Space Digest                Sat, 17 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 886

Today's Topics:
                     DC-X Followon Alert, Mark 2
                            DC-X Question
                         GPS - who, how,.....
                  GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
                    HRMS: 25 Arecibo Target Stars
                        Hubble, Why the hurry?
                   Lifting body spacecraft (HL-20?)
                        Moon Cable/Beanstalk.
                       SOIL PRODUCTION ON MARS
                   Why are meteor showers seasonal?

	Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
	"space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form
	"Subscribe Space <your name>" 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: 16 Jul 1993 20:26:03 -0500
From: hvanderbilt@BIX.com
Subject: DC-X Followon Alert, Mark 2
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Space Access Society Action Alert 7/16/93 -- DC-X Followon Funding
   (Mark 2 Version, 9 pm EDT, this replaces initial afternoon release)

Woops.  Remember when we told you two days ago that it was time to relax for a
while?  (In "SAS DC-X News" for 7/14/93.)  We hope y'all enjoyed your two-day
vacation; things have changed in DC, and key decisions on next years Defense
funding, and thus on DC-X's followon, look like being made in this coming week.


Background

The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, variously known as DC-X2 and SX-2
(Space Experimental 2).  This could end up as a suborbital vehicle powered by
8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4 orbital velocity)
and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and structure, and
able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  

The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  

Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  The money would
come out of the $3.8 billion BMDO budget already pretty much agreed on for
the coming year.  Total SX-2 program cost over the next three years would be
very much dependent on the contractor chosen and the details of the design,
but would be on the order of several hundred million.  This is the same order
of magnitude as typical recent X-aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.

SX-2 would start out under BMDO (formerly SDIO), so support from members of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC) is vital.  The
actual name they know SX-2 by is "followon funding for BMDO's SSRT (Single
Stage Rocket Technology) program."  The specific action we're calling for is
for Congress to "fence off" $75 million in BMDO funding for this project next
year -- we are not asking for any new funding authority, but rather for
reallocation of existing funding toward a DC-X followon.  


DC-X Test Program Update

The DC-X test vehicle was taken out of storage and trucked on its side out to
the flight test site at White Sands Missile Range, then erected on the launch
pad today.  Flight testing should start sometime in the next two weeks.  See
our next "DC-X News" for details.


SSRT Followon Funding Alert

What's happened is that Sam Nunn, William Natcher, and John Murtha are tired
of having the DOD funding process held up while the President comes up with a
coherent gays-in-the-military policy.  Nunn is Chair of the Senate Armed
Services Committee (SASC), Natcher of the House Appropriations Committee
(HAC), and Murtha of the HAC Defense Subcommittee.  Both SASC and HAC would
normally "mark up" their versions of the Defense money bills after the House
Armed Services Committee has had its shot at marking up -- but HASC is
chaired by Ron Dellums, and HASC Research & Technology subcommittee is
chaired by Patricia Schroeder, and they've been holding things up waiting for
Clinton's long-promised gays policy.  

Nunn came on the Senate floor this morning and announced that SASC was
marking up next week, and if Clinton didn't deliver a comprehensive gays
policy, Nunn would put his own in.  Regardless of the details of THAT brawl,
Nunn says he's determined to have the Senate version of the Defense money
bills settled before the August Congressional recess.  Natcher too is said to
have lost patience waiting on HASC -- Defense is the only money bill not
already completed in the House.  This means it's all likely to happen in the
next two weeks, and much of the key stuff from our point of view will be
settled by the end of next week.  

What this means for us is that we need to concentrate on Representative
Murtha's HAC Defense Subcommittee and Senator Nunn's SASC *RIGHT NOW*.  Our
best current information is that Murtha's subcommittee will mark up Monday,
and Nunn's full SASC will mark up Tuesday or Wednesday with no preliminary
markup by Senator Exon's subcommittee.  

