Conference 7.286::space

>            Tell them there should be a major program to start picking up 
>    the useless satellite and rocket debris orbiting Earth.
 
    Right, can we also have them send up huge fleets of military fighters
    to sweep the pollution out of the atmosphere?  See, they could use
    vacuum cleaners with frequently changed filter bags and get rid
    of smog and acid rain and such.
        
>    It can be 
>    done using the Space Shuttle, or even relatively cheaply using robot 
>    satellites which can attain orbits where the Shuttle cannot;
     
    Gosh, cheaper than the shuttle?  Lets get cracking!  Lessee, if
    we could just have the GNP for a decade, we could get rid of all
    that junk!  I mean, stopping something with a relative velocity
    of anywhere up to 38,000 MPH isn't difficult is it?  Just have the
    shuttle chase after it, match orbits, and haul it in.  Piece of
    cake!  I mean, it's not as if the shuttle were booked solid way past
    the end of it's expected life span.
    
>    and 
>    what is even better is that the debris need not be returned to pollute 
>    Earth.  For one thing, some old, deactivated satellites are now part 
>    of space history, and deserve to be returned to Earth for placement in 
>    our museums.
     
    Right, I'm sure lots of museums, schools, and private citizens would
    pay tens of millions apiece for defunct space hardware...
    
>    Others still have valuable parts which can be reused 
>    and/or recycled; and as for the truly useless debris, if it is 
>    small enough it can be deorbited to burn up completely on reentry, or 
>    launched into the Sun with no harmful effects to our star.
    
    For now we will ignore the detail that it costs more to toss something
    into the sun as it does to get it up to solar escape velocity....
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    
    I'm sorry, but we just have to be realistic about these things,
    it would bankrupt the country to vacuum (sorry) near-earth space
    like this.  Sure, it's not 'nice' to have all this junk up there,
    and it's responsible to not leave any more junk behind, but we won't
    see any serious cleanup project until we are a space-faring
    civilization and either:
    
    1)	The stuff is worth something, so there will be people out there
    prospecting for it and bringing it back to the smelters.
    
    2)	There's enough of a problem that the gummint decides to "do
    something about it" (a la Superfund) and can actually afford to
    sweep the stuff out of orbit.            
    
    I have visions of some well-meaning idiots passing 'anti-litter'
    legislation forcing you to bring back everything you take into space,
    thus making space travel too expensive for even governments to afford.
    
    When we have a space-faring civilization then the astronomers can
    afford to put thier telescopes _way_ out beyond all these problems.
    I don't remember the astronomers forgoing advanced materials for
    new telescopes because their manufacture creates toxic wastes or
    atmospheric pollution....
    
    Willie

    	Was it necessary to get so sarcastic?  I am NOT ignorant of
    the problems involved in cleaning up human-made debris in space.
    I am simply hoping that *some* program could be instituted to clean
    up at least *some* of the debris and return old historic satellites.
    Despite what you say, I think a *lot* of museums and educational
    facilities would be thrilled to have an actual satellite which was
    in space - the National Aeronautics and Space Museum in Washington,
    D.C. is one such institution.  Plus those astronauts, cosmonauts, and 
    delicate instruments who would be spared being struck by any more debris
    than there already is would probably appreciate some sort of cleanup
    too.

        And as for astronomers and light pollution, do you honestly 
    think that even a century from now they will all be able to just leave 
    Earth and observe in space to avoid light pollution?  And what about 
    amateur astronomers, many of whom make signifigant contributions to 
    the advancement of our astronomical knowledge.  It will be quite a 
    few centuries before the average citizen can afford to just fly into 
    space on a weekend jaunt, and by then the pollution problems may be 
    too severe if we don't do something now to stop it.
    
    	The other benefit from any attempt at a cleanup effort would
    be to get more technology and personnel in space in the process,
    heading towards our eventual colonization of space.  If you find
    *this* nieve, then I'm afraid that's all I can do.
    
    	Larry
    	 

Please excuse what I suspect is a dumb question: but why can't we
use lasers, such as SDI or ground based units to knock off the
debris?

It would be wonderful testing and training for military types;
and if they don't like to do it, we could open up arcades for
teenagers where they could lock onto and zap this junk! 

    	Something tells me that the lasers would just make *more* debris
    in the process, as the old satellites and such become fragmented
    by the blasts.  Plus SDI only *adds* to the debris in Earth orbit; 
    several tests in recent years have added thousands of metal scraps 
    from destroyed target satellites in orbit.
    
    	I do not think we have lasers which are that powerful yet, anyway.
    One method for slowing down old satellites which are probably rotating
    rapidly (and dangerously) due to loss of gyroscope control is to
    spray them with water - yes, water - and thus slow down their rotation
    rates to make them easier to grab. 
                                           
    	And besides, would you trust *teenagers* with lasers (or some
    adults for that matter)?!
    
