Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 05:00:08 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #223 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 25 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 223 Today's Topics: A response from Anonymous (2 msgs) Aurora (rumors) (2 msgs) Bell Rocket Belt and WASP (was Re: Rocketeer) ESA press release 7.93 Getting people into Space Program! Human Distance Record:Apollo 13 I'm really embarrassed to ask this but... Martian Bacteria McElwained again. Nobody cares about Fred? Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Rocketeer Spy Sats (Was: Are La unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?) Water resupply for SSF (?) Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " 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: Mon, 22 Feb 93 06:52:13 PST From: Jason Cooper Subject: A response from Anonymous Newsgroups: sci.space Well, I must say firstly that what I've been seeing here is rather stupid. We have here people saying "This group is for technical discussions only. Why would anybody post anything under an anonymous handle?". And then they go and post to this discussion. Wow, yeah, that certainly has something to do with space. Note that I'm not putting a general discouragement of this discussion; I'm just saying that you can all pick one -- you're all adult enough -- so do so. Will it be the " Nobody needs Anonymous in a technical area" or this discussion at all. In fact, posting the above (Nobody...) is paradoxical in itself, since in doing so you are giving a reason (by going off of area topic). I would have to agree with those who say that the ones who fear anonymous posters are generally those who fear loss of control. That's the great thing about the net. Few, if any, of you know how old I am, how tall I am, where I live, and few ever will. HOWEVER, if any of you _REALLY_ wanted to know you could, because up there it says my real name (if I'm not mistaken), and that's a tag I can't get rid of. Anybody with the will and the resources could find all they want about me. That's where anonymous postings come in. If I'm going to post something that, in all probability, could make a LOT of people a little more than unhappy, then I'm NOT going to risk anything. Yes, there are those who would use it otherwise, but that is the REASON for anonymous posters, and therefore they are needed EVERYWHERE (yes EVERYWHERE). The Internet is (have we heard this before?) the great equalizer. That is mainly because none of you (or generally) will discriminate against me. You can't tell if I'm black or white, old or young, homo- or hetero-sexual. And you CAN'T intimidate me either, because what fear do I have of you? However, as I said above, there are those out there, in the millions of users, who COULD find out who I am. Now, nobody would want to with my posting this, but what if I had a VERY controvertial, VERY scientific finding to post? Jason Cooper (Reply by MAIL ONLY please. I don't want to waste any more bandwidth on here...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 15:49:51 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: A response from Anonymous Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro In <1mcchkINNiuq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes: >In article swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) >writes: >> Call me stupid, but I think that a plainly visible notice that says >>"Don't peek" should be enough. (No, I don't think that the SRI notice was >>plainly visible.) >Just like a "no Trespassing" sign on someone's property edge is enough? >Get real. These signs don't work unless accompanied by a threat of violence >or prosecution and/or barbed wire, and likewise a "don't peek" notice >won't work unless it is accompanied by the lack of perms to look in >forbidden directories at forbidden files. Does this position strike anyone else as rather analogous to blaming the victim? This same reasoning leaves us with: 1) It is your fault your car got stolen because you didn't have sufficient alarms to stop the thief, so the thief didn't do anything wrong. 2) It is your fault your house got burglarized, because you didn't have sufficiently strong bars on the windows and locks on the doors. 