space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (11/10/90)
This message was originally submitted by space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE
to the SPACE list at UGA. If you simply forward it back to the list, it will be
distributed with the paragraph you are now reading being automatically removed.
If you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will need to
remove this paragraph before mailing the result to the list. Finally, if you
need more information from the author of this message, you should be able to do
so by simply replying to this note.
----------------- Message requiring your approval (288 lines) -----------------
SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 521
Today's Topics:
Re: Spell u-l-y-s-s-e-s
Re: Pioneer 11 Update - 10/30/90
Ulysses speeding up rel. to the sun
Rep. Conte on SETI
Galileo Update #2 - 11/01/90
Creationists and Moon Dust
Apollo 6
Re: ** Need Orbit Params for SPECIAL satellites **
Re: Rep. Conte on SETI
ILC Dover (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap)
Administrivia:
Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 90 15:21:48 GMT
From: agate!darkstar!helios!sla@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Allen)
Subject: Re: Spell u-l-y-s-s-e-s
In article <1990Nov1.023503.18670@frey.nu.oz.au> c8921212@frey.nu.oz.au (Luke Pl
aizier) writes:
> Recent speculation has arisen as to the pronunciation of
>Ulysses.
> Is there a correct way and/or a preferred way to say this word?
> TTFN - Luke.
According to Webster, the correct way to say it is
o.dis'us or o.dis'e.us
:-) :-) ;-)
Steve Allen
sla@helios.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 90 17:11:51 GMT
From: lib!thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu@tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Pioneer 11 Update - 10/30/90
In article <3710@syma.sussex.ac.uk> andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes:
>From article <4259@lib.tmc.edu>, by jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Mayna
rd):
>>> The Pioneer 11 spacecraft emergency was terminated at 3:29PM (PST)
>>>yesterday.
>> OK, I'll bite...how was it terminated? Did we get it back? Is it lost for
>> good?
>> Is some of it working, but not all? Inquiring minds want to know.
>Try READING Ron's posting this time. The man said that the EMERGENCY was
>terminated, NOT the spacecraft. Unless of course you want the emergency
>brought back to life and the problems to start all over again....
(Note for those who didn't see the original: the sentence after >>> above is
the complete information content of the original posting.)
I DID read the original posting. It was, as you see, really informative. :-(
I was asking HOW the emergency was terminated. Terminating the spacecraft
is one way to terminate the emergency, just as pronouncing a patient dead is
one way to treat the emergency of his heart attack.
How about reading MY posting before you flame?
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 90 21:38:43 GMT
From: att!cbnews!cbnewsm!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Ulysses speeding up rel. to the sun
After not seeing any good answers as to why Ulysses was speeding up
relative to the Sun, I did some thinking and came up with the following
scenario:
Assume that Ulysses was boosted out of Earth orbit in such a direction
that it was originally at a tangent to the Earth's orbit - not an
unusual direction for a boost to the outer planets. If started of in such
a direction its velocity w.r.t. the Sun would be 0. As Ulysses gained
speed, its orbit around the Sun would go from roughly circular to highly
elliptical, thereby increasing its component of velocity away from the Sun.
Even though the actual conditions may not have been as described in this
idealised case, the effect of the elliptical orbit could still outweigh
the effect of the Sun's gravity on Ulysses velocity w.r.t the Sun?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM | Hi!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 12:01 EST
From: ELIOT@cs.umass.EDU
Subject: Rep. Conte on SETI
X-Envelope-To: space+@andrew.cmu.EDU
X-Vms-Cc: ELIOT
Some of you may remeber the SETI fiasco. My congressman, Silvio Conte
happens to have been one of the key people behind the attempt to zero
fund SETI. Today I finally recieved a response to the letter I sent him
at the time.
Basically he says that the conmmittee of conferees from the House and
Senate in which he participated has approved $12.1 million for SETI (the full
original budget request) and $6,230,600,000 for NASA as a whole ($1B
over fiscal 1990).
The letter is purely informative with no indication of the position that
Rep. Conte took personally on this issue.
Chris Eliot
Umass/Amherst
------------------------------
Date: 2 Nov 90 00:55:51 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke
)
Subject: Galileo Update #2 - 11/01/90
Galileo Status Report
November 1, 1990
The Plasma Science instrument's protective sun shade on the Galileo
spacecraft was retracted today as planned. Preliminary telemetry information
indicates proper retraction did occur. Two more delta DOR (Differential
One-way Ranging) navigation activities were attempted today. One activity
using 70 meter antennas in Goldstone and Spain was successful, the other using
the 70 meter antenna pair in Goldstone and Australia was not due to improper
predict information at the Goldstone station.