    	Larry
                           

    Sorry about being so sarcastic, but for a moment I thought I was
    in the SF notes file, under the blue_sky topic....
    
    Yes, it would be nice to bring back old satellites, but check into
    the costs of this.  Even the new satellites that were brought back
    for another try just barely broke even, and the return costs were
    something like $30M each.
    
    If we can't get off this planet within a century to do routine
    astronomical observations, then space debris will be the least of
    our problems.  We will be deep into nuclear winter (or whatever)
    and/or resource/pollution/food/water/living_space problems if we
    stay on this rock that long.  Maybe we can ask the Soviets to do
    it for us....  If we _can_ get off this rock, then even the amateur
    astronomers will have space telescopes or be living out there and
    building their own.
    
    No it's not a bad idea, but it's not the time for it.  What if the
    EPA had come to Henry Ford and started imposing emission controls
    and catalytic converters?  What if the NTSB had required seat belts
    and hrns and windshields and lights?
    
    Willie

Talk about timeliness......

From "Machine Design", August 11 1988, "News Trends" section, p. 14:

--------

		SPACE DEBRIS MAY GET THE AXE

   Low earth orbit (LEO) debris caused by human activity in space is a
   possible threat to future exploration efforts.  Projections show that by
   1990 the probability of collision will be nearly double what it is today.
   But LEO debris may someday be removed by the Autonomous Space Processor
   for Orbital Debris (Aspod).  That's the name given to a small,
   shuttle-launched spacecraft currently under development at the University
   of Arizona.

      [ photo of three people working outdoors on something that looks
        like a collection of aluminum tubing, black Masonite, and Fresnel
	lenses - assembly looks to be ~ 6'x6' - a model?]

   Aspod is to be equipped with a solar-driven, metal cutting device that
   will carve orbiting debris into pieces small enough to fit in a removable
   bin.  The metal cutter uses gold acrylic mirrors, mounted on a platform
   that inclines for tracking the sun, to direct the sun's rays toward an
   array of Fresnel lenses.  Solar rays are concentrated by the lenses into
   a powerful beam that will burn through metal.

   Aspod will operate in a quick-response mode, travelling between orbits to
   located and then disassemble debris.  It may also operate in an economy
   mode, remaining stationary while waiting for debris to come to it.
   Quick-response operation requires large amounts of fuel but can process
   several pieces quickly.  The economy mode uses much less fuel but takes
   over 100 times longer to handle the same amount of debris.

   Once a mission is complete, Aspod could either be retrieved by the space
   shuttle or jettisoned to burn up on reentry.


--------

      [ why doesn't it just leave the trash on the curb on garbage day? ]

    I was wondering... in the stationary mode, isn't the thing gonna
    have to wait a really long time for stuff to 'get to it', since
    if it's floating in orbit, anything at that height is going to by
    orbiting at the same speed.  And if it does meet up with something
    travelling in polar orbit or something, the relative speeds of the
    cleaner and the junk is going to be in the thousands of MPH.  How
    does the machine avoid getting riddled with holes?
    
    			Steve

No joke - I copied it verbatim.  I would assume the news item was written by
a tech writer or perhaps a university PR flack, not a NASA engineer or U. AZ
techie.

My guess would be that passive mode involves waiting (perhaps for very 
long times) for debris in orbits which when finally in close proximity have
"relatively" low relative velocities - targets of opportunity.  But I don't
know enough about orbital mechanics to guess about how effective this might
be.

Re Past Several

The orbit could be less than circular.  That would mean that it could 
collect debris from many orbits and at many places in the various orbits 
that it crosses.  

Tony

    Hmmm.  How much would the scrap be worth?  Maybe the Shuttle can
    pay for itself after all.  It could bring one of these "salvage
    sat's" up and pick it up later.
    
    						Mike
    
    PS. Anyone remember "Salvage 1"?

Newsgroups: sci.astro
Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!mimsy!fred
Subject: United States Naval Observatory Stargazing Notes: September 1988
Posted: 2 Sep 88 23:45:47 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science.
  
    "A Brightly Lit Killing Field..."
 
    August 16 saw the wrap-up in Washington, D.C. of a four-day
session of talks dealing with the problems in modern-day astronomy of
light pollution, radio interference, and space debris.  Much of the
information was not new; and yet, the eloquence with which the
problems were presented chilled us. 
 
