... >progress toward a Buck Rogers future. You'll have to come up with a >more convincing explanation than blaming it on a single President >who's been in office a few months. (Hint #1: Maybe you can't lay the >blame fully on any President or set of Presidents. Hint #2: And Hint #3...if you really want to find a scapegoat who has occupied the Oval Office, how about that guy who killed Apollo...what was his name? Nixon? (OK...Congress didn't exactly go out of its way to save Apollo either back then). Hell, the STS commission that laid down the specs for the shuttle was the Agnew commission - no wonder it's screwed, eh? The SRBs first fired in April(?) 1977, anyone _really_ think that Carter could have cancelled them and and mandated LRBs at that point? | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 02:54:06 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <17MAY199315161242@juliet.caltech.edu> irwin@juliet.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes: > >And Hint #3...if you really want to find a scapegoat who has occupied the >Oval Office, how about that guy who killed Apollo...what was his name? Nixon? Don't forget the *real* reason that Nixon ignored the space program and didn't even bother showing up for the launch of Apollo 11. Hint #4 What was the name of the aircraft carrier that was supposed to lead the Apollo 11 recovery force but was replaced by the USS Hornet on Nixon's personal request? A. USS John F. Kennedy (no smiley's, I'm afraid :-( :-( :-( -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:44:49 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones) Newsgroups: sci.space Leigh Palmer writes: >I watched the landing live, including that part, and I didn't hear the >statement conventionally attributed to Armstrong. >There were other statements I did hear about seeing purple rocks. The >astronauts had been primed by their geology teachers to look for purple >rocks. The geologists said that the presence of purple rocks would be a >very important discovery. The reports, however, were a "practical joke" >played on the geologists by Armstrong and Aldrin; there were no purple >rocks. If Apollo 11 had not returned safely to Earth it is possible that >no further expeditions to the moon would have been made, and our only >direct geological evidence would have been the statement about purple >rocks. >I've always felt that sending jet jockeys on an expedition and passing >them off as scientists was a bad, even fraudulent, idea. That "joke" only >reinforced my feelings. >Leigh You say that as if REAL scientists have never played jokes like that. They do it all the time. I'm sure the guys on the ground recognized sarcasm. I'm pretty sure they'd have done the "hell! there's an alien!" thing if they'd have thought of it. One of the teams was making jokes about footprints and tire tracks being stuff not left by them... and they were _obviously_ joking. As for the jet jockey comment, I'm sure Mary Shafer will try to be merciful. Hint: both Armstrong and Aldrin had PhD's in engineering... -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 02:33:06 GMT From: Ha Li Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones) Newsgroups: sci.space > robink@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Robin Kenny) writes: >"That's one small step for (a) man, one damn leap for mankind!" ^^^^ >Robin Kenny - who doesn't hear that as "big" and is curious who else doesn't... "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:42:36 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics Newsgroups: sci.space prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >I suspect that 50 years from now, one will find an engineering history >book with the shuttle, the great eastern, and the spruce goose >all in one chapter. >pat The Great Northern and the Spruce Goose will be in one chapter. The shuttle will share another with the R-101. -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 93 00:06:52 GMT From: Dan Williams Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Newsgroups: sci.space Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.uucp) wrote: : In article <1so3lo$2m6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: : > : > : >THere you go again. MOre thumb promoting, quinto-podal leaning : >atavism :-) : > : >I think jane goodal documented basic tool use among the : >gombe chimps. and i think any sort of multi purpose : >tentacle could also make a highly effective affector. : : Chimp grasping ability is limited by the lack of an opposable : thumb, though a three finger arrangement, mutually opposable, : is feasible for an alien. Boneless tentacles can exert considerable : pull but not push due the the lack of leverage imposed by the lack : of hinged bones. : : >I could visualize some sort of multi-tentacled land creature, : >which developes a pretty good tool culture. it could even : >be amphibious, or aquatic. something like an octopus, : >with a bigger brain. : : Lack of a skeleton means that muscles have to actively resist : gravity at all times on land rather than supplying only balancing : forces. That means that much more energy would be required for the : creature to function. The bones also supply leverage points for : pushing and lateral movement. That's why you don't find large : active boneless creatures on land. : Shells also provide protection from gravity, and also from loss of precious water. Large variable tides would subject a variety of sealife to the rigours of a duo-environment. : In water, the situation is considerably better since bouyancy : supplies the necessary resistance to