Date: Sat, 10 Sep 88 01:06:27 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8809100806.AA06162@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #356

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 356

Today's Topics:
			     Mir elements
		     Cosmonauts trapped in orbit
			      Cosmonauts
		  Is a PHOBOS Mars probe in trouble?
			Another Titan failure?
	     Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
			   Re: NASA Select
	     Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
			       Re: Seti
	       Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)
		   Re: access to space; how to deny
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 88 22:02:00 GMT
From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Mir elements


These are from before Soyuz TM-6 hard-docked, so take them with a
grain of salt...

Two-line elements for Mir        
1 16609U          88242.75924734 0.00028130           22000-3 0    00
2 16609  51.6187  49.6431 0019216 349.7518  10.2758 15.72217965    00

Object: Mir        
NORAD catalog number: 16609
Element set: Unavailable
Epoch revolution: Unavailable
Epoch time: 88242.75924734 (Mon Aug 29 18:13:18 UTC)
Inclination: 51.6187 degrees
RA of node: 49.6431 degrees
Eccentricity: 0.0019216
Argument of periapsis: 349.7518 degrees
Mean anomaly: 10.2758 degrees
Mean motion: 15.72217965 revs / day
Mean motion acceleration: 0.00028130 * 2 revs / day**2
B* drag term: Unavailable

Derived figures:
Semimajor axis: 6730.4 km.
Perifocal radius: 6717.46 km.
Apogee height: 365.186 km.
Perigee height: 339.32 km.
Mean longitude at the epoch: 0.8669 degrees.
Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic:
	Radius vector magnitude: +/-1.01 km.
	True anomaly: +/-0.0118 degrees.
	RA of node: +/-0.0259 degrees.
	Inclination: +/-0.0203 degrees.
Secular perturbations of the second harmonic:
	Argument of perigee: 3.8282 degrees/day
	RA of node: -5.1252 degrees/day
	Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion.
Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.640e-03, Y=-8.710e-04

Source: NASA Goddard via NSS Mir Watch Hotline

NOTE: Apogee and perigee heights are referred to a mean equatorial radius
      of 6378.145 km, and not to the local radius of the geoid.
      All derived quantities are calculated using the NORAD SGP model of
      Hilton and Kuhlman.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1988 18:27-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Cosmonauts trapped in orbit

I have just heard that the two Russian cosmonauts have had a computer
failure after undocking from MIR. They are too far away to return and
cannot fire their retros. They have two days of food/air. I have no
furthur info, and this is second hand. Anyone who can give me more
info, please do so.

I HOPE they can get a rescue off in 2 days, or come up with a
workaround. I hardly expect anybody at the NASA has the balls to try to
put Discovery up in 2 days, even to save lives.

I wish them luck. They need it.

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

Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1988 14:31-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Cosmonauts

As most of you probably know by now, the Cosmonauts are down. James
Oberg was on Nightline and discussed the problems. Apparently the USSR
uses some sort of limb sensor. They were attempting a night de-orbit
and their software got confused and refused to work. They eventually
solved the problem. I'm sure Glen will have a DETAILED report for us
real soon!

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

Date: 8 Sep 88 14:11:40 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: Is a PHOBOS Mars probe in trouble?


    	According to the September 7 BOSTON GLOBE newspaper from anonymous
    U.S. sources, one of the two PHOBOS probes to Mars (it was not
    specified which one) is allegedly having problems which are hampering
    communications with Soviet Mission Control.  There were no further
    details in the article.  Can someone post more on this situation as 
    things develop?
    
    	I sincerely hope this is just a rumor, and that it is quickly
    fixed if it is not.  The Soviets have not had much luck with their
    unmanned Mars probes.  At least the Soviets still have the good sense
    (and the budget) to launch two probes per planetary mission in case
    one probe has problems instead of just one probe per mission as seems 
    to be the case with NASA these days in their misguided attempts to 
    "save" money. 
    
    	Larry

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

Date: 4 Sep 88 14:59:27 GMT
From: nyser!cmx!anand@itsgw.rpi.edu  (Rangachari Anand)
Subject: Another Titan failure?


  I just heard on radio news (mutual) that the Vortex spy satellite launched
from Vandenberg on a Titan 4 has failed to reach the correct orbit. 
Apparently the third stage failed. Does anyone have more details?

