Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!pacbell!ames!bionet!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Space Program-related acronyms
Keywords: acronyms
Message-ID: <14531@bfmny0.UUCP>
Date: 9 Aug 89 00:26:24 GMT
References: <135@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU> <298@opus.NMSU.EDU> <1015@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 17

In article <1015@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Bill LeFebvre) writes:
>One interesting side-effect of the shuttle using TDRSS is that there
>is no longer a re-entry LOS (or "blackout").  Did anyone else notice
>that on the last flight?

Who decided this was a side effect of using TDRSS?  I don't see why that
would work, or even how the buttoned-up and re-entry buffeted shuttle
manages TDRSS AOS in the first place.

The re-entry ionization blackout has more to do with the severity of
radio noise from the fireball than it does with who's listening, I
thought.  There have been "light" distruptions in the past, I recall,
but I don't know what the common denominator is.  If TDRSS somehow does
it, I'd like to know how.
-- 
"We walked on the moon --	((	Tom Neff
	you be polite"		 )) 	tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET