Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO081.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Fri,  7 Aug 92 05:10:07
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #081
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  7 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 081

Today's Topics:
           basic electrodynamic tether description (3 msgs)
                  Fermi Paradox vs. Prime Directive
                          Home made rockets
                  Medicine for space walks (2 msgs)
                   Meteor Soaks Datona FL (2 msgs)
                              NASA Tools
                      Soyuz-Progress data (long)
                            Soyuz as ACRV
                Update to Space Logos: ESA Logo Added
                         Whales and Dolphins

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 19:07:27 GMT
From: "Richard S. Brice" <[e-mail]>
Subject: basic electrodynamic tether description
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Macrae) writes:
> There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about electrodynamic tethers.
> Basic Tether Orbital Mechanics:
> Assuming 2 masses attatched by a tether, the most stable position
> will be with one mass at a higher altitude than the other.  The principle is
> called gravity gradient stabilization.  This occurs because the center
> of gravity is not at the same location as the center of mass.  In fact

My Webster's Ninth Collegiate defines "center of gravity" as 1. center of mass,
2.  (other definitions deleted)

Clearly something is amiss here.

I assume there is some important aspect of orbital mechanics involved here that
Webster et al was omitting (or unaware of).

Would you mind providing a little clarification.

Thanks

R. Brice
MCC Corp

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 21:38:59 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: basic electrodynamic tether description
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard S. Brice) writes...
>
>My Webster's Ninth Collegiate defines "center of gravity" as 1. center of mass,
>2.  (other definitions deleted)
>
>Clearly something is amiss here.

Yeah.  Webster's is wrong.  They are only the same in a uniform gravitational
field, to which the Earth is an approximation *if you stay at or near the
surface*.  Think of it this way.  You weigh more at sea-level than at
10000 feet above sea level.  If your twin brother were on a mountain top
while you were at sea level, your combined center of mass would be exactly
between you but you center of gravity would be closer to you.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 21:11:48 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: basic electrodynamic tether description
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard S. Brice)
writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Greg Macrae) writes:

>My Webster's Ninth Collegiate defines "center of gravity" as 1. center of
mass,
>2.  (other definitions deleted)
>
>Clearly something is amiss here.
>
>I assume there is some important aspect of orbital mechanics involved here
that
>Webster et al was omitting (or unaware of).

Shows that dictionaries are poor sources of information about physics. The
confusion arises because the two points are coincident for a system of masses
immersed in a uniform gravitational field, a qualification which is left out of

the Webster's definition. The tethered system is large enough that the
nonuniformity of the gravitational field is appreciable. The center of gravity
of
this system is that point through which a force equal to the net gravitational
force on the masses which make up the system can be presumed to act if the
resulting acceleration of that point is the same as the acceleration of a point

mass having the same net mass as the system would be if that mass were placed
at
the same point in the gravitational field.

That's a terrible sentence, but I think it parses correctly, so you'll
understand
it when you figure out what I meant to say and rephrase it tastefully, an
exercise which I leave to the reader. :-)

Leigh

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 21:21:15 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fermi Paradox vs. Prime Directive
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>>... One can imagine something like
>>the "non-interference rule", where contact with Earth is *illegal*. That
>>would require a coherent interstellar culture in the local region.
>
>The hard part is making it stick for many millions of years, and be
>sufficiently airtight that there are no leaks whatever.  (Despite all
>the true-believer hoopla over UFOs, there is not one case of an
>unquestionably extraterrestrial artifact being found.)  Moreover,
>bear in mind that until recently -- at most a few million years ago --
>this planet had no intelligent life, and was ripe for colonization or
>other exploitation even if such a rule existed and was 100% enforced.

There was a very good sci-fi story a couple of years ago called "Crystal
Spheres" which attempted to address this problem.  It described a series
of circumstances which explained the mystery of why we had never been
visited before.

I'm doing this from memory, but basically...

The first explorers who ventured out past Pluto mysteriously disappeared.
Several space craft were suddenly destroyed in a huge crash and no warning.
Eventually some ship managed to survive and reached a neighboring
planetary system, only to find that they could not penetrate some kind
of barrier surrounding it.