    On the problem of the ever-increasing numbers of space debris
particles, any of which could wreak havoc on spacecraft and kill our
astronauts [and cosmonauts], catch light, and are even now streaking
all of the photographs taken at Mt. Palomar, Sydney van den Bergh of
the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory said, "I feel really scared
about the space debris problem.  Thirty years ago, no one thought the
oceans could be polluted.  Now look at what we've done.  A one
millimeter particle of space debris can puncture a spacesuit.  Space
debris itself, and the light it produces, could end our space program
in thirty years.  We are creating a brightly lit killing field." 
 
    Of radio interference, Tomas Gergely of the National Science
Foundation said, "If you call for a paramedic, you don't want a pizza
to arrive.  The electromagnetic fog of low-level interference is
increasing rapidly and causing major problems.  If not curbed, it will
prevent us from reaching the edge of the Universe.  Even the idea of
using the dark side of the Moon for radio work is questionable - the
worst polluters are better funded than we are, and will probably get
there first." 
 
    Dr. David Crawford, astronomer at Kitt Peak National Observatory,
and President of the IAU's Commission on the Protection of Observatory
Sites, says of light pollution, "We must learn about better lighting. 
Neither the birds nor the astronauts need all the light we are
throwing up into space.  At least $1.3 billion a year is spent in the
USA on electricity that is wasted to light up the night sky.  This is
more than the entire budget for astronomy in the USA.  Generations of
children are growing up having never seen the Milky Way simply because
they can't.  We are creating a permanent twilight." 
 
    Copies of the conference press releases are available upon request.
  
    This newsletter may be reproduced with credit, please, to the
U.S. Naval Observatory. 
                    
					Fred Blonder (301) 454-7690
					uunet!mimsy!fred
					Fred@Mimsy.umd.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: decwrl!purdue!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!killer!
Subject: Space news from September 5 AW&ST
Posted: 21 Oct 88 03:03:58 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Xref: decwrl sci.space:7897 sci.space.shuttle:2634
  
    NASA is putting more effort into the space-debris problem. 
Current probability of damage to a Space Shuttle is 1 in 30 for an
average mission.  At current growth rates, this will be 1 in 10 by
2000 and 1 in 4 by 2010.  DoT is looking at regulations for the
booster industry, since spent stages are a major source of debris. 
Even DoD is worried; it says that current risks seem manageable for
current satellites, but the trend is disturbing.  One fortunate case
is the Delta 180 SDI experiment, deliberately run in a very low orbit
to bring the debris down quickly; space tracking confirms that most of
its debris was gone within six months. 
 
    DoT issues major report on hazards and risks of commercial space
launches.  Space debris is an obvious concern.  Uncontrolled reentry of
dead satellites is not a big issue, since the average population
density of Earth's surface remains very low.  DoT comments that a
fully fueled 747 has almost three times the explosive potential of a
typical large expendable, and has a far better chance of crashing into
a populated area. 
 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA01566; Sat, 22 Oct 88 04:16:42 PDT

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!jupiter!karn
Subject: Re: Stopping Space and Light Pollution.
Posted: 2 Nov 88 22:06:59 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Xref: decwrl sci.astro:3356 sci.space:8208 sci.space.shuttle:2747
  
    The note on stopping space pollution is interesting, but one of
the proposed solutions is, shall we say, a bit impractical. 
 
    First of all, the main problem isn't intact payloads. The real
problem is with the numerous small fragments in long-lived orbits, and
these are not easily reached from the Shuttle.  Debris, large or
small, that *is* in a typical Shuttle orbit (about 300 km) re-enters
within a few months anyway, so there's not much point in going up to
get it. 
 
    Second, there are so *many* small bits of debris, in so many
different orbits, that even if you could reach them with the Shuttle
you'd have to expend enormous amounts of fuel chasing them all. 
 
    Third, the Shuttle itself generates a not-insignificant amount of
debris through such things as waste dumps and loose parts. This would
largely offset whatever debris it could pick up.  I remember seeing
the first on-orbit TV of the payload bay sent to earth during STS-1;
clearly visible was a small piece of loose hardware spinning across
the field of view, off into the blackness. 
 
    If you're seriously interested in the space pollution problem, I
believe you should advocate the following PREVENTIVE approaches: 
 
    1. An international treaty prohibiting deliberate collisions
between or explosions of objects in earth orbit above a certain
altitude, say 500 km. This would include both Soviet and American SDI
and ASAT tests. Much existing orbital debris is the result of Soviet
ASAT tests. The reduction of space debris is only one of many reasons
that a complete ban on all ASAT testing would be to our mutual advantage. 
 
