Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Fri, 10 May 91 01:49:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 10 May 91 01:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #517 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 517 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #492 EJASA May Report Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 May 91 17:11:37 GMT From: mintaka!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #492 In article <9105062305.AA02118@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU writes: >To be fair; no-one has actually _proven_ that there is an Oort Cloud, just >as no one has _proven_ that there are electrons. >The logic is something like this: >The Age of the Solar System (from various sources, including carbon-dating, >pecentage of H2 in the Sun, etc) is about 5 billion years >The average lifetime of a comet in the inner solar system is a few million >years (based on the average size, proximity to sun, etc) >Therefore, we can conclude that there is a reservoir of comets >SOMEWHERE, else, we would never have seen a comet, let alone big, >flashy ones. (i.e. comets that still have lots of volatile chemicals >that haven't burned off yet) No. The Oort cloud was discovered by people backtracking the comets to find a starting point. A large number of them seem to have been perturbed into the IEEE/ANSI standard long-period comet orbit from circular orbits with a common semimajor axis/energy, and a more or less random distribution WRT inclination. >>Terraforming the moons of Jupiter would probably be easier :-). >It might be easier, but with so litte energy (sunlight), the issue is whether >it would last, or be worth the effort. So, use a bigger mirror. What could it take, one more small stony asteroid worth of Al to build a mirror of the requisite size? -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr. Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_. ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 16:15:27 GMT From: pa.dec.com!shodha.enet.dec.com!timpson@decwrl.dec.com (Steve Timpson) Subject: EJASA May Report From: ADVAX::KLAES "CUIP/ASG, MLO21-2/B5 4B, 223-3283 06-May-1991 1241" 6-MAY-1991 10:41:47.86 To: STEVE CC: LARRY Subj: Electronic Journal of the ASA - May 1991 THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC Volume 2, Number 10 - May 1991 ########################### TABLE OF CONTENTS ########################### * ASA Membership/Article Submission Information * The Great Moon Race: New Findings - Andrew J. LePage * Astronomy and the Family - Larry Klaes ########################### ASA MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (EJASA) is published monthly by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Inc. The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of amateur and professional astronomy and space exploration, and to the social and educational needs of its members. ASA membership application is open to all with an interest in astronomy and space exploration. Members receive the Journal of the ASA (hardcopy sent through U.S. Mail), the Astronomical League's REFLECTOR magazine, and may additionally purchase discount subscrip- tions to ASTRONOMY, DEEP SKY, ODYSSEY, SKY & TELESCOPE, and TELESCOPE MAKING magazines. For information on membership, you may contact the Society at any of the following addresses: Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (ASA) c/o Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) Georgia State University (GSU) Atlanta, Georgia 30303 U.S.A. asa@chara.gsu.edu ASA BBS: (404) 985-0408, 300/1200 Baud. or telephone the Society Recording at (404) 264-0451 to leave your address and/or receive the latest Society news. ASA Officers and Council - President - Don Barry Vice President - Nils Turner Secretary - Ken Poshedly Treasurer - Alan Fleming Board of Advisors - Edward Albin, Bill Bagnuolo, Jim Bitsko Council - Jim Bitsko, Bill Crane, Toni Douglas, Eric Greene, Larry Klaes, Tano Scigliano, Bob Vickers, Michael Wiggs, Rob Williams ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS - Article submissions to the EJASA on astronomy and space exploration are most welcome. Please send your on-line articles in ASCII format to Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net addresses or the above Society addresses: klaes@advax.enet.dec.com or - ...!decwrl!advax.enet.dec.com!klaes or - klaes%advax.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com or - klaes%advax.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net You may also use the above net addresses for EJASA backissue requests, letters to the editor, and ASA membership information. When sending your article submissions, please be certain to include either a network or regular mail address where you can be reached, a telephone number, and a brief biographical sketch. DISCLAIMER - Submissions are welcome for consideration. Articles submitted, unless otherwise stated, become the property of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Inc. Though the articles will not be used for profit, they are subject to editing, abridgment, and other changes. Copying or reprinting of the EJASA, in part or in whole, is encouraged, provided clear attribution is made to the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, the Electronic Journal, and the author(s). This Journal is Copyright (c) 1991 