  I am sure the Military must be getting pretty desperate by now. I remember
that a Titan carrying a KH11 exploded right after Challenger. I also
remember a TV news broadcast where they mentioned that only one KH11 is
left in orbit.

                                                           R. Anand
  Internet: anand@amax.npac.syr.edu
  Bitnet: ranand@sunrise

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

Date: 29 Aug 88 16:25:33 GMT
From: bungia!datapg!viper!dave@umn-cs.arpa  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes:
 >In article <2818@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes:
 >>Unfortunately, it is much harder to drop something into the sun than
 >>is it have it orbit Mercury or Venus.  Someone mentioned that the
 >>required delta-V was about 18 kilometers per second.
 >
 >I don't have the necessary data handy, but it should be possible to
 >send something to the sun by shooting it near Mercury (or maybe
 >Venus).  You might have to do some boosting near the planet, but this
 >is much more efficient than trying to do a drop (like in _Aliens_).

Actually, the easiest way (the minimal delta-v orbit) is to do
a flyby past Jupiter (you can get some boost from Mars on the
way if you really want the minimum).  Jupiter has enough mass
to totally cancel the payloads heliocentric momentum and let
it fall right in.  Of course, if you are going to go all the
way to Jupiter, why not let it drop right into the planet?
-- 
If you can't convince |   David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org)
them, confuse them.   |   Lynx Data Systems
   -- Harry S Truman  | 
                      |   amdahl   --!bungia!viper!dave
                      |   hpda    /

Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved
This work may be freely copied.  Any restrictions on
redistribution of this work are prohibited.

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

Date: 29 Aug 88 14:33:10 GMT
From: pitstop!sundc!hadron!klr@sun.com  (Kurt L. Reisler)
Subject: Re: NASA Select

In article <4135@mtgzy.att.com> rlf@mtgzy.att.com (r.l.fletcher) writes:
>I have seen repeated references to NASA Select, can someone
>please explain what it is and how do I get it?

Well, NASA Select is a service that is (can) be provided to lcoal cable
companies.  If you are currently a cable TV subscriber and are not sure
if you get NASA Select, you might try calling your cable company.  In
the DC area (DC, Northern Virginia and Maryland), NASA Select is carried
on channel 40 by Media General Cable.  Usuallt it just shows a blue and
black screen, with the logo "NASA SELECT" and the date and time.
However, when there is activity, such as the recent FRF and SRB test
firings, and missions, the coverage is LIVE and via more camera angles
then the networks show you.  In fact, it seems that the networks get
most (not all) of their camera angles from NASA Select.

Kurt

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

Date: 29 Aug 88 02:58:06 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

In article <1255@netmbx.UUCP> alderaan@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) writes:
>If we can send spacecrafts to the inner planets of our solar system,
>I think, it must be possible to let something like that crash into the
>sun, or not ?

Getting to the Sun is harder than getting to the inner planets.  The
problem is velocity, not distance.  It is necessary to nearly cancel
Earth's orbital velocity to put a payload into an orbit that intersects
the Sun.  This is beyond the capabilities of current Western rockets
for any useful payload.  Energia might be able to put perhaps 100 kg
into the Sun, with suitable upper stages.  [This is a very rough guess
based on some recollections of Saturn V performance examples.]  So it
is marginally possible but ruinously expensive.

>But if it's possible, why don't we send all our dangerous (radioactive)
>garbage to the sun ? ...

It's too expensive and the quantities are beyond current launch systems.
Current launch systems also are not reliable enough for such dangerous
cargo.

Actually, if one must get the stuff off Earth, a better approach might
be to crash it into some selected crater on the Moon.  This would be
a good deal cheaper and easier, and would permit recovery if the stuff
later turned out to be useful.

>At this time, U.S.A. and USSR destroy their expensive short range missles
>Why don't they modify them to be able to leave the earth's gravity
>field ? The payload could be Pt or other dangerous stuff ...

[Two nits:  these are medium-range missiles, not short-range ones, and
the chemical symbol for plutonium is Pu, not Pt.]

The payloads would be very limited, since these are not large missiles.
In addition, the current treaty does not permit this use, and requires
destruction of the missiles quite soon.  In theory the treaty could be
amended, but nobody wants to mess with what is (correctly) seen as a
major triumph of arms control.