It turns out that every planetary system was surrounded by a vast crystal
sphere, a la medieval cosmology.  You could get out, with some effort,
breaking the sphere, but no one else could ever get in before you shattered
the sphere.

Thus, every civilization had a protective shield preventing marauding intruders
who happened to develop space flight sooner from taking over everything.  Only
when you developed the technology to break the sphere could others enter.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 18:25:20 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:

> I have recently got into the field of making home-made rockets and have
> been experimenting with various types of cheap, readily availible fuels and
> cannisters.
[...]
> Launch sites have
> proved to be a bit of a problem as with the current state of political
> affairs here, we are a touch scared of being arrested.
>
> If anyone has any new/different ideas for fuels, chemical components,
> homemade flares, please let me know.


Please DO NOT DO THIS, for the sake of your safety and the safety of
everyone around you. This is a very good way to get KILLED or SEVERELY
MUTILATED.

I know a former bass player and chemistry enthusiast who was making his
own solid rocket engines. He blew off all the fingers on his right
hand. I think he's wised up about homemade rockets/explosives
manufacture, often known as "basement bombing." He doesn't play bass
any more, either: can you guess why?

If you enjoy building and flying rockets, please see the newsgroup
rec.models.rockets. Their FAQ gives a good introduction to the hobby of
model rocketry, which if practiced carefully, is safe and a lot of fun.
Model rocketry isn't expensive: I paid for, built, and flew my first
models when I was 10. Model rockets aren't really toys, either: good
ones can fly over 1000m high, can glide or parachute down, and you can
have multistaged rockets or even flying scale models of famous
spacecraft, such as the Saturn V.

But DON'T make you own engines, and follow the safety rules. I also
know a father who, with his son, was making homemade rockets and not
bothering to test them for flightworthiness (also called aerodynamic

stability), and furthermore was igniting them in a non-standard and
patently unsafe manner (instead of using a safety-certified electrical
launcher, they were sticking lit punks into the rocket engines'
nozzles). One of the rockets shot up and burned his eye, damaging his
cornea severely. I hope he was eventually all right: he sure didn't
look it when I last saw him.

What you describe doing is amazingly dangerous. If you persist in it, I
hope you do get caught and arrested, as you are a public menace, if
you're still alive to read this post!

Fred Ringwald
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH 03755-3528 USA

P.S. Real rocketeers are usually meticulous about safety: because when
they aren't, things like the Challenger disaster happen.

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 21:02:28 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Medicine for space walks
Newsgroups: sci.space

A couple of days ago I was listening the the ABC radio news on the hour
when the announcer said that NASA was thinking of approving some EVA
to deal with the tether problems.  He said that to prepare for that
contingency, the appropriate crew members had been instructed to take
some medication necessary for space walks.

What was he talking about?  What does it do?

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 21:21:32 GMT
From: Jerry Matulka <[e-mail]>
Subject: Medicine for space walks
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>A couple of days ago I was listening the the ABC radio news on the hour
>when the announcer said that NASA was thinking of approving some EVA
>to deal with the tether problems.  He said that to prepare for that
>contingency, the appropriate crew members had been instructed to take
>some medication necessary for space walks.
>
>What was he talking about?  What does it do?
>

I was watching NASA Select and I believe capcom instructed Jeff Hoffman and
his potential EVA partner to take an aspirin in preparation for the possible
EVA.  I don't know why this is done.  Perhaps something to do with blood
thinning, although I wouldn't have thought effects like that happen quickly.

I can hear it know...

capcom:  Atlantis, Houston.  Take two aspirin and call us AOS.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Jerry Matulka       Phone: [phone]         Email: [e-mail] |
|3000 Waterview Parkway, P.O. Box 833851, Richardson, Texas USA 75083-3851  |
|___________________________________________________________________________|

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

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 19:30:13 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Newsgroups: sci.space

Rusty Whitman writes:

>>> A giant wave that drenched Datona FL and caused a lot of damage
>>> in July turns out to have probably been caused by a 1 meter
>>> meteor!