by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Inc. THE GREAT MOON RACE: NEW FINDINGS Copyright (c) 1991 by Andrew J. LePage The author gives permission to any group or individual wishing to distribute this article, so long as proper credit is given and the article is reproduced in its entirety. Since the appearance of my articles, "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Parts 1 and 2", in the December 1990 and January 1991 issues of the EJASA, many new facts on Soviet plans to place a cos- monaut on Earth's Moon ahead of the United States APOLLO project have been released. These revelations contradict some of the previous an- alysis done on the Soviet lunar program, as well as some of the previ- ous information released by the Soviets themselves. Nonetheless, we now have a much clearer picture of the Soviets' manned lunar landing program of the 1960s and 1970s. Among the new facts revealed by the Soviets is a detailed description of their Moon rocket called the N-1. This large rocket consisted of three stages combined into the shape of a long, tapered cone. With its ninety metric ton (one hundred ton) Moon-bound pay- load, the N-1 was about 115 meters (370 feet) long, slightly longer than the United States Moon rocket, the SATURN 5. The first stage, called Block A, had thirty engines at its base arranged in two concentric circles, the outer one with 24 engines and the inner one with six. At liftoff, this cluster of engines burning kerosene and liquid oxygen produced a total of 4,590 metric tons (10.1 million pounds) of thrust. After launch, the Block A booster could still complete its task with as many as two pairs of its engines not functioning. Instead of using gimballed engines to steer itself like most large rockets, the N-1's first stage would selectively throttle its engines. With this sort of steering system, there would be no way to control the roll of the rocket. This may help to explain the failure of the third test flight of the N-1 on June 24, 1971. An unintended roll of the rocket at liftoff, possibly caused by unstable and asymmetric burning in one of the engines, resulted in the N-1's radio guidance link being severed. With no way to counteract this roll and regain its radio link, the N-1 crashed to the ground seconds later, destroying itself and the launch pad. The second stage, referred to as Block B, used a cluster of eight engines similar to those found on Block A. These engines were modified, however, to give much better performance at higher altitudes. As a result, Block B produced a total of 1,410 metric tons (3.1 million pounds) of thrust. Like the first stage, Block B was steered by selec- tively throttling its engines. This stage could still perform with as many as two engines shut down. The third stage of the basic N-1 stack, known as Block V, had a cluster of four engines of a design different from those found on Blocks A and B. They produced a total of 164 metric tons (360,800 pounds) of thrust and unlike the first two stages, Block V was steered using gimballed engines. It now seems certain that contrary to previous analysis, this stage is not the same or even related to the second stage of the PROTON launch vehicle. The details released on the lunar payload of the N-1 were also a surprise: Contrary to previous analysis and to some statements made by the Soviets, the payload not only consisted of a trans-lunar boost stage, lunar orbit insertion stage, and the Soviet lunar cabin (known by the Russian acronym LK), but also included the modified L-2/SOYUZ lunar orbital cabin (LOK) topped with a launch escape rocket. The entire Moon-bound payload was referred to by the Soviets as the L-3, which was previously believed to refer to the LK alone. It was previously thought that the LOK was launched separately on another launch vehicle like the PROTON and would link up with the rest of the payload in Earth orbit. In fact, the first test flight of the N-1 on February 21, 1969, carried an unmanned LOK and an LK mockup. The other three unsuccessful test flights probably carried similar payloads, where it is possible that later flights carried working LKs. The exact details of these missions and their payloads have yet to be disclosed. Once the N-1 placed the L-3 and crew in Earth orbit, the trans-lunar boost stage, known as Block G, with a single engine similar to that on the N-1 Block V, would ignite. Its 41 metric tons (90,200 pounds) of thrust would send the lunar orbit insertion stage, LK, and LOK towards the Moon. During the journey, the lunar orbit insertion stage, referred to as Block D, would be used for a course correction burn. Once at the Moon, the stage would place itself as well as the LK and LOK into lunar orbit. Interestingly, this stage, with a single engine producing 8.7 metric tons (19,200 pounds) of thrust, is identical to escape stage used on the PROTON, which was also known by the name Block D. This would explain why this stage of the PROTON received the designation "D" (the fifth letter in the Cyrillic alphabet), despite the fact it is only the fourth stage on the PROTON. Based on its terrible early record in that role, many of the early unmanned and manned test flights would have failed even if the first three stages of the N-1 did not malfunction. Once in lunar orbit, one of the two cosmonauts in the LOK would perform a spacewalk and transfer to the LK still in its