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