> I heard this was caused by an underwater landslide (Washington Post I think).
> This sounds much more plausible than a meteor strike.  If a 1 meter meteor
> had hit the Atlantic just off Datona Beach there would have been some
> atmospheric effects along with the wave.  Also, I would hope that some
> Defense radar would have picked it up.  One meter objects falling from space
> are things they look for.  Of course, most of the radars look north and west.

And I've heard that seismographs recorded no such landslide.  Also, a boater
claims to have seen and heard a big meteor some eight miles offshore.  No
doubt this isn't the last we've heard on the subject.

By the way, why should underwater landslides be more plausible than meteor
strikes?  Meteor strikes occur all the time.  I think it was a very recent
issue of Sky & Telescope that had a picture of a 10 meter crater formed
sometime in the last couple of years by a 1 meter meteor.  Smaller objects
impact Earth even more frequently.

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 12:49:15 GMT
From: Rick Emerson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Greg F Walz Chojnacki) writes:

> From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (FRANK NEY):
> >
> > -----I quote-----
> > A giant wave that drenched Datona FL and caused a lot of damage
> > in July turns out to have probably been caused by a 1 meter
> > meteor!
> >
> IS there any source on this <alleged> meteor event other than a TV news repor
>
> Greg

Yes.  A very definative report from a guy in a boat who saw a flash around
the same time the wave hit.  I guess that wraps up that issue.

Bwa-hahahahahahha!

If a 1M rock dropped in at speeds roughly on the order of kilometers per
second, there'd be a darn sight more than a splash.


 | Richard B. Emerson     | Reply to [e-mail]                           |
 | System Support Group   |-------------------------------------------------+
 | Post Office Box 180    |   "Choose to chance the rapids                  |
 | Lansdale, PA 19446 USA |    And dare to dance the tide." -- Garth Brooks |

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 22:29:26 GMT
From: Anthony Frost <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Tools
Newsgroups: sci.space


  > Waddabout WD40?  No self respecting handyman would be
  > without it!

  > On the serious side, anybody know how this miracle drug of
  > mechanics works in the space environment?

Don't they claim somewhere that WD40 was developed for space applications?
My can is in the garage, it's dark, raining, and there's no light out there,
but I think it is also called Rocketlube in very small letters on the can.

          Anthony

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 18:00:18 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz-Progress data (long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Based on the interest in Russian space hardware, I threw together this rough and breif
description of the Soyuz TM and Progress M spacecraft.  This data was compiled
from combined descriptions of the Soyuz, Soyuz T and TM, Progress and Progress M.
The most up to date figures have been used where available.

The Soyuz consists of a near spherical orbital module, a bell shaped reentry
module and a service module.  Total spacecraft weight was about 6850 kg..  Most of
the Soyuz TM systems have backups, but reentry systems, electrical, life support
and hydraulic systems are triple redundant.  Orbital storage lifetime has not been
demonstrated beyond about 6 months.

Orbital Module - The forward third of the Soyuz is comprised of the orbital
module.  It is roughly spherical measuring  2.2 meters in diameter and about 2.6
meters long, weighing about 1200 kg..  The module serves as a sleeping quarters,
laboratory, air lock and cargo hold.  Soviet designers primarilly designed the
orbital module to serve as a docking adapter and airlock between the lunar module
and space stations.  The reentry module is not designed for depressurization.
    On the outside are rendezvous antennas and docking guidance antennas.   The
Kurs rendezvous system and computers enable the Soyuz to dock with a space
station while the station was at any relative attitude.   Wrapped around the
midsection of the module are radio and telemetry antennas.  The orbital module is
jettisoned after retrofire before entry in to the atmosphere.  The Soyuz T version
normally jettisoned the module before reentry to increase payload capacity.  It
decreased the amount of fuel needed for the reentry burn by 10 percent.  Even
with these savings, after a normal renedzvous there was barely enough propellant
to perform a fly-around inspection of a Salyut before docking.  The Soyuz TM
retains this capability but after the Soyuz TM-5 incident does not use it (see below).