3) It is your fault you got raped, because you allowed yourself to be in a potentially dangerous position without having sufficient means at your disposal to protect yourself. It doesn't matter that you said no; that's like saying "don't peek". In other words, the positon is that the *only* blame is always that of the victim, since if they'd taken sufficiently strong measures they would not have been victimized. Personally, I prefer to catch and prosecute the perpetrators rather than blame the victim as a defense for them. [And just what is this doing in space and astro? I've tried redirecting followups -- we'll see if it works.] -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:40:41 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >>The two incidents noted were an air traffic controller ("a friend of mine >>who is") who had tracked two of these supposed aircraft at 10,250 mph >>(Yes, that is what they said.). >Looks a little too fast for Aurora, which is said to fly at Mach 6-8. WAY too fast... That particular report does not sound very credible, unless they were tracking the Shuttle returing from orbit or something. >There had been previous articles about that in the Los Angeles Times >(April 17, 1992, "Secret Out On 'Quakes': It's Only a Spy Plane", Yes. >IMHO, these rumblings are the best indication in favor of >the existence of Aurora. They are a strong part of a very convincing block of information. >However, an hypersonic SR-71B is used by the NASA in California The SR-71 is NOT "hypersonic". It's maximum speed is no more than Mach 3.5 >>Ames-Dryden Crews Flying SR-71s To Support High-Speed Research Projects") >Could this SR-71 be the culprit ? Nope. None of the "skyquakes" have coincided with NASA flights, and the flight profile has been of a vehicle coming in from the Pacific, heading over L.A., out past Edwards and into the Nevada desert towards the Nellis range/Groom Lake region. That does not sound like a normal flight plan of a NASA SR-71. >The problem is that when you apply the same criteria as those >applied to UFOs sightings, nothing remains... That is only a "problem" for people trying to bring "UFOs" into this subject. Otherwise, a great deal of meaningful data is there. >There are also rumors that this plane sometimes crosses the Atlantic >and lands at the Machrihanish base (Kintyre peninsula, Scotland). Either that or (more likely) its refueling/support aircraft have operated from that site. >Finally, it has been conjectured that the loud "bang" which shaked >a part of the Netherlands on August 19, 1992, had been caused by Aurora. I don't recall that being reported by AW&ST or similar sources. >>DoD rarely phases out anything unless they have something to replace it >This also is a serious indication in favor of the existence of Aurora. VERY serious. The SR-71 operated in conjunction with satellites for virtually its *entire* history. The claims that sats were "suddenly" making the Blackbird unnecessary are not the least bit credible. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 15:58:18 MET From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Aurora (rumors) >Uh, it may be fast and all but, uh, what good is an audible spy plane? >Lawrence Curcio (Mon, 22 Feb 1993 18:24:37 -0500) Good question ! BTW, loud "bangs" had been reported over the Atlantic (and maybe over the Pacific ?), off the U.S. coasts, in the mid 80s. Could it be a prototype of Aurora, even noisier than the final plane ? Has anyone opinions, facts, references (Science, Nature, AW&ST, ...) on these bangs (if my memory is good, they were called "brontides") ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 1993 15:50:41 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Bell Rocket Belt and WASP (was Re: Rocketeer) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb22.205206.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >Oh, did I mention that I *also* have a slideshow on the nuclear >airplane? (-: Slideshow or SIDEshow, Mr. Ringtop? I have talked to Ehud, and lived. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 23 Feb 1993 17:04:42 CET From: Hermann Schneider Subject: ESA press release 7.93 Newsgroups: sci.space Joint ESA/CNES Press Release No. 07.93 Paris, 23 February 1993 FIRST ARIANE-5 SOLID BOOSTER TEST SCORES WELL Analysis of the main parameters recorded during the first test, on 16 February, of the solid-propellant booster for ESA's Ariane-5 launcher confirms that all went well. In particular, the pressure and temperature values match predictions. Visual inspection has shown that all the booster parts are in good condition, i.e. the thermal protection, igniter, nozzle throat, etc. These good results, which will be consolidated by a detailed analysis of all 600 measurements taken during the firing, mean that the Ariane-5 launcher development plan can be confirmed, leading to a first launch in October 1995. The plan comprises 7 other tests on the booster teststand, to be carried out every three and a half months on average. The test was carried out under the responsibility of EUROPROPULSION*, with CNES** in overall charge. The P 230 booster is part of ESA'S Ariane-5 programme, the Agency having delegated CNES prime contractor. * a joint subsidiary of BPD Difesa e Spazio (Italy) and the Socit Europenne de Propulsion (France) ** Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (France)   ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 07:08:47 EST From: Chris Jones Subject: Getting people into Space Program! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb23.054328.17532@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee (Dave Michelson) writes: >In article <76275@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: >> There were 99 X-15 missions, far fewer that qualified as spaceflight. > >There were *199* X-15 missions.... Uh, right (darn memory). Now that I can check the "Proceedings", I see that's the correct number. Taking 50 miles (264000 feet) as the altitude necessary to earn astronaut's wings, the X-15 made 13 flights into space, involving 8 pilots. Interestingly, Neil Armstrong's 7 flights topped out at 207,500 feet, so there's something wrong with the claim I remember being made of him having become an astronaut while flying in the X-15 program. Either the claim was inaccurate or puffed, or my memory is bad (and when was the last time *that* happened?). -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 11:19:10 GMT From: Paul Carter Subject: Human Distance Record:Apollo 13 Newsgroups: sci.space Thanks for the responses. The answer to who holds the record distance from Earth is the crew of Apollo 13. They achieved 400,187 km (248,655 imperials). The crew were Capt. James Lovell, Fred Haise and John Swigert. No one took a punt on when the record would be broken - I have a horrible suspicion that the distinction may go to some hi-tech commercial funeral parlor customer - a body packed specially for lunar or solar orbit, launched via cannon or cheap rocket. (I heard an item on the news that a Japanese company will be selling burial stations for ashes on the moon - the above would be the logical extension for some wealthy trekkite ). Space would become a REAL graveyard ! Anyway, I wonder exactly WHO was at the back of the Apollo 13 can when it made history ? Damn best regards, -- P A U L P A U L P A U L P A U L P A U L C A R T E R C A R T E R C A R T E R C A R T E R C A R T E R 3d signature 3d signature 3d signature 3d signature 3d signature Focus lines: | | ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 17:10:35 GMT From: pporth@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov Subject: I'm really embarrassed to ask this but... Newsgroups: sci.space In article , schieb@shark.gsfc.nasa.gov (Brian D. Schieber) writes: > > Hi, > I have this friend who conned me into finding out how her > friend can name a star after her boyfriend. I TOLD YOU I > was embarrassed. Anyway, I read somewhere that one can do > this but I no longer know how. Could someone please send me > a message on how its done? Brian, Shame on you - call the Goddard Library! :-) But since I am here... The International Astronomical Union assigns designated star names. They are in Paris at the following address: Union Astronomique Internationale IAU Secretariat, Rm 318/319 98 bis, boulevard Arago F-75014 Paris, France 1-43258358 There is an organization called the International Star Registry, but they are bogus. Hope this helps! Tricia/NASA HQ pporth@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 09:31:27 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Martian Bacteria Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary The most fundamental problem with life on Mars is that the pressure is too low for liquid water to form. It sublimates straight from ice to vapor. Now, perhaps there are pressurized underground springs, but Mars lacks active volcanism, so I doubt it. Several billion years ago, when Mars had more atmosphere, there was pressure enough for liquid water, as evidenced by the riverbed erosion patterns. So, perhaps some fossils remain from that era. Figuring the odds of this gets into fundamental questions about where life first emerged, (comets or earth?), if it emerged on earth what's the chance of it emerging independently, etc. This area is still almost pure speculation; the first evidence of life on earth is already highly sophisticated DNA/mRNA/tRNA/ribosome/protein/lipid/sugar etc. bacteria, with no trace of any ancestors remaining. Nick Szabo szabo@techbook.com -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 16:05:18 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: McElwained again. Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Feb22.184431.4287@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes: > > BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY [Manure deleted ... hmm, doesn't seem to be much left.] > Robert E. McElwaine > B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC Does this bozo really have a B.S. in anything, much less Physics and Astronomy? If not (and I don't see how he could, give the idiocy that he posts), perhaps something could be done about him due to misrepresentation? I'd just pretend they're not there, but I'm concerned about someone who doesn't know any physics seeing one of these things and believing it might be seriously possible. Silicon fusion in plants, indeed! -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 14:04:36 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Nobody cares about Fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb23.041647.24641@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> munoz@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (tomas o munoz 283-4072) writes: >|> No, he was very clear. He ment the risk to an astronaut re-fueling. This >|> is one byproduct of the lack of EVA we have been doing. >Again, it's not the lack of EVA, it's the fact that you don't want >hydrazine all over the EVA crew. But the Russians with their backward space program don't find that to be a problem. Surely with our better technology we could refuel them in orbit possible saving billions of $$ in life cycle cost. >|> The thrusters in question are very reliable and don't need constant >|> inspection to last years. >Thrusters will stay in orbit for years at a time. They will be inspected >and/or refurbished every time they are returned to earth. This sort of thruster is used by every satellite in existance. They are extremely reliable and shouldn't need servicing this often. >|> Well at over $10,000 a pound for launch costs I wold say yes. >There's alot more to it than launching it - that's the easy part. Well the Russians have this problem solved. I'm sure we can. Doing so is after all, worth a lot of money. >|> Maybe we don't need tankage. Maybe we use fuel from the OMS. >I don't think the OMS are big enough to fuel both orbiter and SSF. Well then maybe they can be refueled with expendables. That will save even more money. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------112 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 16:32:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1mb6scINNt87@access.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes... > >My feeling was something with a truss, in a higher more inclined orbit. >then modify the ETs so they have hatches and "wet" structure. >Then just hang those onto the Truss, and bring equipment up in the shuttle >bay. this was an original SKYLAB concept. > >THe way I see it, is you get a quick volume, cheap and NASA only has >to worry about the trusses and tanks and maintenance. any experiments >can bring up their gear and the mission specialists can >install it. If a submarine can be serviced entirely through >little hatches, i am sure a station could be too. > The problem with this design is that the problems with EVA and on orbit maintenance is magnifed tenfold. Not only do you have to do all of the EVA associated with the external structure, BUT you have to do EVA to install all of the internal equipment, life support..... AND then do all of your testing on orbit. Then when things don't work which will happen you have to have all of these contingency missions just to correct all of the things you did not know about till you got there. With the recent (91) redesign of SSF most of these issues were resolved by changes such as the pallet change outs and all of the other EVA reduction ideas that now are a part of the design. Don't get me wrong, there are many ways to reduce the cost of SSF but going to an external tank design is not one of them. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 10:54:56 -0500 From: Lawrence Curcio Subject: Rocketeer Newsgroups: sci.space A minor nit: A pound is a unit of force, not a unit of mass. In the British system, weight (force) is used to express mass, and those of us who live in places are or that were once part of the British Empire are to this day plagued by little g's in our engineering equations. We know better, though, because we went to school, where they taught (or tried to teach) us physics. In physics, even we use the Metric system, and we know we should really use mass when we commonly use weight. Enter specific impulse. Isp is wholly equivalent to effective exhaust velocity. Isp is impulse per (sea-level) unit WEIGHT of propellant, and effective exhaust velocity is impulse per unit MASS of propellant. That's why there is a constant, 1/g that converts them. (We have to use sea-level weight, of course, because if we used local weight, the statistic would be dependant on local gravity.) Now we ex-Brits and Brits have an inferiority complex about our WEIGHT, so we look at the formula for this contrived statistic, Isp, and tell ourselves that it really SHOULD have mass in the denominator, so many of us try to put it there. There are two methods for doing this. The first is to use the metric system and to put Kg in the denominator, but then the numbers are off by a factor of about 10 - so we say that everyone else is wrong. The second way is to say that a pound is a unit of mass - which is, as I say, only a minor nit because the numbers are right. Fact is, Isp was probably invented by an ex-Brit or a Brit. That's