    2. An international treaty requiring launch agencies to vent
excess liquid fuel from spent upper stages to render them incapable of
exploding.  Much existing orbital debris has come from upper stages
that explode some time after deploying their payloads.  This can
happen in a cryogenic stage when the fuel vaporizes (e.g., the Ariane
3rd stage that launched SPOT-1) or it can happen in a hypergolic stage
when the fuel and/or oxidizer corrode through the bulkhead and mix
(e.g., some Delta 2nd stages). I believe that most launchers now vent
as standard operating procedure, so it shouldn't be much of a burden
to make this a formal requirement. 
 
    3. International guidelines for the design of orbital missions
missions such that the fewest possible non-payload objects are
deployed in long lived orbits. This would consist of several aspects: 
 
    a. The use of short-lived transfer orbits whenever possible. For
example, a standard Ariane geostationary transfer orbit has a perigee
of about 200 Km. Spent Ariane third stages generally last in this
orbit for a few years or so.  intermediate earth orbits with "direct
ascent" launches are the real problem, since the upper stage goes into
the same orbit as the payload. If at all possible, spent stages should
be designed to de-orbit themselves after deploying their payloads. 
 
    b. Methods to control the amount of debris generated in long-lived
orbits, with emphasis on payload deployment operations. Clamp bands,
springs, fasteners, explosive bolt cutters and the like should be
captive, i.e., they should be tethered so they don't go floating off
on their own after separation.  This is already standard procedure on
most Western launches; it should be an international requirement. 
 
    c. Integrity standards for external coatings on all objects
deployed in long-lived orbits. The white paint used on Delta upper
stages has been traced as the cause of some small craters found on
Shuttle windows. 
 
    Phil

Newsgroups: sci.astro
Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mailrus!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!tank!mimsy!fred
Subject: U.S. Naval Observatory Stargazing Notes for December 1988
Posted: 3 Dec 88 00:53:11 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
 
    Turn Down the Lights, and Stay Tuned...
 
    On the evening of December 14, the Cable Disney Channel will bring
us another show - a program about meteors, meteorites, and the need
for dark skies.  Called "Catch a Falling Star", it is part of the Walt
Disney DANGER BAY adventure series, designed for family audiences.
Weaving a tale of falling meteors, bounty hunters, shopping mall
lighting, and threatened observatories, this show will help get the
point across to anyone still careless and insensitive about improper
lighting (and that's most of us), and unaware of just how it affects
astronomers.  It is particularly suited for children as well adults,
and is endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association.  For more
information on the whole dark sky problem, and what you can do about
it, write: 
 
                        Dr. Dave Crawford
                 Kitt Peak National Observatory
             The International Dark Sky Association
                          PO Box 26732
                        Tucson, AZ 85726
 
    Crawford sends out excellent information on proper (and more cost
effective) lighting techniques to supply every shopping mall, car
dealership, fast food joint,  etc.,  within ten miles of you.  On the
subject of "falling stars", meteorites, and other celestial phenomena, 
pick up some books in the astronomy section of your public or school 
library.  Remember, if you see something really spectacular, and especially 
if you suspect that something may have fallen to the ground, be sure to 
contact: 
 
        The Smithsonian Scientific Event Alert Network (SEAN)
                Mail Stop 129, Natural History Bldg
                      Smithsonian Institution
                        Washington, DC 20560
          (or phone directly with your report 202/357-1511)
 
    Be prepared to give your precise location, the approximate magnitude 
of the object seen, the direction it came from, the length of time it 
lasted, and whether or not any sounds were heard accompanying it.  Your 
report may be used in their monthly phenomena report. 
 
    The U.S. Naval Observatory is the authority in the United States
for astronomical data required for timing, navigation, civil affairs,
and legal purposes. 
 
					Fred Blonder (301) 454-7690
					uunet!mimsy!fred
					Fred@Mimsy.umd.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!labrea!agate!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!yee
Subject: NASA seeks proposals for Orbital Debris Radar
Posted: 25 Jan 89 00:02:23 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   January 19, 1989
 
RELEASE:  89-8
 
    NASA SEEKS PROPOSALS FOR ORBITAL DEBRIS RADAR
  
     NASA has requested proposals from industry for a ground-based
radar that will quantify and characterize debris orbiting between 180
to 360 miles above Earth.  The radar would have the capability of
detecting debris as small as 1 centimeter in diameter, contrasted with
the 10-centimeter capability of current radar systems. 
 
     The data gathered by the orbital debris radar are needed for
designing the permanently manned Space Station Freedom.  Even the
smallest pieces of orbital debris pose a potential hazard to
spacecraft, so it is important that the pressurized modules of Freedom
be built to withstand as much orbital debris damage as possible. 
Space Station Freedom is planned to be in Earth orbit for up to 30 years. 
 