Reentry Module - The Soyuz reentry module comprised the middle element of the
spacecraft.  It weighs about 2800 kg. and is 2.2 meters long and 2.3 meters in
diameter.  Together with the orbital module the internal habitable volume is 6.5
cubic meters.  The capsule was designed to perform ballistic reentry from lunar
distances which resulted in from 10 to 16 gravities.  Pressure suits are worn for
launch and landing and should be worn for only for a few hours at a time.  The
suits provide 307 mm. Hg pressure in normal mode, and 200 mm. Hg in backup
mode which is used when easier movement is needed.  The Soviets claim that the
suit could be doned and activated in about 30 seconds.  The suit weighs only about
10 kg. and can be used in emergencies for crew transfers in open space, although
this would require umbilicals or the use of a small backpack to provide oxygen.
    The crew in the Soyuz was seated with the commander in the center, the flight
engineer on the right and the research cosmonaut on the left.  The commander can
fly the ship using two control sticks.  Recent proposals included adding a remote
control sticks and a improved bubble window on the orbital module for improved
docking capabilities.  The flight engineer is responsible for monitoring the life
support systems, computer and communications systems.  The periscope is the
primary means for viewing other spacecraft before docking.  The periscope could
be rotated and had a field of view of 15 degrees.  The environmental system keeps
the atmosphere at near Earth normal between 710 to 850 mm. pressure and 20 degrees
C.  The air is chemically filtered to remove carbon dioxide and absorb water from
the air.
    Near the cosmonauts heads are the compartments for the emergency and main
parachute.  The capsule normally uses only a single large parachute for landing.
The parachutes weigh 140 kg., are 1000 square meters.  Standard emergency
supplies carried in the capsule are a raft, 4500 calories food, medicine, a radio,
flares, a knife and sea life suits.  Behind the seats is the electronics bay and the
reentry module attitude control system.  The modules attitude control system used
hydrogen peroxide as propellant, and six 10 kg. thrusters.  The capsules
heatshield is made of an ablative composite material.
     On the outside of the capsule are the periscope, that is jettisoned after
retrofire, and an umbilical running to the service and the orbital modules that is
also jettisoned after retrofire.   Capsule windows have jettisonable covers allowed
cosmonauts look outside the capsule after reentry.  When the parachute deploys at
about 7000 meters altitude, the heatshield also separates to expose solid fuel
braking rockets and the landing radar.  The radar fires the landing rockets at two
meters altitude to soften the landing.  Landing speed is normally less than three
meters per second.  The capsule had three light beacons, and protected radio
antennas to help location by recovery forces, since the capsule usually rolls onto
its side after landing.  Landing payload is about 140 kg using the origional flight
plan with orbital module seperation before retrofire.

Service Module - The service module consistes of a pressurized section for
instrumentation and an unpressurized engine compartment.  It is 2.3 meters long,
and 2.3 meters in diameter with a flared base 2.72 meters in diameter, and
weighes about 2600 kg. fuelled.  Propulsion is provided by a modified Salyut ODU
engine system with a combined propellant system for both main engine, backup
engine and four attitude thrusters using nitrogen tetroxide and UDMH.  The
attitude control system included a total of fourteen, 10 kg. thrust, attitude control
rockets and  eight, 1 kg. thrusters.  The attitude control system could be used as a
backup to the main engine to de-orbit the spacecraft.   The service modules
forward section was pressurized and contained electrical components of the
environmental, attitude control, communication, propulsion systems and
batteries.   The solar arrays consist of folding segments and deploy to 10.6 meters
end to end length.  When on solo missions, the Soyuz is put into a slow spin to keep
the solar arrays in maximum sun light and expend the least propellant.  There
were also small thermal radiators at the base of the arrays and radiators also
ringed the service module in bands.

Launch Abort System - The last component of the spacecraft is the launch shroud
and launch abort system consisting of a large solid tractor rocket for use in aborts
and a small solid rocket for sustaining thrust during an abort and normal
seperation of the abort system.

