Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 05:00:02 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #226 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 26 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 226 Today's Topics: Allen's attitude Aurora (rumors) (2 msgs) Aurora, Popular Science Beamed power transmission on Mars? Blaming the Victim Canadian SSF effort ??/Alaska? Design Settlement on Mars, Beaming power.. Mars Rescue Mission, what if! McElwaine disciplined! (somewhat long) NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Revive LLNL? (was Re: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead...) Spacecraft Systems Engineering by Fortescue&Stark The Future of Fred Turpedo Tube in Reverse Missle Launchers. Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred? (2 msgs) 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: Thu, 25 Feb 93 15:48:37 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Allen's attitude >>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? >Thank you for that pop psycho-analysis. >However, the initial point stands. Mr. Sherzer will not be happy until every >stinkin' burrrreo-crat in NASA is unemployed and out on the street, so America (waive flag for knee-jerk reaction) can once again assume it's manifest destiny >in the Universe. Actually, the first point still stands, as well. You are reacting, as far as I can tell, rather more vehemently than Allen's posts should require. Your pop-analysis of Mr. Sherzer's position is weak, too. >The truth, which you chose to cut out, is that Allen's random spray-andcondemn >attacks insult a lot of people working at NASA who are busting a gut to do >their jobs to the best of their abilities, and within the limitations imposed >upon them by a variety of sources. Just because people do their job wonderfully, on-time, succintly, efficiently, and with a smile, does not mean that the product of the job is a good one. I think that is the jist of most people's problem with NASA; Not the people, but the goals they are set to follow. If those people are insulted by the public speaking out about how they use the public's money, I'd suggest those insulted people should get some perspective or get a different job, for their own peace of mind. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief! 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 1993 15:22:59 -0600 From: Robert Fentiman Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space In article Lawrence Curcio writes: :Uh, it may be fast and all but, uh, what good is an audible spy plane? When you travel faster than sound (hence the sonic booms), people on the ground hear the plane after it has already passed. There are two ways to be stealthy. Make yourself invisible, or go so fast that it won't matter :-). A combination would work best. Go fast enough and your plane will be LONG gone by the time anyone (audibly) detects it. :There. I asked it and I'm glad! : :-Larry C. Thanks Robert Fentiman InterNet: rfentima@ub.d.umn.edu At: University of Minnesota, Duluth ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 16:18:55 MET From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: Aurora (rumors) >>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. >>J. Pharabod >I don't recall that being reported by AW&ST or similar sources. >D. Adams (Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:40:41 GMT) From "New Scientist", 12 September 1992: SECRET PLANE BLAMED FOR BIG BANG The "exploding meteorite" that sent a shock wave across the Netherlands on 19 August may well have been a sonic boom from the secret supersonic plane being built for the US Air Force by Lockheed, the American aero- space company. Scientists who thought the explanation for the explosion was a falling meteorite have changed their minds after assessing all the evidence. Astronomers and meteorologists spent a day studying seismograms, "earwitness" accounts and a handful of sightings of meteors. "From an astronomical viewpoint, our conclusion might be a little disappointing," says Hein Haak of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute. The meteorite theory (This Week, 29 August) was discarded because there were no good accounts of a fireball at the right time. The group also ruled out space junk. Engineers at the European Space Agency's control centre at Darmstadt in Germany investigated space junk that entered the atmosphere that night, but no single piece was large enough to produce the observed effects. According to the astronomers, this leaves only one explanation: that the explosion and tremors were caused by a sonic boom. From the seismic data, Haak deduced that the event happened over the North Sea about 50 kilometers west of the island of Texel. The plane must have been flying at an altitude of at least 10 kilometres, because it was not picked up on radar. Similar explosions have been reported in the US over the past year, notably in the Los Angeles area, where seismologists detected acoustic shock waves. And a recent issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology reports sightings of a delta-winged, supersonic plane, some near Lockheed's testing area in the Mojave desert. According to the report, a Boeing 747 reported a near-collision with a supersonic aircraft near George Air Force Base in California. The US Air Force still denies the existence of the aircraft. (end of article) ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. This Aurora seems really dangerous for people (near-collisions), buildings and environment (shock waves). Also, it has a strange habit of shouting "Hi folks, I'm coming to spy on you !". The best would be to stick it on the ground. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 22:21:36 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Aurora, Popular Science Newsgroups: sci.space Has anyoen seen this months Popular Science.. It has "Aurora" on the cover.. Or so it seems, not red the article yet.. Just got money enough today.