The idea of using missiles as space launchers will be considerably more
interesting if agreement is reached on major reductions in ICBM forces.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 29 Aug 88 18:18:20 GMT
From: att!ihlpl!knudsen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Knudsen)
Subject: Re: Seti

In article <430@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP>, kevin@gtisqr.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) writes:
>    1) They could communicate to us a cure for cancer that was
>       actually a very subtle poison that was airborn and did
>       not take affect for n years.
> 
>    2) Tell us of a new and safe energy source that is actually
>       a quark bomb. (Kills / destroys buildings etc. but does
>       not destroy atmosphere or produce radiation.)
> 
>    3) Mass hypnotism followed by mass suicide.
> 
>    4) Help me here folks. How else do you cause genocide by remote control?

Carl Sagan's not-too-bad SF novel _Contact_ alludes to this problem.
The signals we receive give detailed instructions to build a complex
machine whose construction lies within our capabilities
but whose operation we cannot fathom.

Some opposition groups raised the fear that this machine, once
built and turned on, might blow up/sterilize/poison/jam all TV
channels with "Love Boat" reruns  or otherwise destroy human
civilization.  Just as home computer users who download programs
from bull boards have toworry about Trojan Horses and viruses.

I think that in this novel's case, these fears were very
justifiable.  The machine was benign but did play a dirty old
trick (no spoilers here).

BTW, a perfectly well-intentioned set of technological messages
could end up killing us -- we could screw it up and/or leave
out some "assumed/taken for granted" safety feature.
If all our lawyers died we couldn't even sue 'em.

I'd also be very careful about anything instructions of a biological
nature (like cancer cure) -- how much can "they" know about
our body chemistry?  Half the folks over on rec.pets are trying to
convince the other half that chocolate can kill a dog.

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

Date: 29 Aug 88 20:07:15 GMT
From: larson@unix.sri.com  (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)

In article <6878@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> haque@umn-cs.UUCP (Samudra E. Haque) writes:

>It was mentioned that the aliens (Big Green WoMen?) could 
>receive TV carriers at a distance of 100 LY. 
> 
>They would have to have tremendously good recievers for that feat.
>
>Also, once they received such a "carrier" signal from the
>electromagnetic spectrum, what would they do with it? They coudn't 
>possibly know the modulation parameters (i.e., bandwidth, modulation
>techniques <am, fm, fsk, pcm, etc. etc.> or even chrominance and
>luminance coding mechanisms <pal, secam, ntsc> in that TV signal once
>they get it - if at all they do.

When the author said they would receive the carriers, he no doubt
realized that the carriers contain far more concentrated energy than
is availiable in the modulation.
While they may be able to detect the carriers, it is unlikely that they
could receive the modulation.  Those parts of the signal are quite a bit
weaker.  (Most of the 'power' is in the carrier.)

A quick calculation indicates that a TV station would need about 10E9 watts
effective power before it would have a chance of being seen on the moon
with a normal antenna.  A 100 foot dish would probably be required for a
normal quality picture.

At 93E6 miles, the dish would have to be about 1000 feet in diameter just
to 'sort of' see the picture.

These assumptions have been based on a 10 BILLION watt TV station on channel
14.  There are not many TV stations that come close to 10^10 watts Effective
Radiated Power.


>What I'm trying to get it that  SETI don't stand a chance of getting
>ANY useful information from our radio/tv carriers

What I am pointing out is that the carriers are all they might have.
The modulation will have faded into the noise.


By the way -- to the person who suggested using the doppler on the
carriers to determine things about us -- it may be possible, but it
may be that the carrier frequency stability is not that good over
the long term.


	Alan

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

Date: 29 Aug 88 17:26:58 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: access to space; how to deny

In article <6138@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
>...  Do we have another crawler handy? 

There are two of them, as I recall.

>How's the
>guard on the OPF or VAB during off-mission cycles? 

Fairly tight, and getting tighter.  Not perfect, there are too many people
in and out, but getting in there isn't trivial.

Actually, I think the major remaining single-point failure mode in the
system is the VAB itself.  This wouldn't be a significant issue, were it
not that the shuttle design requires live SRBs within the VAB.  (NASA
used to have an ironclad no-fuel-in-the-VAB rule.)  An accidental ignition
could really make a mess of the place.
-- 
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #356
*******************