launch shroud underneath the LOK. The spacewalk performed during the SOYUZ 4/5 flight in January of 1969 was most likely a rehearsal of this procedure. Once the LK was checked out, it, along with the Block D, would separate from the LOK. The Block D would (hopefully) then ignite one last time to start the LK on its descent to the lunar surface, where it would afterwards be jettisoned. The LK's single engine would ignite just moments before landing to bring the LK in for a soft landing. Reliance on the proper ignition of this engine to affect a safe landing or abort in case of danger would have been a troublesome safety issue. If the craft reached the lunar soil successfully, the cosmonaut would then disembark the vehicle to briefly explore the Moon. After performing his experiments on the lunar surface, the cosmonaut would re-enter the LK and reignite its engine. On liftoff, the descent "stage", which consisted of only several fuel tanks and landing support legs, would be left behind. Upon reaching orbit, the LK and LOK would dock. The cosmonaut would then transfer to the LOK, along with his soil samples, via a spacewalk. After transfer, the LK would be cast off and the LOK would ignite its own engine to leave lunar orbit and head back to Earth. After the success of the American manned lunar program from 1968 to 1972, the Soviet manned lunar program continued as a purely techno- logical demonstration effort. The N-1 would have to be flown success- fully four or five times before a manned launch was attempted. Politi- cally, however, this effort was doomed, since it would be only second- rate compared to the United States missions. It has recently been revealed that in the early 1970s, an even more ambitious manned lunar landing project was studied. In an attempt to outdo the American APOLLO program, the Soviets wanted to land *three* cosmonauts on the Moon. The plan called for the launch of two N-1 rockets. One would carry a modified SOYUZ spacecraft with a crew of three, with a special ascent stage attached (as well as the Blocks G and D to get the spacecraft to lunar orbit). The second N-1 would carry a large descent stage. Once in lunar orbit, the two components would be joined. The spacecraft would then land on the surface of the Moon and the three cosmonauts would explore the lunar surface for up to one month. After that time, the ascent stage and its modified SOYUZ would liftoff and return to Earth. This mission would have been attempted after about eight successful launches of the N-1. If the N-1 project had not been canceled, this mission would probably have occurred sometime in the late 1970s. The major problem with this plan was the reliance on the very fickle N-1. This mission also involved the untried docking of two large and complex spacecraft, each weighing on the order of eighteen metric tons (twenty tons) in lunar orbit. In addition, landing such a large and relatively tall spacecraft on the surface of the Moon would have been difficult and dangerous at best. This program was obviously another example of the "beat the West" attitude that existed in the influential quarters of the Soviet leadership. How far this proposal progressed is still unknown, but it likely did not develop too far, since the N-1 and the manned lunar landing programs were finally canceled in 1974. One issue not fully addressed in my original articles was *why* the Soviet manned lunar program failed. Many, including some Soviets, would answer this with the fact that Soviet technology was inferior to that of the West and was simply not up to the task. This may be true, but the successes of the Soviets' current MIR space station program, despite the same "inferior" technology, would argue against this. Part of the problem instead probably rests with the Soviets' use of their technology and the implementation of the project. One problem is the highly automated nature of Soviet manned spacecraft. The SOYUZ was and still is so completely automated that the crew is not even necessary. It can be argued that even in the case of a failure in these automated systems, the crew is of limited use to correct or compensate for a problem. The early docking tests of the SOYUZ in the KOSMOS 184/186 and 212/213 missions clearly demonstrated that a man was not required. The other elements of the program, such as the LK, were similarly automated. This made for a very complex spacecraft that increased the chance of failure no matter what level of technology one is using. Less use of automated equipment and more reliance on the skills of the crew, as has been done in Amer- ican manned spacecraft, would have made for much simpler and more reliable vehicles. Another problem was the project management. Unlike the American lunar program that was under the centralized control of NASA, the Soviet lunar program management was very decentralized, contrary to what most Westerners would believe. Twenty-six ministries and govern- ment departments were involved in the building of the N-1 alone. Only nine of them were under the direct control of the military-industrial commission that was also responsible for the space program in general. The other seventeen had to be constantly goaded into action and no government resolution would help. Sergei Korolov was technically and politically as close as the Soviet space program got to centralized control. After his death in 1966, network