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:28:21 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Beamed power transmission on Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1me2ahINN25b@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov writes: > I will express the opinion that this is not a practical idea. First, since >Mars has little atmosphere, an orbiting receiver will not be all that much more >efficient than solar cells on the ground (or on a rover, etc.). Nothing to be >gained by being in orbit, except maybe size. Actually, the atmosphere isn't the only problem with ground-based solar power: There is a horizon, which blocks sunlight about 50% of the time; there are dust stroms (which very effectively block sunlight and cover surfaces); there is gravity which increases structural weight; there is the planet's rotation, which requires a ~15 deg/hour tracking rate, to remain pointed at the sun. Also, there are transportation problems: It's easier to leave a power system on obrit, instead of fitting it into a lander, sending it to the surface and assembling it there. >...However, the notion of beaming power down by miocrowaves has >been explored for the earth, and found impractical from an engineering standpoint. >As I recall there were severe problems keeping the signal from various parts of >a large antenna (or antenna array) in phase, to prevent destructive interference. That isn't generally a problem: If, for public safety reasons (or public misplaced and irrational fears...), you insist on an extremely low power flux (i.e. less than that of sunlight) then antenna size and and phase errors aren't a problem. For a Martian system (where there aren't any idiots or cows to wander around near the antenna), there isn't any problem with a flux of, say, 50 kW/m^2 and a 5-meter wide antenna. Of course, given the distance between the Sun and Mars, nuclear power is a generally more effective idea... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 15:35:09 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Blaming the Victim >>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... >2) It is your fault your house got burglarized..... >3) It is your fault you got raped... >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. No no. You've got it wrong. The victims are completely innocent. They are merely the ones who got raped or burglarized. If you can't see the difference between 'watching out for yourself' and 'taking the blame', well, no wonder you feel angry. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief! 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 22:25:01 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Canadian SSF effort ??/Alaska? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1mbfk2INNcrm@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: > In article , kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) writes: > >>impure. The present situation has a similar feel, as if the >>main thing that Clinton has against SSF is that Reagan and >>Bush supported it. > > It's long term politics. Between SSF (redesign mark 4?) and the SooperDooper > collider, there's a lot of money going to Texas. > > One cannot easily kill a pig who hath sipped from the magik trough! > > > I have talked to Ehud, and lived. > -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- Maybe the Canadian and Alaskans can get together and teach the Middle Part of North America a leason. (Lower Part is Mexico).. Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 21:53:09 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Design Settlement on Mars, Beaming power.. Newsgroups: sci.space In article , rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes: > I was wondering if it would be worth considering a power source > for future human exploration of Mars that used a solar radiation > collector in Mars orbit and beamed microwaves or lasers to receivers > on the surface. Perhaps the laser option would work best as the > size of the receiving antenna would be smaller and perhaps highly > portable. That way, much longer traverses away from the central > base might be possible, decreasing the amount of fuel the rovers would > have to carry along. > > -rabjab This brings up an idea. We need to figure out how the settlement of Mars will look like and plan it out.. So that we will make sure that we use the info that we have learned about earth and plan for better.. Any ideas?? Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 22:15:19 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Mars Rescue Mission, what if! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1mb7ccINNjg@access.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > > Seriously, even at 200 million for an Energiya, I doubt that > anyone wants to spend that kind of money. Most explorers know > that there is little chance of help on serious missions. > Lots of military operations are done on a no pick-ups basis. > > Unless dozens of lifes are at stake, i can't see spending > 100 million, 200 million on getting a monkey wrench shipped. > > Lots of exploreers die, and they get their name stuck on a > street, an ocean or a mountain. > > pat Problem with not doing anything, that if the Mars mission has a real problem and we don't do anything, we might as well kiss Space Exploration for 20 or more years.. Also the US Military has a "proud" tradition of doing everything possible to bring our pilots back.. Even if a few more people get killed. The russians might not care about their astronauts, but I think the US might care more for them... What could we do to make it easier if a rescue mission is necessary? Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 22:52:56 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: McElwaine disciplined! (somewhat long) Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.space,sci.astro Tom Randolph (randolph@est.enet.dec.com) wrote: > > By the way, try sending him mail, asking a question about the postings. You > will not get any answers, only another random posting of rubbish mailed > directly to you. I've tried several times. Apparently there's a mail-answering > server program running. > -Tom R. randolph@est.enet.dec.com Hmmm. If only someone could send a mail message that had Mr. McE's own address as the return path...... -- ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Marketing is the business of selling || Honk if you like Einstein |||||||||||projects to management. ||------------------------------------------------------------------------ ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 23:18:55 GMT From: Jeffrey David Hagen Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Newsgroups: sci.space In article <13629.409.