Progress-M - The Progress is a highly modified version of the Soyuz, used to
automatically deliver cargo to the space stations.  The Soyuz design was altered by
replacing the capsule with a tankage section.   The Progress spacecraft usually
weighs about 7,000 kg., payload capacity is 2400 kg. of which about 1000 kg.
was maximum weight of propellants, and 1400 kg. maximum orbital module
cargo.  It is about 8 meters long and 2.7 meters diameter at the base.  Internal
volume of the cargo module is 7.6 cubic meters.  The design uses a Soyuz TM
service module, Kurs, and solar panels.  Capable of solo flight for up to 30 days.
Docked lifetime is 108 days.
    The orbital module also can be equipped with a NPO Energia return capsule
capable of carrying 100-150 kg..  The capusle is carried in the orbital module
and is used to replace the docking probe after filling the Progress with trash, and
the old probe.  The capsule is 60 cm. in diameter.  In the cargo section, pressure
is maintained but temperature varies from 3 to 30 degrees C during flight.  The
Progress can carry enough cargo to supply a station with two or three
people for three to six weeks.  A typical cargo consisted of 200 kg. of water,
600 kg. of propellant, 250 kg. of food and 450 kg. of air.  Propellant was
transferred from the Progress to the station through docking collar connections.
The propellant tanks are also connected to the Progress propulsion tanks so
propellant unused during rendezvous and docking can be transfered to the station.
The lines in the docking collar are purged with nitrogen after refueling, to
prevent the fuel and oxidizer residue from spilling out onto the station after
undocking.

Other facts:
Soyuz always have been fully rated to make water landings.  The Soyuz 23 flight to
Salyut 5 was aborted and landed on Oct. 16, 1976, 8:47 P.M. in the 32 km. wide
Lake Tengiz. They were not recovered until the next day.  In addition, Zond 5 and
8 circumlunar versions of the Soyuz made unplanned landings in the Indian Ocean
and were recovered.  Another Zond test apparently struck an ice covered lake
and sank.

Retrofire problems on Sept. 6, 1988 left the Soyuz TM-5 in orbit without its
reentry module for 26 hours.  The discomfort caused by this meant that on future
flights the orbital modules would by left on until after retrofire so the crew can
use it's sanitary facilities, food, water and remove their pressure suits despite
the costly payload cuts required.

Salyut and Mir stations have had exterior residue problems.  Progres 22 on
July 15, 1984 made a 'clean' undocking. Station solar array degredation was
suspected due to hits by thruster exhaust and residue. They revised undocking
procedures to delete seperation burns near the station and rely on the docking
collar springs to push the craft away. I haven't heard if this is still practiced.

Duration of Soyuz solo flights over a week:
  Soyuz 9 - 18 days (long duration record breaker)
  Soyuz 13 - 8 days (substitute for failed Salyut stations)
  Soyuz 22 - 8 days (MKF-6 multispectral camera testing for Salyut 6)
  Kosmos 869 - 18 days (unmanned - Soyuz T test flight)
  Kosmos 1001 - 11 days (unmanned - Soyuz T test flight)
  Kosmos 1074 - 90 days (unmanned - Soyuz T test flight)
  {Zond circumlunar missions lasted about a week also}


Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 18:20:06 GMT
From: Robert Bunge <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>#No need to split it up. The Air Force has a Titan IV fairing which is fully
>#compatible with the Shuttle.
>
>There is a need to split it up. Having seven different instruments on
>HST caused a lot of compromises. Launching three smaller missions
>instead of one all singing all dancing one would have been cheaper,
>more reliable, and returned more data.

Not to mention getting to GEO so it can operate realtime like IUE.

Bob Bunge

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 22:33:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Update to Space Logos: ESA Logo Added
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

I just uploaded the European Space Agency (ESA) logo to
  ames.arc.nasa.gov:/pub/SPACE/LOGOS/esa.*
Use anonymous FTP to retrieve it.