     Information is extremely limited about the number and size of
small debris pieces at the operational altitude range of the space
station.  Preliminary experiments, using radar astronomy facilities,
have suggested that the number of small debris particles at these
altitudes may be higher than expected.  The new radar will provide
definitive information about such debris, determining its size,
altitude and orbital inclination. 
 
     The orbital debris radar facility will conduct preliminary
processing of data before sending it to NASA's Johnson Space Center,
Houston, for further analysis and incorporation into models of the
orbital debris environment. 
 
     Under the request for proposals (RFP) issued today, an offeror
would design, construct and test an orbital debris radar and
associated hardware and software.  After a 5-month period of
preliminary testing and operation at Goldstone, Calif., the offeror
would be responsible for shipping the radar to an overseas location
and then reestablishing and retesting the radar in preparation for
operations at the overseas site. 
 
     To meet Space Station Freedom design schedules, preliminary test
results from the stateside location should be available by October
1991.  The overseas station should be operational by March 1992. 
 
     The deadline for responses to the RFP is 7 weeks after its
release.  The firm, fixed-price contract will be managed by NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!labrea!agate!bionet!ames!yee
Subject: NASA calls for proposals regarding Reusable Reentry Satellite 
Posted: 24 Jan 89 23:53:13 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Paula Cleggett
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.              January 18, 1989
 
Kari Fluegel
Johnson Space Center, Houston
  
RELEASE:  89-6
 
    NASA CALLS FOR PROPOSALS REGARDING REUSABLE REENTRY SATELLITE
  
     NASA officials at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, last
week released a request for proposal (RFP) for continued studies and
design of an unmanned reusable reentry satellite (RRS) that could
significantly expand NASA's capability to investigate the
weightlessness environment. 
 
     The RRS, called LifeSat when carrying life science payloads, will
be placed into Earth orbit by an expendable launch vehicle, reserving
the National Space Transportation System for activities requiring crew
presence. 
 
     The RFP calls for the design of an almost completely reusable
spacecraft that could be processed and readied for reflight in 2
months, allowing for several flights each year. Designs are expected
to be derivatives of the often-flown Department of Defense Discovery
satellite or the NASA Gemini/Apollo vehicles of the 1960s, calling for
a vehicle roughly 6-feet in diameter and weighing more than 2,000
pounds with a useful payload of 500 pounds. 
 
     RRS will be used primarily in the fields of life sciences and
materials processing and would fly experiments in a variety of orbits
including those providing high doses of radiation for periods up to
and perhaps, beyond 60 days.  Upon completion of the flight, the RRS
would reenter and soft-land at a designated ground-site where scientists 
and engineers would have immediate access to the experiments. 
 
     Contracts for the design studies to begin this summer will be
awarded to two vendors at a cost of $1 million each.  The project will
be managed by JSC and could be flown as early as 1993 if future
development efforts are approved. 
 
     Five international agencies have expressed interest in
participating in the RRS and are expected to conduct parallel study
efforts to the U.S. activities.  Agreements for the international
coordination currently are being formulated. 
 
     The commercial community also has expressed interest in the RRS
because of its unique orbits, flight duration, autonomous operations
and the dedicated and easily scheduled nature of the system. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!yee
Subject: Orbital debris study completed (Forwarded)
Posted: 21 Feb 89 06:29:01 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  February 17, 1989
 
Pam Alloway
Johnson Space Center, Houston
 
Lt. Col. Rick Oborn
Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.
  
RELEASE:  89-20
 
    ORBITAL DEBRIS STUDY COMPLETED
  
     The U.S. Government today released results of a 6-month
interagency study on orbital debris. 
 
     The study, co-chaired by NASA and the Department of Defense,
cites satellite and rocket body fragmentation as the principal source
of orbital debris and concludes that, left unchecked, the growth of
debris could threaten the safe and reliable operation of manned and
unmanned spacecraft in the next century. 
 
     A major finding concerns the limits of our knowledge about the
current population of orbital debris objects.  While the U.S. Space
Command routinely tracks objects in space that are larger than a
softball (about 10 centimeters and larger), the ability to track
smaller objects is hampered by system design.  The uncertainty,
therefore, as to exactly how much debris is in orbit makes it
difficult to assess the true risk posed to spacecraft. This, in turn,
creates uncertainty as to the urgency for action and the potential
effectiveness of any corrective action.  The report states that the
need for enhancing debris measurement capabilities "has been
universally recognized." 
 
     The report reviews current policies and activities designed to
reduce debris or mitigate its effects and explores potential
opportunities for further action.  International efforts, legal issues
and commercial regulation also are examined. 
 
     Along with NASA and DOD, other federal organizations
participating in the orbital debris study included the Departments of
State, Commerce, Transportation and Treasury as well as the Office of
Management and Budget, Federal Communications Commission and the
Intelligence Community Staff. 
 