why it has weight in the denominator. So why is it used? Why not use effective exhaust velocity? BECAUSE AS LONG AS YOU MEASURE WEIGHT IN THE SAME UNITS YOU USED TO MEASURE THRUST, YOU HAVE A STATISTIC IN Isp THAT CROSSES THE ATLANTIC. Pound-seconds per pound is the same as Newton-seconds per Newton. They're both (I'll say it) SECONDS, a unit of time shared by most of the world. For this convenience, we pay with an unlikely unit (time), but we can correct for that by saying, pound-seconds per pound instead of seconds. Intuition returns. I don't think it's incorrect to quote the statistic in seconds, just strange. After all, this is an engineering unit, governed by convention. It's not a scientific unit, governed by Nature. Nuff Bandwidth on Trivia, -Larry C. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:37:53 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Spy Sats (Was: Are La Newsgroups: sci.space In article <13628.409.uupcb@the-matrix.com> roland.dobbins@the-matrix.com (Roland Dobbins) writes: >DA>That report has been around a while... DoD's GROUND based tracking >DA>were certainly used and perhaps even one of their airborne platform >DA>it may just be the press jumping to conclusions to think any satell >DA>involved. KH-11 orbits are not all that much higher than the shutt >DA>would make an intercept pretty tight, and besides the optics are ob > >KH-11 is neither the latest nor the greatest "real-time" platform up there. > The ADVANCED KH-11 is... we currently have 2-3 of them up. OR, are you talking about Lacrosse or Aurora? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 1993 06:05:36 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1lotstINNsdh@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >Pleaseeeee.... > >Just get an AK-47, go down to NASA HQ, and start shooting everyone wearing a >tie who might be NASA management. It's the ONLY way you'll be happy. Doug, this urging Allen to get a gun and kill people is beginning to get out of hand. Once was funny, and twice made your point. But seeing you repeatedly hammer on this is really disturbing. Are you sure you're not projecting? -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu --------> shari brooks <-------- | brooks@anarchy.arc.nasa.gov The above opinions are solely my own. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 1993 15:10:04 GMT From: BAIRD Subject: Water resupply for SSF (?) Newsgroups: sci.space Well, this is my first time posting to usenet so be patient with the article! Danke schon! Well, a thought accured to me after reading a number of the posts here that dealt with the resupply of the space station (Fred or Son/Daughter of Fred) ....Everyone is complaining about the cost of the space station's resupply through the shuttle or HOPE or Hermes. WHy not just NOT use these vehiciles? I have heard of a number of proposals to drag ice from the outer system and refine it in orbit or get it from the asteriod belt. Using a set of robotic systems, using either electric propulsion(EP) or light sails(LS), in conjunction with a few robotic mining platforms shouldn't it be feasible to resupply the space station using either the belt or the outer planets' moons? The mission scenarios that I would have in mind are basically this: When SSF or SSSF(Son of Fred) is scheduled to begin construction or the nearest possible window before, have a pair of chemical combusting rockets boost two "ice factories" from LEO to either Jupiter's moons, Saturn's moons, or one of the Carboneous (sp) asteriods in the Belt. In a shuttle mission soon after with the "spare" cargo space on the shuttle with a different primary mission, it could deploy using the its robotic arm a half dozen EP modules of relatively small size. A pair of expendable launchers from the Cape would then be launched with the necessary fuel for them and rendezous with them. The EP modules would then spiral out to the outer system to rendezous with the operating factories. The factories would have boosted payloads of volatiles in to orbit of the satellite or asteriod that it was scraping on. The EP module would snatch up this and spiral back to the Earth and the SS. A processing module would have been added to the station by this time as well as various storage tanks. The shuttle would probably deploy about three or four dozen EP or LS modules for the resupply. If properly spaced the volatiles would be arriving at SSF fairly regularly or in batches in some sort of regular schedule. Until the first modules arrive from the outer system or asteriod belt tne SSF would be supplied by an SSTO. Now what are the mistakes or loop holes in this scenario? There must be some or else it would have been proposed and accepted? Is it the cost? I would see that as being something like $2 billion to $3.5 billion.....Would that be too high for a resupply system as I described? Or is it something else? Will ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 09:25:40 GMT From: "Herity D." Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred? Newsgroups: sci.space bruce@idsssd.UUCP (Bruce T. Harvey) writes: >If you have a purely non-atmospheric vehicle between station and moon, >wouldn't it be adding a GREAT deal of mass to this vehicle to enable it to >not only withstand the Aerobraking stresses but also (if I understand >correctly) the temperatures involved with atmospheric interaction? Aerobraking to LEO needn't require large stresses or thermal loads because it needn't be done in one pass. Even a modest braking effect will bring the vehicle into an eccentric decaying orbit, finishing in an atmosphere grazing orbit near LEO. A short burn can bring the perigee up to LEO. The saving in structural mass is probably well worth the time taken time taken waiting for the orbit to decay, especially considering that the transit time from the moon is about three days anyway. -- -----------------------------------------------------------|"Nothing travels | | Dominic Herity, dherity@cs.tcd.ie, |faster than light, | |Computer Science Dept, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.|except possibly bad| | Tel : +353-1-6772941 ext 1720 Fax : +353-1-6772204 |news"-Douglas Adams| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 17:09:33 EST From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de Joint Press Release ESA/EUMETSAT/NOAA Nr.08.93 Paris, 24 February 1993 EUROPEAN WEATHER SATELLITE MOVES CLOSER TO UNITED STATES A new era of international cooperation in the sharing of weather data was marked today when a European weather satellite completed a move to 75 degrees west longitude at 22,500 miles (36,000 km) above the equator. The satellite now provides weather images spanning both East and West Coasts of the United States, Central and South America. Meteosat-3 was launched in 1988 and served as Europe's operational satellite until June 1989. It was developed by the European Space Agency (ESA) and operated by ESA on behalf of the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT). The announcement of its move was made at a joint news conference by these agencies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operates the United States' geostationary weather satellites known as GOES satellites. The United States normally operates two meteorological satellites in geostationary orbit, one each over the East and West Coasts. However, it has had only one since the failure of GOES-6 in 1989. A planned replacement satellite was lost due to a launch vehicle failure in 1986. The remaining operational satellite, GOES-7, was repositioned midway over the United States. The next GOES launch is projected for April 1994 with a second GOES launch one year later. Meanwhile, if GOES-7 should fail, it is technically possible for Meteosat-3 to move farther west and provide continuing coverage of the United States, Central and South America. Meteosat-3 originally operated at 0 degrees longitude over the equator. It was manoeuvred to a position of 50 degrees west over the equator in August 1991 to supplement NOAA's GOES system. It began the journey to its new location of 75 degrees west longitude 27 January, moving approximately one degree per day in support of the Extended Atlantic Data Coverage mission. At 75 degrees west, Meteosat-3 is no longer within the field of view of the Meteosat station located near Darmstadt, Germany. To be able to continue the operations from ESA's European Space Operations Center (ESOC) it was necessary to build a Meteosat Relay station in Wallops, Virginia. The station, implemented by European industry under ESA management, is connected with ESOC's control center through a trans-Atlantic satellite link. Images from Meteosat-3 are available free of charge and will be used by weather forecasters in both the northern and southern American continents and will also be available to European weather services using already established communications links involving Meteosat 4. There is a tradition of cooperation among operators of geostationary satellites. In 1978, a U.S. GOES satellite was positioned over the Indian Ocean at the request of the World Meteorological Organisation, and operated by the European Space Agency from a ground station in Spain. In 1985, NOAA aided Europe by repositioning a GOES satellite farther east over the Atlantic during the loss of the Data Collection System on Meteosat- 2. * * * Note to Editors : Prints of the first image taken on 19 February 1993 by Meteosat-3 from its new location at 75 degrees West, together with some explanations of the meteorological situation that day, are available from ESA Public Relations at one of the addresses figuring on the first page of this press release.   ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 223 ------------------------------