Representative Dellums's HASC and Representative Schroeder's HASC R&T
Subcommittee could still be important to us, but they've dropped in priority
for the moment.  The initiative seems to have passed from them.  


SAS Recommended Action

Please phone, fax, or write Representative Murtha and Senator Nunn, in
addition to any members of Representative Murtha's HAC Defense Subcommittee
that may be from your area, and any members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee from your state.  

 -- Representative John Murtha (D, PA)
    phone 202 225-2065, fax 202 225-5709, 2423 RHOB, Washington DC 20515.

 -- Senator Sam Nunn (D GA)
    phone 202 224-3521, fax 202 224-0072, US Senate SD303, Washington DC 20510.

Lists of the other Representatives and Senators appended.

Keep phone calls brief, polite, and to the point - tell whoever answers that
you're calling to let them know you support fencing off $75 million of BMDO
(formerly SDIO) funding for a followon to the Single Stage Rocket Technology
("SSRT") program.  If you feel like it, throw in your favorite reason why
this would be a good thing.  If the person who answers wants to know more,
answer their questions as best you can, otherwise thank them and ring off.  

Letters too should should be brief, polite, and to the point, though you can
go into a bit more detail as to why a DC-X followon is the neatest thing since
sliced bread and good for the country too.  Keep it under a page and state
your basic point at the start.  It's probably too late to get snailmail to
Murtha and company before their markup.  Paper mail to Nunn and the SASC
should be in the mail Saturday morning to have any hope of arriving on time.  
If you can, send faxes instead.

Don't overdo it, but in general try to know who you're contacting and
emphasize benefits likely to appeal to them.  



     House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee List

Name                          office#        phone     fax  (AC 202)
("Representative XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them)

John Murtha (D-PA12)          2423 RHOB      225-2065  225-5709
Joseph McDade (R-PA10 RRM)    2370 RHOB      225-3731  225-9594
Jerry Lewis (R-CA40)          2312 RHOB      225-5861  225-6498
Charles Wilson (D-TX2)        2256 RHOB      225-2401  225-1764
Norm Dicks (D-WA6)            2467 RHOB      225-5916  226-1176
Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN5)      2336 RHOB      225-4755  225-4886
Julian Dixon (D-CA32)         2400 RHOB      225-7084  225-4091
W.G. Hefner (D-NC8)           2470 RHOB      225-3715  225-4036
Peter Visclosky (D-IN1)       2464 RHOB      225-2461  225-2493
Buddy Darden (D-GA7)          2308 RHOB      225-2931  225-0473
C.W. Bill Young (R-FL10)      2407 RHOB      225-5961  225-9764
Bob Livingston (R-LA1)        2368 RHOB      225-3015  225-0739
Joe Skeen (R-NM2)             2367 RHOB      225-2365  225-9599


     Senate Armed Services Committee List

Name                            office#           phone        fax  (AC 202)
("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them)

Sam Nunn (D-GA)                 SD-303            224-3521     224-0072
James Exon (D-NE)               SH-330            224-4224     224-5213
John McCain (R-AZ)              SR-111            224-2235     224-8938
Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)        SH-313            224-5744     224-3416
Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT)      SH-502            224-4041     224-9750
Bob Graham (D-FL)               SD-241            224-3041     224-6843
Dirk Kempthorne (D-ID)                            224-6142     224-5893
William S. Cohen (R-ME)         SH-322            224-2523     224-2693
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)        SR-315            224-4543     224-2417
Carl Levin (D-MI)               SR-459            224-6221     224-1388
Dan Coats (R-IN)                SR-504            224-5623     224-1966
Trent Lott (R-MS)               SR-487            224-6253     224-2262
Bob Smith (R-NH)                                  224-2841     224-1353
Lauch Faircloth (R-NC)          SH-716            224-3154     224-7406
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)            SH-524            224-5521     224-1810
John Glenn (D-OH)               SH-503            224-3353     224-7983
Strom Thurmond (R-SC)           SR-217            224-5972     224-1300
John Warner (R-VA)              SR-225            224-2023     224-6295
Charles S. Robb (D-VA)          SR-493            224-4024     224-8689
Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)           SH-311            224-3954     224-8070



Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
hvanderbilt@bix.com           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 02:42:10 GMT
From: stephen voss <voss@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Subject: DC-X Question
Newsgroups: sci.space

could someone send me a bunch of info on it so when I talk to my 
Senators office I dont sound like a complete moron.