alliances and political influence needed to keep the program moving even at a snail's pace died along with him. Under these conditions, it would take years for his successor, Vasili Mishin, to consolidate that much power. It can be argued that Mishin never did. Besides the constant delays that this sort of situation would produce, it also affected the quality of the components produced, since the individual "contractors" (to use a capitalist term) were not held responsible. This obviously affected the reliability of the spacecraft, perhaps more so than the usual Soviet aerospace engineering philosophy where a vehicle is flown, the failures analyzed and corrected, and launched again. Finally, there was a lack of commitment from the Kremlin. In the United States, President John F. Kennedy and Congress committed to a landing on the Moon in 1961. The Kremlin did not follow suit until 1964. In addition, political infighting, culminating with the ouster of Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev, further delayed a firm commitment. One ultimate measure of commitment is money: According to the Soviets, only three billion dollars were spent on the entire Soviet lunar program, compared to the 25 billion dollars on the American APOLLO program. At its peak in 1967-1968, the Soviet lunar program was receiving only half the money that APOLLO did. While it is difficult to give any absolute comparisons of the two programs because of the totally different natures of the Soviet and United States economies, the Soviet space officials obviously felt more pressed for funds than their American counterparts. In the end, it seems everything conspired against the Soviet lunar program, including Lady Luck. In retrospect, many things could also have gone wrong with the American lunar program; but one way or the other, it did not, or at the very least not as badly as it could have been. As an example, if the APOLLO 11 service module had experienced a failure similar to that which occurred in 1970 on the APOLLO 13 mission while astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin were exploring the Sea of Tranquility, those men and Michael Collins in lunar orbit would have been stranded. Such an accident would not only have killed the crew but probably taken the APOLLO program down with it. With more luck, the Soviets might have in this case landed on the Moon first, sometime in the early 1970s. But history does not tend to recognize "what ifs". Hopefully, the Soviets as well as the Americans will learn from their past mistakes and may one day return to the Moon together for good. References - Covault, Craig, "Soviet Union Reveals Moon Rocket Design that Failed to Beat U.S. to Lunar Landing", AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY, February 19, 1991 Duggan, David (writer and series producer), "The Russian Right Stuff: The Dark Side of the Moon", NOVA, PBS-TV, February 1991 "The Moon Program That Faltered", SPACEFLIGHT, January, 1991 "Soviet Moon Rocket Revealed", SPACEFLIGHT, March, 1991 About the Author - Andrew J. LePage is a member of the Boston Group for the Study of the Soviet Space Program, Krasnaya Orbita. In addition to his interests in astronomical and space related topics, Andrew has been a serious observer of the Soviet space program for over one decade. Andrew is the author of the following EJASA articles: "Mars 1994" - March 1990 "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part One" - December 1990 "The Great Moon Race: The Soviet Story, Part Two" - January 1991 "The Mystery of ZOND 2" - April 1991 ASTRONOMY AND THE FAMILY Copyright (c) 1991 by Larry Klaes When Kunta Kinte, the main character in that popular television miniseries ROOTS, held up his diaperless newborn son to the starry night sky, he was not just declaring to the Universe at large the arrival of this special little piece of his own work; Kunta was also giving the infant his first exposure to the wonderful world of astronomy! As Kunta so beautifully illustrated in that multipart blockbuster, teaching one's offspring about the mysteries and amazements of the Cosmos can almost never start early enough. From the time when a young child can actually begin to understand (though not necessarily obey) a parent's commands for direction, one should start taking the tyke outside during clear nights, preferably those lacking in any dreaded light pollution. Once this is established, the parent should then enthusiastically exclaim "Look up!" to their child, usually with an arm and index finger aimed in the general direction of space for guidance. Normally and fortunately, most children will look up at the night sky on their own initiative, becoming readily impressed with the myriad of bright stars and the ever changing phases of the Moon. The occasional sighting of a meteor streaking through Earth's atmosphere from the depths of the interplanetary realm is also more than enough to win over a child's newly forming mind. Should all else fail, an aircraft soaring overhead with its navigation lights blinking will probably do the trick just as well. Soon your child, and perhaps yourself, may be asking why one should be so adamant about learning the wonders of the Universe? On a basic level, the contents of space are fairly neat things, being certainly more abundant in strange and fascinating objects than your typical television talk show. Things of a