gravity. However, water : imposes constraints on technology in several respects, primarily : in metalworking and the use of combustion for external energy : requirements. It's hard to imagine aquatic creatures developing : the technology for spaceflight. : Water dwelling creatures have a significant disadvantage but prehaps anphibious creatures or water dwellers that have returned to the land would avoid the problems of a strict aquatic upbringing. Maybe otters could do it. : Many tentacles, like many eyes, run into problems with processing : overload. In any evolutionary situation where various creatures : can develop, those with sufficient, but not excess, sensors and : manipulators tend to prosper. It's interesting to note that, on : land, creatures are either two legged or 4 legged, with tiny insects : having 6 or 8 legs, but never 3 legged, though that would be a : stable configuration. It can be argued that 2 legged creatures : are actually 4 limbed, however, with two of the limbs not normally : used for locomotion. : 2 leggers are definitely four leggers with specialized functions evolved for the forelimbs. Either tool use, flight, or what ever. : So it seems Nature has decided that 4 limbs are : the necessary minimum for large active land creatures, and that : 6 or 8 are excess in creatures large enough to have complex brains. : I would argue that Nature has worked with several successful bus designs in creating different species. Insects do walk on a double tripod base, I know of no three legged species but 5 limbs are common amoung some groups, {Elephants, and new world monkeys} How about snakes? Crustaceans, clams, or slug. The squid might be a good base design. Grow a shell to provide support, use large tentacles to pull the body along and retain the smaller tentacles as manipulators combined with the mandibles to provide leverage. Of course this creature requires either wheels under the shell, or a natural environment of a thick algal mat to ease the drag on its shell. :-) I would consider it to be a falacy to expect life to have evolved under rules simular to what guided life on this planet. Materials taken advantage of could be diferent, as could base structures. What if the intelligent creature is some form of communal organism. In any case a new bus type for a three legged creature would be at a serius disadvantage verses a four legged creature in our current environment. Four leggers have had too much of an evolutionary head start. In a new environment there could be different conventions or starting points that make the use of a tripod base the norm, or something even more startling. : Thermodynamic considerations of surface/volume relationships would : seem to dictate that active complex creatures stay in a size range : similar to what we see about us. 6 inch tall intelligent aliens : seem unlikely, as do those much larger than the elephant. : Giants were not unknown in this world and given a little longer development time may have produced intelligent tool users. Our own species ranges from 7 foot giants to under 3 feet tall. It might have been harder to survive outside that range, but we really don't have enough of a sample to say it is impossible to be intelligent tool users on either end of the scale. -- -------------------/\/\__/\/\------------------------------------- Daniel J. Williams \/0~__~0\/ These opinionated statements are mine! Email: ( /oo\ ) and no-one elses. djwilli@uswnvg.com |/VVVV\| 450-8569 \_**_/ Sometimes the Dragon Wins. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 1993 21:22:04 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans Newsgroups: sci.space Oddly enough, The IBM drives for SSF, are pretty much straight commercial drives (400 meggers) that have just been put in a pressure box. The IBM guys said 90% of the drives toughness comes from just really good commercial manufacturing, and they wouldn't even use the box were it not for the vacuum exposure requirement. I think the guy claimed the drive could ride out 10 g's while writing. If you really want to check, get gary coffman to shake test some gear for you. Being a grad student, he may give you a break. Of course being on usenet, he may charge you more :-) pat who has no commercial interest in Coffman enterprises. ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 93 17:41:32 PST From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games Newsgroups: sci.space A smallish point wrt the factors which limit resolution of space- based optics looking at the ground: there seems to be an impression that atmospheric blurring ("seeing") is a problem for meter-class apertures, and needs to be compensated for by active optics on the satellite. This isn't obviously true, as the refractive index variations responsible for "seeing" mostly occur in the dense, heated parts of the atmosphere near the ground, and cause ray deviations of something like an arc second (5e-6 radians) in visible light. Even if such deviations occurred at an altitude of 1e4 meters (about the height of the homogeneous atmosphere), the blurring at the ground would be 5e-6*1e4 meters, or 5 cm. Five centimeters is the diffraction limit of a two-meter mirror at 200 km, or a five-meter mirror at 500 km; so, considering that actual seeing mostly takes place considerably below 10 km, you shouldn't worry about it unless your satellite has a really huge optical system. (Which would undoubtedly cost lots of gigabucks, and achieve--what? Are there requirements for resolutions of a centimeter or less from satellite platforms that would justify spending vast treasure to satisfy?) There was a pretty