Here's the README file:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Logos                                                Updated 08/06/92

These logos are provided as a service from NASA to

  - Provide access to various logos, seals, patches and emblems
      associated with the space program

  - Allow use of a consistent, almost-official set of logos across
      the Agency

  - Eliminate duplication of effort across the Agency by producing
      electronic images of these logos just ONCE

Files:

ballmono.*   -- NASA's "meatball" logo; black, white & grey

esa.*        -- The logo for the European Space Agency

jpl.*        -- The official logo for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory

jsc.*        -- An unofficial logo for Johnson Space Center

logo001.tif  -- A 256-color, 300 dpi image of the NASA meatball

msfc.*       -- A logo for Marshall Space Flight Center from 1969

nasaball.*   -- NASA's official "meatball" logo; deep blue, dark red,
                white background

nasaseal.*   -- NASA's official seal

nasaworm.*   -- NASA's "worm" logo, now replaced by meatball logo

ssfp.*       -- The official logo of the Space Station Freedom Program

ssp.*        -- Official logo of the Space Shuttle Program (color)

sspmono.*    -- Monochrome version of the Space Shuttle Program logo

Formats:

*.bmp -- MS Windows Bitmap format, suitable for use as wallpaper
*.cdr -- CorelDRAW format, a popular color vector format
*.cgm -- Computer Graphics Metafile, a popular color vector format
*.drw -- Micrografx Designer format, a popular color vector format
*.gif -- Graphics Interchange Format, a popular color raster format
*.pct -- CorelDRAW's attempt at exporting to Macintosh's PICT format
*.pcx -- PCX, a popular color raster format
*.tif -- Tagged Image File Format, a popular color raster format
*.wmf -- MS Windows Metafile format
*.gif.uu -- a GIF file run through "uuencode" to change it to a text file

Not all images are available in all formats.  If you cannot read ANY of
the file formats listed, feel free to contact me.  I can translate
these to most any graphics format.

If you have any images which should be part of this collection, please
contact me.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

P.S.  Ron Baalke posted the following reference to some Mac files,
      including ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/MAGELLAN/nasalogo.mac  -- KJ

>Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,comp.sys.mac.misc
>From: [e-mail] (Ron Baalke)
>Subject: Macintosh Images
>Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 12:20:47 GMT
>
>
>                         =============================
>                                MACINTOSH IMAGES
>                                 June 24, 1992
>                         =============================
>
>     Two images are now available that can be displayed on the older
>black-and-white Machintoshes.  One image is of the "new" NASA logo, and the
>other image is the Venus globe put together from the data from the Magellan
>spacecraft.  If the images are placed in the System folder of the computer and
>named "StartupScreen", the images will automatically be displayed when the
>computer is turned on.  The images have been dithered to replace the grey
>values with varying densities of black and white and are stored in the
>MacBinary format.  The images can be retrieved from the Ames site using
>anonymous ftp.
>
>        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
>        user:     anonymous
>        cd:       pub/SPACE/MAGELLAN
>        files:    nasalogo.mac (MacBinary format)
>                  venus.mac (MacBinary format)
>     ___    _____     ___
>    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
>    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
> ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Pound for pound,
>/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | grasshoppers are 3 times as
>|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | nutritious as beef.

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

Date: 6 Aug 92 20:47:31 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales and Dolphins
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>Human search parties won't go out to rescue one person if the expected
>outcome is that several people *will* die in the attempt. (Unless it's
>the President or something.)

Nonsense.  Look at the motto of the USAF pararescue: "That others
may live."  How many times have you seen firefighters go into a burning
building on the evening news?  If you want further proof, look at the
amount of money NASA is planning to spend on a lifeboat, which probably
won't ever be used, for Space Station Freedom, and think about how
many lives that money could save if spent in other ways.  Humans are
not rational animals, they are rationalizing animals.


>Anyway, the discussion was whether whales have *intellect* comparable to
>humans, not *emotion*.

To be precise, the question was whether the fact that whales engage
in mass beachings proves they are not intelligent.  (Somewhat analogous
to the question of whether the fact that millions of Americans smoke
cigarettes proves that they are not intelligent.)


>Humans often have the intellectual capability to realize that the
>action most strongly prompted by emotion would defeat its own purpose
>if carried out.

If so, they very seldom use it.  (At least, I seldom noticed it during
the two years I worked as an ambulance attendent. ;-)

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 081
------------------------------