neat and weird nature gen- erally appeal to small humans (and most bigger ones). The average science fiction plot set in space usually gives only a rudimentary and often distorted version of what is truly going on "out there". The next important reason for becoming familiar with astronomy has to do with the fact that most Earth-bound people fail to realize from early on that Earth is actually just a very small part of the Universe as a whole (with emphasis on the word very). To say that our planet takes up space in the Cosmos like a single dust mite would fill the Houston Astrodome is an understatement of major proportions. It is only logical - and perhaps a safe thing as well - that everyone should have at least some education on how our humungous neighborhood is set up and functions on an epoch-to-epoch basis. There is also the remote chance that your child might one day be on a quiz show and have to know the rotation period of the pulsar in the Crab Nebula to win large sums of money and household appliances. Material goals aside, there is a very important reason for whole families to take up the art of astronomy: It is one of the few social and scientific activities which the parent and child unit can do toget- her without becoming either overly confused or embarrassed. It is not as easy for a child to become, say, an amateur nuclear physicist; the price of a good atomic particle accelerator alone is prohibitive. To be an amateur astronomer, however, one need merely to walk outside on a clear, dark night and practice the technique of looking up, which should already have been taught at a very early age. The sheer vast- ness of the Universe will ensure that every family member has an unob- structed view of their newfound hobby. It should be further noted that since astronomy is usually an out- door activity, the family will tend to achieve both a physical and social closeness, if for no other reason than to ward off the cold or insects, depending upon the season. Where to Go From Up Like most hobbies, how far you intend to have your child enjoy their new interest depends upon how much you're willing to spend for the equipment generally associated with astronomy. While it is a most pleasant and inexpensive experience to simply be in your backyard looking up into the star-spangled darkness using only the eyes owned since birth, more often than not your child (and probably you) will eventually become dissatisfied with mere unaided staring into the night. You and your offspring will suddenly become overwhelmed with the urge to buy a very large, heavy, and costly elongated cylinder with a variety of knobs, lenses, mirrors, and metal tripods known since the early Seventeenth Century as a telescope. You will dream of using this instrument to dance among the strange and mysterious surfaces of alien worlds and the fiery gases of countless stars whirling through the Cosmos, just like in a typical episode of STAR TREK. All I have to say to this impulse is DON'T - at least not right away. Like any other discipline, astronomy requires that you learn to walk before you enter the Boston Marathon. Too many times is the following scenario repeated during birthdays and other gift-giving holidays: A child expresses an interest in seeing the stars. The parent, responding like birds do to the open mouths of their chicks, will instinctively feed that interest. A telescope, either of the large, heavy, and costly variety or the small and cheap type, will be purchased. The sale of this telescope more often than not was made due to a combination of the parents' budget and the accompaniment of an advertisement containing several really awesome photos of vari- ous planets and stars allegedly taken through that very instrument. Invariably, the child will run outside on the first clear night with a full Moon in the sky to see these celestial wonders with the same hopeful clarity of those images obtained by the instruments atop Mount Palomar. Unfortunately, the child will probably aim his present at the bright face of Earth's natural satellite - all set to observe the landing site remains of the APOLLO missions - and instead reality will settle in. More than likely, your offspring will see only dark- ness, or possibly the reflection of his own eye. He will quickly dis- cover that finding objects in the Universe with your average telescope is an exercise in frustration. This is due both to the sensitive nature of the light-gathering abilities of such devices and the sad lack of astronomical knowledge by many would-be junior Galileos and their parents. There is usually only one remedy to the previous scenario, in order to keep that telescope and the child's interest from ending up stored away and forgotten forever within a matter of weeks: Yes, just like operating a VCR, one has to read a manual before the glories of the Cosmos are revealed to them. Since the intricacies of the heavens are far more involved than those of your typical household appliance (but not by much), there is a virtual plethora of manuals which one has available to oneself. It is generally recommended that unless the child and parent can quickly answer without assistance such questions as what are stars or what is the composition of the material ejected from an erupting volcano on Jupiter's moon Io, it is best to find a beginner's book on space that has been published no earlier than a