___ _____ ___
/_ /| /____/ \ /_ /|
| | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov
/___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 |
|_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 |
------------------------------
Date: 2 Nov 90 16:02:42 GMT
From: uokmax!munnari.oz.au!brolga!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!zeus!s64421@apple.com (hou
se ron)
Subject: Creationists and Moon Dust
Creationists around here are claiming that before the moon shots,
scientists were worried about the space craft sinking in metres of
dust which they thought should have accumulated since the moon was
formed. As we know, very little dust was there, and they say this is
proof that the moon is only six thousand years old.
Does any one know whether their claim about prior expectations is
correct? If it is, does any one know why there is so little moon
dust?
--
Regards,
Ron House. (s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 90 16:41:15 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bbn.com!nic!bunny!engtech@ucsd.edu
(Abe Lockman)
Subject: Apollo 6
Here's one for the historians.
In the letters of the oct 29 AWST, the is a letter
disputing shuttle/saturn safety records. It says, the closest
we
ever came to losing a saturn was appollo 6 where "dangerous pogo
oscilations built up in the second stage" and " the fourth stage
failed to reignite". Now I don't know what the point of Apollo6
was, but i think this ties into the cutting the center engine
discussion.
So was this flight in trouble?, Did the robust design
of the S5 save it? what modifications resulted form lessons
learned?
Also I found the may 1979 smithsonian article and it talks
about skylab. It says the skylab was an S-IVB with the ATM
(Converted MOL) and it was launched on an S-2.
So did they short stack an Saturn 5, just 1st and 2nd
stages, and then use teh skylab to top the stack?
maybe the article just used screw ball terminology. I was just
wondering what happened to the third stage.
thanks
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 90 15:04:25 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hydra!jta@ucsd.edu (Jon T. Adams)
Subject: Re: ** Need Orbit Params for SPECIAL satellites **
In article <13930@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com writes:
>In article <1990Oct30.214707.21654@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> cyamamot@kilroy.jpl.nasa
.gov (Cliff Yamamoto) writes:
>>Greetings!
>>
>>I'm trying to locate some orbit parameters for a couple of unusual
>>satellites. They are actually spheres that just circle the earth.
>> [.......]
>>Catalog # 14075 and 15080.
>>
>Do they do anything or are they just inert? If so, why are they there?
>
>I didn't know we had bowling balls on orbit. :-)
>
>John
>
Actually, they're no good as bowling balls. They're hollow metal spheres
that are used as radar calibration targets. A sphere has a well-defined
radar cross-section that doesn't change with orientation... While on the
other hand, so much of the other stuff UP THERE is wierd shaped (technically
speaking) and so the radar cross-section varies wildly as a function of
view angle!
-jon
--
Jon Trent Adams, NW6H |"As nightfall does not come at once, neither
JTA@hydra.jpl.nasa.gov | does oppression... It is in such twilight that
"jpl don't know me from squat"| we all must be most aware of change in the air-
however slight- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." W.O. Douglas
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 90 20:22:08 GMT
From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Rep. Conte on SETI
In article <0F06411F177F0012F2@cs.umass.EDU>, ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes:
>Some of you may remeber the SETI fiasco. My congressman, Silvio Conte
>happens to have been one of the key people behind the attempt to zero
>fund SETI. Today I finally recieved a response to the letter I sent him
>at the time.
[...stuff about full funding cut...]
>The letter is purely informative with no indication of the position that
>Rep. Conte took personally on this issue.
We could always start a search for intelligence life in Congress, but I'm
doubtful if the chances are 3 in 535 that we'd find any up on the Hill.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 90 15:44:39 GMT
From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: ILC Dover (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap)
Greetings.
Who is ILC Dover, where are they located, and what do they do (besides
making spacesuits)? Also, does anyone out there know the names of other
LLNL contractors, aerospace especially (maybe their locations, too)?
BTW, I love the Fred vs. LLNL debate that's going on. The flames are
minimal, and the postings are informative. Thanks.
Also, if my .signature doesn't appear, please email and let me know.
--Glenn Serre
serre@tramp.colorado.edu
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest V12 #521
*******************Linda_Zylich.roch@XEROX.COM (11/13/90)
Please remove me from this dl. Thank you.