     A fact sheet concerning the orbital debris study follows. Limited
quantities of the report itself are available in the newsrooms of NASA
Headquarters, Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers and at the Office of
Secretary of Defense/ Public Affairs. 
------------------------------------------------------
                                                February 17, 1989
 
	ORBITAL DEBRIS STUDY
 
     The U.S. government today released the Interagency Group (Space)
Report on Orbital Debris. 
 
     The report is the culmination of an intensive 6-month study,
which was initiated in response to a directive contained within the
National Space policy approved by President Reagan in February 1988. 
The directive stated that "all space sectors will seek to minimize the
creation of space debris.  Design and operations of space tests, 
experiments and systems will strive to minimize or reduce accumulation
of space debris consistent with mission requirements and cost effectiveness." 
 
     An interagency working group was tasked last July by the National
Security Council to review the extent of the orbital debris problem,
identify options for minimizing or reducing the accumulation of
orbital debris and its impact on future space activities and recommend
courses of action.  The group was co- chaired by senior officials from
NASA and DOD and included representatives from the departments of
State, Commerce, Transportation and Treasury, as well as the Office of
Management and Budget, the Federal Communications Commission and the
Intelligence Community Staff. 
 
     The report is written in concise, non-technical language. It
begins with a description of the current space environment, a discussion 
about the major sources of debris, and an assessment of the implications 
of current debris growth trends.  It then reviews current policies and 
activities designed to reduce debris or mitigate its effects and explores 
potential opportunities for further action.  International efforts, legal 
issues and commercial regulation also are examined. 
 
     According to the report, the principal source of orbital debris
has been fragmentation of satellites and rocket bodies. Other sources
include inactive satellites and objects discarded during satellite
delivery or operations, such as lens caps, packing devices or empty
propellant tanks.  The report concludes that, left unchecked, the
growth of debris could threaten the safe and reliable operation of
manned and unmanned spacecraft in the next century. 
 
     A major finding of the report is that not enough is known about
the extent of the problem posed by small debris in the orbital
environment.  Although the U.S. Space Command routinely tracks objects
in space that are larger than about 10 centimeters in diameter, the
limited ability (a design limitation) of current surveillance systems
to detect and track the much greater number of small debris objects
creates high uncertainty in the debris environment models that
scientists have constructed.  This makes it difficult to assess the
true risk posed to spacecraft by orbiting debris, which in turn
creates uncertainty as to the urgency for action and the potential
effectiveness of any corrective measure.  The report states that the
need for enhancing debris measurement capabilities "has been
universally recognized." 
 
     The report's recommendations call for appropriate agencies to
make debris minimization a design consideration for all future civil,
military and commercial launch vehicles, upper stages, satellites,
space tests and missions.  This would include promulgating and
implementing agency-level internal policy guidance consistent with the
debris minimization directive of the National Space Policy.  The
report also recommends that NASA and DOD undertake a joint study to
develop a comprehensive R&D plan to improve orbital debris environment
monitoring, statistical modeling and data management capabilities.  A
second joint study, to be undertaken by NASA and DOD in consultation
with the Department of Transportation and the commercial space sector,
would construct a basic research plan for developing technologies and
procedures for debris minimization and spacecraft survivability. 
 
     The report further recommends a continuing dialog between the
federal government and industry, recognizing that any imposition of
requirements on the private space sector to control or prevent the
proliferation of space debris will have important commercial
implications. 
 
     The report also includes these recommendations:
 
--  Current agency operational practices for debris mitigation during
launch and space operations should be continued and, where feasible
and cost-effective, improved. 
 
--  The following activities should be emphasized and, where
appropriate, accelerated: 
 
        - efforts to improve debris characterization measurements
          and inventory through use of ground-based radars and 
          development of an improved data base
 
        - modeling and statistical analysis of the debris 
          characterization measurements
 
        - analysis of physical evidence returned from space
 
        - technological research directed toward improved 
          spacecraft shielding and a better understanding of the 
          fragmentation processes that result from hypervelocity 
          collisions
 
        - licensing agency development of performance 
          requirements and regulations to guide private industry 
          activities
 
        - ongoing studies of design and operations techniques to 
          minimize the cost of debris elimination
 
--  Representatives of commercial licensing agencies (DOT, DOC and
FCC) should continue their discussions to define the boundaries of
regulatory authority among the licensing agencies over commercial
activities that may produce orbital debris. 
 
--  An ad hoc interagency working group on orbital debris, chaired by
NASA and DOD, should be retained as a coordinating mechanism for
issues, policies and activities concerning the orbital debris problem.
 