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, roland.dobbins@the-matrix.com (Roland Dobbins) writes: |> CO> |> CO>From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) |> CO>Newsgroups: sci.space |> CO>Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SSF effort ?? ) |> CO>Date: 20 Feb 1993 19:44:50 GMT |> CO>Message-ID: <1m61niINNfth@rave.larc.nasa.gov> |> CO>Reply-To: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) |> CO> |> CO>> Aerospace Daily also reports that NASA research |> CO>> on advanced subsonic and supersonic transport aircraft would |> CO>> get a big increase under Clinton's budget plan, with $550 |> CO>> million more programmed in fiscal years 1994-97, and another |> CO>> $267 million scheduled for FY '98. |> CO> |> CO>What about NASP??? |> CO> |> CO> |> |> Errr . . . that _is_ NASP. |> |> It's SSX I'm worried about . . . |> --- |> . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] |> No, the original poster's article clearly states that it was funding for subsonic and supersonic research that was mentioned in the Aerospace Daily article. NASP is hypersonic research. I'll repeat his question - Does anybody know what Clinton intends to do with NASP funding? Jeff Hagen MEMS Dept. Rice University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 21:33:18 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be developed Newsgroups: sci.space In article <23FEB199310324877@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov 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 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. That doesn't have to be EVA work: There isn't any real difficulty in adding a hatch and docking collar to the external tank, or putting the life support and power systems in a pre-assembled module (i.e. all the vital things except room to live and work.) The support module could be tested on the ground, and docked on orbit to the external tank. The tank could then be pressurized and all the work you mention done without an EVA. >...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. That is true of _any_ space station, Freedom included. In fact, this supports the idea of a quick, cheap space station as a "learning experience" to avoid future mistakes on an expensive, ambitious station... >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. I don't think these reductions even come close to "resolving" the issue. As I recall, planned maintaince EVAs will still require ~500 man-hours per year (i.e. one two-man EVA every week.) That's on the edge of possible, using the current space suits (per-breath required, high maintaince and logistical requirments.) However, looking at the Soviet experience, most maintaince EVAs are _not_ planned and expected. Over two thirds of their maintaince/repair EVAs were to fix things which (in theory and according to the on-paper designs) should never have broken. If we _know_ about 500 man-hours of work required to maintain Freedom, we should also expect at least an additional 500 man-hours of unexpected problems. That rate of EVAs is probably not possible currently. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 18:09:42 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Revive LLNL? (was Re: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead...) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <23FEB199310324877@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > In article <1mb6scINNt87@access.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes... [discussion of setting up station based on External Tank] > 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. This reminds me... what about the Livermore designs? Inflate a bag, then enter the bag and do your installation in shirtsleeves. I wonder if Lowell Wood is packing his suitcase and his old space station transparencies right now... During the first and second stage Bill Higgins flights of the vehicle, if a serious Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory irretrievable fault should occur and HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET the deviation of the flight attitude of HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV the vehicle exceeds a predetermined SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS value, the attitude self-destruction system will make the vehicle self-destroyed. --Long March 3 User's Manual Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:02:46 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Spacecraft Systems Engineering by Fortescue&Stark Newsgroups: sci.space I recently ran into a new book on space hardware: Spacecraft Systems Engineering, edited by Peter Fortescue and John Stark, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-93451-8. It cost me about US$60. I think I would rate this as better than Wertz&Larson in a lot of ways. It doesn't go into the same depth on some topics, especially the ones that are more mission planning than hardware design. On the other hand, it goes into noticeably more depth on many things, and it is generally more interesting reading. For serious spacecraft engineering I'd want both, but this is the one I'd recommend for someone who just wanted to buy one book for a good technical overview. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 10:12:02 From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: The Future of Fred Newsgroups: sci.space BS>Organization: The Portal System (TM) BS>From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) BS>Message-ID: <76070@cup.portal.com> BS>Newsgroups: sci.space BS> BS> BS> Actually, this sounds like we're abandoning a Space Station in BS> favor of an Industrial Space Facility variant. While I'm not BS> complaining, I can't see calling this thing a "Space Station". BS> BS> If the cutback is as massive as the original message in this BS> thread indicates, then why don't we just get the Mir 2 specs BS> from Russian and build a module or two for it? BS> BS> What on Earth are Canada, ESA, and Japan going to do with all BS> their Freedom hardware? After ISPM and Freedom, international BS> cooperation in space is likely to be dead, dead, dead. BS> BS> Oh well, I guess our youth can look forward to building nice BS> highways in the future, not much else. Since the design for