1)What is it exactly in layman's terms
2)How much will it costr
3)Does it come with an 8 track player and a rear window defroster (ok 
just kidding about this one) ;-)

but im serious about first two questions

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 01:49:38 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <davem@ee.ubc.ca>
Subject: GPS - who, how,.....
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <glh.16.0@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> glh@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Gene Heyler) 
writes:
>
>   [in reply to a poster from Australia...]
>
>   How about subscribing to the monthly periodical GPSWorld? It is
>probably the best source of what's currently going on in the industry.

The last time that I checked, GPS World is only available to qualified
subscribers within the United States.  

If this has changed, please let me know!

--
Dave Michelson  --  davem@ee.ubc.ca  --  University of British Columbia

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1993 01:47:08 GMT
From: George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <stephens.742851680@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>>AS for Delivering People,  Ariane 4 is not certified for delivering
>>people.  it could be, i am sure alan has argued it could be made too,
>>but it is not available as a reliable planning option.  
>
>Couple of points. Ariane can reach any orbit from Guyana. It has 
>frequently launched into sun sync orbits (97 deg). The paylaod
>drops of course. British Aerospace proposed a 4 man 'super
>command module' to fly on the Ariane 44 back in 1987. Could have
>taken 6 back to Earth as crew return vehicle. It got nowhere fast.
>a. It was British, B. it was like something the Americans had done!
>c. The french wanted Hermes!


This would be the Multi-Role Capsule.  I've got some of the papers
describing it.  Neat little package, all said.  Arianne needed some
reinforcement to fly it (the upper stage needs to be stiffened)
and it needs to be man-rated, but otherwise a good design.
It had really great mass margins in the design, was estimated
to cost a reasonable amount, and would have been a great
vehicle for station crew rotation in its 6-man configuration.

ESA seemed to have the same fixation with Wings that NASA does,
though ;-)

That having been said, MRC is not a flyable design, short several
billion $ or ECU in development.  Arianne 4 isn't man-rated, though
doing so would be pretty easy I think.  And Arianne 4 doesn't have
the strengthened upper stage needed.  So MRC was a good "what-if"
exercise, but isn't any good for planning now.

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1993 01:48:04 GMT
From: Celeste Sleeper <ecs@pathos.caltech.edu>
Subject: HRMS: 25 Arecibo Target Stars
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

-----
My first attempt at posting this seems to have vanished.  If this is
not the first time you've seen this, my apologies.
----------



The following is a list of the 25 "target" stars that were observed at the 
Arecibo Observatory by NASA's High Resolution Microwave Survey Targeted Search.
They were selected from lists of near-by and sun-like stars.  The following 
criteria were applied to select the stars:


	1.  They must fall in the optimal declination range for Arecibo.
		This is roughly +8.5 degress to +28.5 degress.  The closer 
		to zenith the better, because the star would stay in the 
		optimal observing range for longer.  In general, we looked 
		for stars that were going to be in the optimal range for more 
		than an	hour, but this was not always possible.


	2.  They should be spaced roughly an hour apart in right ascension.  
		The observing plan called for an observation on a star to take
		about one hour.


	3.  The hour "blocks" chosen were based on the star picked to be 
		observed first.
		The first star, #1020, was selected because it was roughly 
		overhead at Arecibo and was also visible from the Goldstone 
		telescope in California on October 12, 1992. While the 
		Targeted Search observed star #1020 from Arecibo, the Sky 
		Survey scanned a portion of the sky containing that star with 
		the 34-m Venus Antenna at Goldstone.