--  The U.S. should inform other spacefaring nations about the
conclusions of this report and seek to enhance understanding about
orbital debris issues.  As appropriate, the U.S. should enter into
discussions with other nations to coordinate debris minimization
policies and practices. 
 
--  Within 18 months, an interagency working group should develop a
long-term strategy for researching, developing and implementing means
to minimize the accumulation of orbital debris and protect spacecraft
operations (within an acceptable level of risk) from collision with
debris objects.  As a minimum, this strategy should include establishing 
long-range goals, providing a milestone plan and schedule leading to 
achievement of these long- term goals, and preliminary resource implications. 
 
     The Interagency Group (Space) Report on Orbital Debris is being
prepared for printing, and finished copies will be available for
distribution by early April 1989.  Meanwhile, a limited number of
photocopies is now available upon request.  
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA20242; Tue, 21 Feb 89 01:17:50 PST

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!arisia!cdp!
Subject: NSS Hotline Update 2/24/89
Posted: 27 Feb 89 04:26:00 GMT
  
    This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the Week
ending 2/24/89 
 
    The Air Force released a report last Fri. that stated there is a
growing problem with all the debris in orbit about Earth. The 71,000
pieces of debris larger that 4 inches in diameter and the 17,500
smaller pieces pose a dangerous threat to operating spacecraft,
especially manned. 
 

    RE: 453.6
    
    Think about an ASPOD out of control gnawing Space-Shuttle wings...
    
    ...ugly situation...!
    
    	DM
    

From: PKLINKMN@BROWNVM.BITNET (Paul Klinkman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Orbital Grit
Date: 18 Oct 89 22:00:14 GMT
 
    Low Earth Orbit has been forecasted to be unusable around the year
2050.  The problem is our existing space junk. 
 
    This is according to Don Kessler of Johnson Space Center in
Houston, as reported by Kathy Sawyer in the Washington Post, probably
10/12/89 and reprinted in a local paper the next day. 
 
    Every time a micrometeorite meets a piece of space junk at 22,000
mph., thousands of pieces of space grit are created and the piece of
junk gets pitted.  The problem is that the space grit doesn't go away.
 A few pieces of grit plow into more pieces of space junk, creating
more grit.  We have a problem similar to a supercritical nuclear chain
reaction.  At some point in time, apparently around 2050, all of the
satellites in low earth orbit get sandblasted into grit. Huge shields
around the satellites would help in the short run, but huge shields
would eventually become huge numbers of grit particles. 
 
    The Space Shuttle fleet has already been pitted a couple of times by
paint chips.  What happens when a shuttle gets pitted a million times?
 
    It's like an asteroids game where the asteroids fracture against
each other, and instead of the smallest asteroids disappearing they
turn to ever more, smaller pieces. 
 
    Does anybody have a suggestion for this nightmare?  I'll try one.
 
    Let's assume that one of the superpowers of 2060 (Japan or Bolivia
:-) wants to clean up LEO.  What thickness of grit particles will blow
away in the solar wind?  They can manufacture a group of extremely
thin metal sails and build concentric spheres out of these sails. A
grit particle hitting the outer sail would further disintegrate, at
the same time tearing a chunk of sail inward. The mass would punch
through a second sail, then a third,... The shells contain bubbles of
sail material, and a microatmosphere. A small leak causes one of the
bubbles to settle on the hole, sealing the leak.  Also, a slight
windflow blows loose grit/sail particles into a collector. 
 
    Pieces of sail that tear loose are thin enough to be blown into
Earth's ionosphere by the solar wind, or out of the solar system to
the Oort Cloud of comets far beyond the orbit of Pluto.
 
    Larger objects that make it through the sails run into an ice/grit
slurry in the core.  The ice vaporizes but is quickly vacuumed into a
compressor. 
 
    This cleanup system assumes that all satellites, loose screwdrivers,
loose space gloves, etc. have already been ground into space grit.
 
    At least as easy, put solar sails all over low earth orbit.  The
grit particles impact and split into particles too small to remain in
Earth orbit.  Both loose sails and tiny dust particles blow away into
the ionosphere.  This method does use up a lot of irreplacable mass. 
 
    If somebody says that a certain          --Paul Klinkman
    scientific discovery is possible,
    they're probably right.
    If somebody says that it can't
    happen, they're probably wrong.

RE: .19

>The problem is that the space grit doesn't go away.
> A few pieces of grit plow into more pieces of space junk, creating
>more grit.  We have a problem similar to a supercritical nuclear chain
>reaction.

No, it's not like a chain reaction.  At each collision much of the kinetic
energy of the original particle's motion is converted into other forms, and
thus subsequent collisions are not as destructive.  The fall-off of energy
is pretty rapid, I'm sure (like factor of 10 per cycle).
						-- Tom

    So what your looking for is a vaccuum cleaner???
    
