Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 10 Nov 1990 02:31:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 10 Nov 1990 02:30:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #521 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 Plaizier) 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 Maynard): >>> 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 (house 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 *******************