	4.  This pretty well narrowed down what stars were available.  In 
		the cases of more than one possible star, distance was 
		usually the determining factor: i.e. the closer, the better.  



The complete list of target stars is still in preparation and will be published
later this year in a scientific journal.





ARECIBO TARGET STARS  --  1992


HRMS	Right Ascension		Declination		Star Catalogs						Distance	Apparent	Spectral
Target	Epoch 1950		Epoch 1950		GL	HD	SAO	Other Name	Constellation	(l.y.)		Magnitude	Type
Number	h	m	s	d	m	s							
1000 	0 	36 	45 	20 	58 	54 	27 	3651 	74175	54 Piscium	Pisces		34 		5.85 		K0 V
1001 	1 	39 	47 	20 	1 	36 	68 	10476 	74883	107 Piscium	Pisces		26 		5.22 		K1 V
1002 	2 	45 	12 	26 	51 	42 	113AB	17382 	75580			Aries		59 		7.61 		K1 V
1004 	3 	27 	37 	19 	56 	0 		21663 	93462 			Taurus/Aries	72 		8.32 		G5 V
1005 	4 	40 	29 	27 	35 	54 	176.2 	29883 	76728 			Taurus		73 		8.00 		K3 V
1006 	5 	34 	4 	20 	42 	24 	209 	37124 	77323 			Taurus		58 		7.67 		G4 IV-V
1007 	6 	23 	14 	18 	47 	18 	233AB	45088 	95677	OU Gem.		Gemini		49 		6.76 		K2 V
1009 	7 	51 	59 	19 	22 	30 	292.1 	64468 	97359 			Gemini		92 		7.87 		K6 V
1010 	8 	37 	7 	11 	42 	24 	315 	73667 	98015 			Cancer		64 		7.64 		K1 V
1011 	9 	9 	34 	15 	11 	54 	337A	79096 	98427	Pi 1  Cancri	Cancer		72 		7.25 		K0 V
1012 	10 	20 	3 	15 	35 	54 		89906 	99091 			Leo		82 		7.28 		G2 V
1013 	11 	51 	59 	19 	41 	24 	452.3A	103432 	99858 			Leo		63 		8.22 		G6 V
1014 	11 	52 	2 	19 	42 	24 	452.3B	103431 	99861 			Leo		63 		8.43 		G7 V
1015 	12 	16 	32 	11 	24 	0 				GL Virg		Virgo		21 		13.81 		M V
1016 	13 	14 	22 	17 	17 	0 	505A	115404 	100491 			Coma Beren.	39 		6.59 		K1 V
1017 	14 	49 	5 	19 	18 	24 	566AB	131156 	101250 	Xi Bootis A,B	Bootes		22 		4.70 		G8 V/K4 V
1019 	14 	51 	7 	19 	21 	12 	567 	131511 	101276 			Bootes		38 		6.02 		K2 V
1020 	16 	10 	58 	13 	39 	36 	615.1A	145958 	102018 	49 Serpens	Serpens		63 		7.36 		G8 V
1021 	16 	26 	41 	18 	31 	6 	627A	148653 				Hercules	56 		7.68 		K3 V
1022 	17 	51 	22 	21 	20 	0 	697 		85511 			Hercules	59 		8.48 		K5 V
1024 	19 	5 	43 	16 	46 	36 	746 	178428 	104551 			Aquila		55 		6.07 		G5 V
1025 	20 	38 	29 	19 	45 	12 	797A	197076 	106373 			Delph./Vulp.	65 		6.45 		G5 V
1026 	21 	42 	7 	14 	32 	36 	836.7 	206860 	107364 			Pegasus		49 		5.94 		G5 V
1027 	22 	48 	56 	13 	42 	6 		216259 	108215 	Wo9798		Pegasus		76 		8.30 		K4 V
1028 	23 	29 	20 	19 	39 	42 	896AB			EQ Peg A,B	Pegasus		21 		10.38 		M4 V/M6 V


Notes:	HRMS Target Number is a temporary internal catalogue number.
	GL refers to the Gleise Catalog.