Freedom obviously wouldn't work, I'm not shedding any tears for its' demise. NASA will certainly work with the other countires to ensure that their modules will interface with both the new station and Mir II. The Canadians work may go for naught, however, but its early yet. The rumor is that the new station will be orbital within 4 years. I would prefer a real station in orbit to one that will permanently be on paper. Furthermore, even if it turns out to be a Space Winnebago, with a couple of foreign modules attached, we honestly could use a flight prototype for a followup now, rather than attempt the whole shebang with no flight experience. After all, most of the folks who built Skylab are long gone. ___ WinQwk 2.0b#0 --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 93 21:48:55 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Turpedo Tube in Reverse Missle Launchers. Newsgroups: sci.space Idea for a way to deploy a missle without having to have hard points or a "bombbay".. Have a "bombbay" that opens to drop off the missle. Kind of like a torpedo tube on a submarine in reverse. The missle would get its lock from the airplanes sensors.. Im not sure how to describe my idea.. So tell me what it sounds liek and Ill say yes or no.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 21:48:40 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <10357@news.duke.edu> cchung@sneezy.phy.duke.edu (Charles Chung) writes: >> The costs of a station (as well as the delays and risks) far >> outweigh the extra efficiency made possible by a >> station. >Is this true for Fred in particular or for any space station? Fred >is by no means optimised as a staging point. It's true of any station, to some degree. Things have to be sent to the Moon or Mars at a sufficiently high rate, before the costs of a on-orbit construction shack/staging point are justified. A for- purpose station would require a lower rate than a general purpose one, but not by all that much: The costs also include political and administrative risks, as well as technical ones. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 21:58:14 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb22.154611.21355@idsssd.UUCP> 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? Not necessarily: You can spread the manuver out over time. Specifically, if the vehicle only enters the uppermost, extremely diffuse portion of the atmosphere, and only changes it's velocity by (say) 100 m/s, there is no significant extra mass required. Such a craft would then leave the atmosphere, continue on it's new orbit and _re_enter the atmosphere once every orbit. For an Lunar to Low Earth Orbit transfer, where a velocity change of about 4 km/s would be required, this sort of aerobraking would require several dozen passes through the atmosphere. Overall, this would take three or four months, but if in many cases (unmanned cargo transfers to supply a lunar base, for example) the delay isn't a problem. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 17:15:05 EST From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de Press Release No. 09-93 Paris, 25 February 1993 ESA at the Paris Air Show, Le Bourget 10/20 June 1993 Man, Earth, Space The European Space Agency (ESA) will be putting on a quite exceptional display at this year's fortieth Paris Air Show, which is being held from 10 to 20 June at Le Bourget airport, on the outskirts of Paris. In a 1500 m2 pavilion, ESA will be presenting the range of Europe's space programmes around three main themes: Man, Earth and Space. Man and his role in space activities, especially on missions in near- Earth orbit, will be presented to the public in the most spectacular manner: in an octagonal aquarium, 6m in depth and containing 360m3 of water, astronauts will go through their routines in and around a structure representing the Columbus attached laboratory. There will be four windows, each 3m x 3m, to enable members of the public to observe this simulation of the work done by astronauts in orbit both within the laboratory and on space walks. This aquarium is going to be the centrepiece of the ESA pavilion, in that it will not only be extremely spectacular but will give the public and the media an idea of the difficulties involved in the tasks that astronauts have to carry out under microgravity conditions. It is going to be used during the Air Show for actual tests by the ESA astronaut team and afterwards in the course of development tests on orbital laboratories of the future. Study of the Earth itself is of course among the Agency's foremost interests, and ESA is helping to improve our knowledge of the terrestrial environment with such programmes as ERS, Meteosat and the future polar platform, which has now been given the name Envisat. This key aspect of ESA's space research is represented by full-scale mock-ups of Meteosat and ERS and, in relief on the front wall of the pavilion, an illustration of the Envisat polar platform, also full-scale. The conquest and exploitation of Space are, as ever, ESA's primary activities, starting with Ariane, to which Europe owes its position on the launcher market. Ariane-5, whose maiden flight is scheduled for autumn 1995, will be represented by a 1:10 scale mock-up, a 1:4 scale half-fairing with two satellites installed, and a 12m x 7m fresco depicting the base of the launcher with the Vulcain engine and the lower ends of the boosters. There will also be a 1:10 scale mock-up of Ariane-4, Europe's current launcher. Science, ESA's basic activity, will be represented by full-scale mock-ups of two programmes: Soho, whose mission will be permanent observation of the sun's surface, is scheduled for launch in 1995, and ISO, the infrared space observatory, in 1994. The Agency's telecommunications interests will be represented by a mock-up of Artemis, a preoperational geostationary communication satellite, scheduled for launch on the second Ariane-5 flight, in spring 1996. Finally, there will be various audiovisual presentations to give the public more information about ESA. Two holoramas, using original processes, will take members of the public on voyages between the Earth and space, and there will be opportunities for interactive discovery of new virtual reality simulation techniques.  ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 226 ------------------------------