few years from the present time. Such items may be found at conveniently located book stores and libraries. Once the proper manuals are secured, begin to share the wonderful opportunity of being educated with your child. Before you read up on azimuths or focal points or film exposure speeds, take time to learn the general design of the Universe you intend to observe. Learn that there are nine known planets - one of which you are standing on - orbiting our Sun, which happens to be a star not too unlike those seemingly smaller points of light in the sky. Discover that our solar system is but one of billions of other star systems in a giant spiral structure known as a galaxy. Almost every object you can see in the night sky with your naked eyes is part of this immense star island we call the Milky Way. And know that the Universe does not end at our galaxy, for there are billions of other star islands like it spread throughout the Cosmos, all so far away that the normal human mind tends to take a vacation rather than try to imagine such vastness. Learn just this and a few extra details along the way and you will already be ahead of the game over those who wander Earth barely aware of the treasures circling about them. Once you have the astronomical fundamentals down pat - and you and your offspring still have the desire to become more cosmological - there are now two major avenues for you to proceed towards, both of which can be participated in simultaneously for years to come. One direction for you and your child is to become what is known as an armchair astronomer or space explorer. This behavior generally involves the collecting of increasingly more sophisticated manuals without necessarily ever buying a telescope. Many are those who prefer to enjoy this hobby from the relative safety of an easy chair and a book propped in a lap. Much can be learned about the Universe this way, with only a fraction of the time and expense spent by those professional astronomers in their important observatories or the astronauts in their advanced spacecraft, who usually end up plopping their research results into such works as it is. The other way is to go out and purchase that instrument of stellar observation and a good set of star charts. While there is certainly nothing wrong with buying a quality telescope, one might find it easier to actually start with a good pair of binoculars. No, the average bi- noculars will not bring close to you the wondrous details of the Moon's cratered surface or the frozen polar caps of Mars, as witnessed numerous times in your manuals - but these pictures were very likely taken by pro- fessionals and space probes, so don't worry about such things for now. Your goal at this time is to discover the location in the night sky of those wandering stars and planets which you have been reading about. Intricate details will come later. In most cases, binoculars will serve this purpose nicely, usually at a much cheaper price. Furthermore, it will be almost guaranteed that you and your child will actually see these celestial objects with your binoculars, which do not require such sensitive light-gathering capabilities as telescopes, nor are nearly as bulky in comparison. And remember that children are easily impressed, so just telling them that the small, fuzzy blur they are looking at is the real Andromeda Galaxy will usually be enough to keep them (and probably you) satisfied for the present. You will also be using this time to learn just how far your child wishes to pursue studying the heavens and to practice for the day when you do buy that telescope. A nice aspect of taking these directions in astronomy and space exploration - beyond the already mentioned fact that you can perform both at once - is that your child could eventually end up taking a career in the field, one whose disciplines are as varied as the Uni- verse itself. Or perhaps your son or daughter could become interested in another scientific field in the process, which is just as good and beneficial. If nothing else, you may rest in knowing that your child- ren will have some knowledge of what the Cosmos is like, perhaps one day passing it on to their sons and daughters. It is comforting to know that the Universe will be around long enough to teach quite a few future generations, at least until the era when the Sun swells into a giant red star and engulfs Earth (You did read about this in your manuals, didn't you?). Hopefully by then, our distant children will be settled on the worlds of more stable star systems, pointing out new planets and constellations to their young ones in the ancient rituals of knowledge gathering, family unity, and looking up. About the Author - Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, wrote the above work originally as a gift for a co-worker expecting the birth of his first child. Larry is the recipient of the ASA's 1990 Meritorious Service Award for his work as Editor of the EJASA since its founding in August of 1989. Larry is the author of the following EJASA articles: "The One Dream Man: Robert H. Goddard, Rocket Pioneer" - August 1989 "Stopping Space and Light Pollution" - September 1989 "The Rocky Soviet Road to Mars" - October 1989 THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC May 1991 - Vol. 2, No. 10 Copyright (c) 1991 - ASA ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #517 *******************