Questions may be directed to either of the following:
	Celeste Sleeper		ecs@phobos.caltech.edu
	Peter Backus		peter_backus@qmgate.arc.nasa.gov







-- 
Celeste Sleeper - aka Ciela Andar | "I'm not even sure which planet I'm on."
ecs@phobos.caltech.edu		  | "Well, if there's a bright center to the
Astronomy Grad. Student		  | universe, you're on the planet that it's
Summer: NASA Ames HRMS Project	  | farthest from."  --C3PO and Luke: SW

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 04:03:03 GMT
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Hubble, Why the hurry?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <16JUL199320284922@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov>, abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:
> In article <CA9F9F.Hs1@scr.siemens.com>, masticol@scr.siemens.com (Steve Masticola) writes...
>>clarke@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Thomas L. Clarke) writes:
>> 
>>  As I understand it the recent Endeavour mission stayed up two
>>  more days [...] to provide the maximum amount of time
>>  to prepare for the upcoming Hubble repair mission in December.
>> 
>>  Why the hurry?  
>> 
>>  Or are there factors of which I am unaware?
>> 
>>In a word, yes.
>> 
>>Hubble is running on only one gyro; two (maybe three?) others have
>>failed. If the last gyro fails, it loses attitude control and starts
>>to tumble. It'd then be unserviceable, as well as useless for
>>observation. I'd think NASA would want to put in new gyros before that
>>happens.
>> 
>>- Steve (masticol@scr.siemens.com).
> 
> HST had six gyros, I think two are "dead in the water" failed, one is
> "still breathing, but I wouldn't bank on it" failed, and three are being
> used for control.  If there were another gyro failure, HST would tumble
> only if they didn't use the "still breathing" gyro, and I'm aware that
> HST tested out a zero-gyro safe-hold recently, with acceptable results.
> That mode could keep the spacecraft reasonably stable for a capture event
> in December.
> 
> Otherwise, I'd have to agree:  no-one wants to _have_ to resort to such
> measures.
> 
> David W. @ GSFC


But is there any indication that we know the time-scale for another gyro 
failure?  At least well enough to justify risking a possible worse disaster 
by rushing in haste?  I remember the attitude of the crew for the deployment 
launch - they kept at the "What if? and What could go wrong?" mantra.  
And I am glad of that.  Is there something more to the hurry than a 
vague feeling of 'get to it at all costs before something else happens'?  
Is there a time limit to a safe-hold that would justify risking rushing? 
Or is there a true perception of haste anyway? 

W. Hathaway 

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1993 01:31:06 GMT
From: George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Lifting body spacecraft (HL-20?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

hack@guenevere (Edmund Hack) writes:
>Dave Michelson (davem@ee.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: Is there even a schedule for the HL-20?  I was under the impression that it
>: was effectively dead.  What is its current status?  
>It may still be limping along in the advanced studies area at Langley, but it
>is certainly on life support.

Last I heard, it was back-burner but there was still a moderately sized
team at Langley on it.  I know one of them; Lance Bush, who was at ISU
last year.  He did a quick presentation on the design during the session.
And tantalizingly told us that a contractor (sounded a lot like the Skunk
Works from the description) had been invited to do a bid estimate on
building some and had given numbers back which were "Real High".
I don't know what that means.  We never weaseled the number out of
him... 8-)  

They still had a group of engineers working on it last I heard, but
it's not going anywhere.  The great station costing massacre has
probably grounded HL-20 forever.

-George William Herbert
Retro Aerospace

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1993 02:04:32 GMT
From: George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Moon Cable/Beanstalk.
Newsgroups: sci.space

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Moreover: if you had a material that was strong and light enough to
>make these cables, it would also make a dandy ultralight composite
>material, in which case launch vehicles would get much lighter.
>Remember, the payload on an SSTO goes up quickly if you can use
>lighter materials, so if SSTO is reasonably feasible now, it becomes
>much more so when built with unobtainium.