good paper on space-ground resolution in "Issledovaniye zemli iz kosmosa," aka "Soviet Journal of Remote Sensing" sometime in the late 80's, but I don't have the precise reference handy, alas. Footnote: Other atmospheric effects, notably contrast-reducing aerosol scatter, can affect picture quality. But these aren't the same as "seeing," and have to be dealt with in other ways. Second footnote: There exist image enhancing schemes, such as those used to clean up HST and radiotelescope pictures, which use a priori information about the instrument and scene to beat the classical diffraction limit. These, however, are limited by the extent of the a priori information, and are subject to spoofing by a clever adversary, or by Murphy. Allen Thomson SAIC, Inc McLean, VA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For all I know, there are opinions in this message. Mine, all mine, none of them SAIC's. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:49:56 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: Saturn (was Re: Dance of the Planets) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1993May17.140415.21519@ll.mit.edu>, buchman@ll.mit.edu (Karl Buchmann) writes: > Someone had asked about the program, "Dance of the Planets" (sorry, I lost > the original post before I could email you directly - thus the repost). > I have the program in a DOS/VGA version. It's a commercial package from: [address deleted] Does anyone know of any other packages that plot the positions of Saturn's moons apart from 'Dance'? I ask because Saturn is returning and determining which moon is which and best time to look can be very laborious from tables with pen and calculator. My record is 6 moons with Celestron-8 (hoping to break record with 20"! Ireland's LARGEST telescope by the way! -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address). Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.035%) growing fast! up another notch by mid May 1993!-----^ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 93 01:17:16 GMT From: Todd Johnson Subject: SDIO kaput! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May14.225858.18756@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: ;In article <1993May13.185232.23448@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> Ben Burch writes: ;>I just heard on the radio (CNN Radio News) that the SDI has been renamed the ;>"Ballistic Missile Defense Initiative". It is to concentrate on ground-based ;>interceptors. ; ;Well, Liberals don't like technology, so what do you think? ; ;Liberals would rather waste tax money on social programs. I for one think ;our space program would go a long way if the welfare system wasn't sucking ;money away from it, stunting our technological development. ; ;Thank you Clinton for keeping us on Earth. ;In 20 years when someone asks me why we never went to Mars, I'll just say ;'Clinton' Actually, say "Nixon." Say it now, and say it forever. He was the one who squashed the last Apollo missions to the Moon (18 thru 21), he was the one who switched to Skylab and he was the one who kept a war chewing up $300 million a day. After he gave his little speech to the astronauts on the Moon, he lost any interest in a program that was started by a pair of stinking Liberals. Kennedy was the one who said "Let's go to the Moon." LBJ was the one who kept the money coming to see it through. (My recollection has them both as Liberals). Nixon was the one who killed it. ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1993 02:47:01 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: SDIO kaput! Newsgroups: sci.space It is true that Nixon killed Apollo. But it is not entirely true that Johnson was such a wonderfull guy. yes he did keep funding for Apollo coming. But he has killed the Apollo Aplication Program, which was supposed to follow after Apollo. SKylab was the only part of AAP saved. The reason why Nixon killed Apollo and Johnson did not was IMHO that Apollo achieved its goal during Nixon's turn and not before. Pawel Moskalik ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1993 00:39:47 GMT From: "Jeffrey L. Cook" Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher In a previous article, kyle@rodan.UU.NET (Kyle Jones) says: >I was curious how much of an eyesore this proposed flying >billboard would be so I did some rough calculations... > >...the billboard will only be visible for about four and three >quarter minutes per orbit, or 38 minutes per twelve hour night. > >This doesn't sound like a nuisance or an abomination to me. It's even better than that. In order to be seen from the United States (presumably the main target for advertising) the orbit would have to be highly inclined, with the northernmost point somewhere near the sunset terminator of the Earth. Thus it would be in the sky _only_ during falling twilight when the sky is still too bright to do any useful astronomical work. No need for concern about this thing interrupting deep-sky observations: Whenever the sky is dark enough for it to be a factor, the thing will be below the horizon. For the folks "down under" it's the same story, except the object would be in the sky only during morning twilight. Observatories nearer the equator would not be affected by any "light pollution" from the object, because the thing would be in darkness (or broad daylight) when it passes over. It would be _extremely_ unlikely that the object would pass through any particular field of view at any particular time, given its small size. All of the extremely rare occurrences when this could happen would be quite predictable--no worse than any existing satellites. Even better, if the orbit was aligned with the terminator in a nearly circumpolar orbit, the object would be continually bathed in sunlight, visible in twilight around the world (which would make the advertisers happy) and would _never_ be in the sky after dark (keeping the astronomers and horny starry-eyed lovers happy.) This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky (it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant impact on astronomical observations. I suspect there must be some kind of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this, people are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would so vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism. A whole lot of people advocate space development and exploration, including Carl Sagan. Their schemes often include huge orbiting space stations and vehicles. These structures would _dwarf_ this little billboard, but you don't hear Sagan referring to the kinds of gigantic interstellar spaceships appearing on his _Cosmos_ television show as an "abomination". How is mankind supposed to make use of space if every large structure going up there is to be condemned for destroying the pristine sanctity of heaven? Jeff Cook bx711@cleveland.FreeNet.Edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 1993 01:31:24 GMT From: Lazlo Nibble Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines bx711@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes: > This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky > (it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant > impact on astronomical observations. I suspect there must be some kind > of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this, people > are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would so > vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism. Buying Lichtenstein and paving it over with ground glass would also "demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism", but that doesn't make it a particularly attractive idea. Is that what this country has been reduced to? The planetary equivalent of a guy who gets his penis out at parties? -- Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:28:02 GMT From: "George F. Krumins" Subject: Space Marketing would not be wonderful! Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural bx711@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes: >In a previous article, kyle@rodan.UU.NET (Kyle Jones) says: (stuff deleted) >>...the billboard will only be visible for about four and three >>quarter minutes per orbit, or 38 minutes per twelve hour night. (stuff deleted) >It's even better than that. In order to be seen from the United States >(presumably the main target for advertising) the orbit would have to be >highly inclined, with the northernmost point somewhere near the sunset >terminator of the Earth. Thus it would be in the sky _only_ during >falling twilight when the sky is still too bright to do any useful >astronomical work. No need for concern about this thing interrupting >deep-sky observations: Whenever the sky is dark enough for it to be a >factor, the thing will be below the horizon. >For the folks "down under" it's the same story, except the object would >be in the sky only during morning twilight. Observatories nearer the >equator would not be affected by any "light pollution" from the object, >because the thing would be in darkness (or broad daylight) when it >passes over. It would be _extremely_ unlikely that the object would >pass through any particular field of view at any particular time, given >its small size. All of the extremely rare occurrences when this could >happen would be quite predictable--no worse than any existing >satellites. >Even better, if the orbit was aligned with the terminator in a nearly >circumpolar orbit, the object would be continually bathed in sunlight, >visible in twilight around the world (which would make the advertisers >happy) and would _never_ be in the sky after dark (keeping the >astronomers and horny starry-eyed lovers happy.) >This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky >(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant >impact on astronomical observations. I suspect there must be some kind >of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this, >people are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would >so vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism. >Jeff Cook bx711@cleveland.FreeNet.Edu This sounds reasonable *but* does anybody really know the intentions of the Space Merchants? (hey, isn't that the name of a sci-fi novel by Frederik Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth?) Is it really their intention to put the billboard into this type of orbit? Isn't a lot more expensive to put a satellite into a high inclination orbit? What worries me most is the bad precedent it would set. If one goes up, what's to prevent 10, or even 100 or more from being up there all at once? What body (if any) would govern this type of access to LEO? (It could be a lot worse than opening a can of worms -- it could be opening a can of a thousand, mile-long, inflatable billboards! :) (Personally, I couldn't give a hoot about "vividly demonstrat(ing) "the strength of Western capitalism.") George Krumins -- Pufferfish Observatory |^^^^^\^^^^| The Universe had its origin gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ^^^/\ \^^^ in two hockeysticks colliding / /\ \ "Home of the Hockeystick /_/ \_\ Memorial Telescope" ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 587 ------------------------------