Well, do remember (and we've been talking about this on the space-tech
mailing list, for those who just get the newsgroup) composite structures
lose most of a fiber's strength by the time they're fully formed.
Much stronger fibers don't have equivalently better properties once
they are laid up, not porportionally.  There's some loss in that.

Some of the high-end carbon fibers are within an order of magnitude
of strong enough, and if I read my design with composites book right
some Silicon Carbide whiskers _are_ strong enough to build a
beanpole or tether from... I'll double check that tonight, but
some were showing much greater than million PSI failure strength
if I recall it right.

Don't bury tether concepts quite yet 8-)

I would second the last couple of sentences of Paul's though;
anything that's good for Tethers will be more good for rockets,
and it's gonna take a lot of rocket flights before we can ever
consider really building a tether, wether we do or not.

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1993 02:09:53 GMT
From: George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: SOIL PRODUCTION ON MARS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <742806263.AA02023@cheswicks.toadnet.org> Steve.Schaper@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (Steve Schaper) writes:
>If one could just get Mars the right atmosphere, lichen don't need
>soil, and many tundra species need very little. They will make soil.
>You would want to seed the soil in many locations with soil bacteria,
>then when the organic content is high enough, earthworms, etc.

You're putting the car before the road system here;
getting Mars the right atmosphere is about 95% energy and effort
wise of the effort needed to terraform it.  The plants will be
the easy (if not necessarily simple) part.  Ways to get Mars
an atmosphere are indeed being looked at, see for instance various
papers in the soon-to-be-published Case for Mars V proceedings
and the Case IV and III proceedings (already on better library
shelves everywhere ;-).  Oh, darn, that reminded me, I have to
get my final drawings and paper versions to the editors...
time to go offline for a while.  Ta ta... 8-)

-george

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1993 03:24:28 GMT
From: David Fagan <daf@bbn.com>
Subject: Why are meteor showers seasonal?
Newsgroups: sci.space

	I'm sure the answer to this must be simple, but it's been nagging at me
for a long time. Why do particular metor showers recur at the same time of
year?

	The simple answer is that there is a cloud of asteroids in the earth's
orbit which the earth passes thru at the same time each year. However,
don't I have to assume that the asteroids are in solar orbit as well? In
that case it seems unlikely that the earth would repeatedly encounter those
asteroids at the same point in its orbit. The only answer that leaves me is
that there is an asteroid belt (or many belts) which cross the earths
orbit. I've never heard anything to this effect, however.

I must be missing something. My endless gratitude to whomever can explain
this to me.

Dave Fagan
daf@bbn.com

------------------------------


          id ab26002; 16 Jul 93 21:07:59 EDT
To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:67154
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: Gene Heyler <glh@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: GPS - who, how,.....
Date: 16 Jul 1993 19:40:21 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 23
Sender: daemon@cs.utexas.edu
Message-Id: <glh.16.0@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Source-Info:  Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Source-Info:  Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <zuf.742791750@nella12.cc.monash.edu.au> 
you write:>From: zuf@nella12.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr J Zufi)
>Subject: GPS - who, how,.....
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 03:02:30 GMT
>Thanks for listening - I'm after info about GPS, i.e. articles,
>ftp sites, books, people-in-the-know, etc.
>
>Please post replies publicly as I know of a few other people
>seeking similar info.
>
>
   How about subscribing to the monthly periodical GPSWorld? It is
probably the best source of what's currently going on in the industry.

- Gene 
-------------------------------------------------------
Gene A. Heyler                                                     
Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied Physics Lab               
Bldg 24 Rm E131
Laurel, Maryland USA 20723-6099

Phone    :  (410) 792-5000 x 8664
InterNet :  GLH@APLCOMM.JHUAPL.EDU

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 886
------------------------------