    Sorry, I just couldn't help myself

Sounds to me like we're on our way towards creating a ring system around 
the Earth.  :-)

Why not orbit the "cleaners" in opposite orbit from everything else?  I. e. 
instead of launching towards the east, launch towards the west.  This may 
take more power (no assist from Earth's rotation), but anything the 
"cleaner" runs into will probably be slowed enough to re-enter.


Rich

From: Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space-tech excerpt: Orbital debris
Date: 30 Mar 90 21:57:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet
 
    I recently went through and excerpted some of the most informative
discussions from the space-tech mailing list, which I run.  Here's one
of them; expect a couple more over the next week or so. 
 
    Space-tech is a mailing list for discussing concepts for space
development, with emphasis on the technical problems and and how to
solve them.  To join, send mail to space-tech-request@cs.cmu.edu. 
Bring a pencil! 
 
   ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  /// Marc Ringuette /// Carnegie Mellon University, Comp. Sci. Dept. ///
 /// mnr@cs.cmu.edu /// Pittsburgh, PA 15213.  Phone 412-268-3728(w) ///
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  
    Space-tech excerpt: Orbital debris    [270 lines, Fall 1989]
 
    The topic:  How to reduce or eliminate orbital debris, which may
become a serious practial problem in low orbit? 
 
------------------------------
 
From: Steven Deterling <SPD7924%TAMVENUS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
 
I am working on a project here at A&M this semester and am wondering
if this group has any suggestions or information to offer.  We are trying
to design a mission (or set of mission) for the purpose of removal of orbital
debris.  Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
 
------------------------------
 
From: Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU
 
My first idea is to have a very-large-surface-area setup where you try to
vaporize small bits of debris by putting an obstacle in front of it.  For
instance, a mylar sheet or some sort of ultra-light foam.  The critical
factor for that kind of scheme would be whether a thin film would do
something useful with the debris - presumably you'd like to vaporize it so it
wouldn't have a destructive impact if it hit somebody.  Maybe vaporizing it
would also decrease its decay time.
 
Actually, I have a better idea than a single film:  two or three mylar films
spaced far enough apart that when debris strikes one, if it breaks up at all,
the fanned-out secondary debris hits the second sheet, and again for the
third.  It may allow you to destroy much larger chunks of stuff because it
forces each object to come into contact with a larger surface area of the
sheet (as opposed to just punching a tiny little hole).  This is assuming
objects break up, as opposed to just lose a few molecules off the surface.
 
I wonder if you take your average small object and run it into a film at a
few km/s, what happens?  What's a representative sample of debris?  (My guess:
chips of paint, metal shavings, bits of rubber, metal bolts, entire assemblies;
probably biased toward the really small stuff, but you care more about the
big stuff).
 
===
 
Or maybe you were thinking of bigger pieces of debris that you can track and
predict the orbit of.  One option would be to chase the debris with a
low-acceleration tug and put it in your garbage bag.  But this is probably
prohibitively expensive except for the very largest objects - it may take
weeks or months per object, and each craft needs propulsion, power, and 
communications.
 
A second tactic: put something in the object's way that vaporizes it.  I
wonder how much foam you'd have to put in the way of a chunk of metal before
it was destroyed?  The better you can predict the orbit, the more stuff you
can stack in its path.  If you can't get the orbit down pat, maybe you can
use on-board radar and shoot a gun at it - a small solid projectile may
be able to break up a large object; I wonder if this isn't worse than nothing.
 
===
 
Another line of thought: how do you cheaply contain the debris before it is
generated?  For instance, some sort of foam or glue or something that
prevents an object from breaking up before it burns up completely.  You carry
a small amount of this gunk along on your mission, and wire it so that when
you eject something, it foams up.
 
But probably most debris is generated by accident, in small quantities.  Or
is it?  Do you have figures?
 
How about putting a plastic bag around the vehicle after it injects into
orbit?   :-}
 
------------------------------
 
From: Steven Deterling <SPD7924%TAMVENUS.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU>
 
We also are basically keen on the idea of vaporizing debris.  I do not
know enough about hypervelocity collisions to say whether or not a small
piece of junk running into a mylar sheet will generate enough heat to
be destroyed.
 
We have considered some form of encapsulation for bigger pieces of junk.
Not too sure about what to yet, however.  The scenario we are starting to
look at real closely is to have some sort of craft with an engine on the
back and a high power laser of some sort attached to vaporize small
particles.  The front of the craft would be a collector for larger,
"non-vaporizeable" particles.  When the collector was full, it could
be started on a trajectory toward the Sun and the rear of the craft could
be separated for re-use.  We are looking at possible using an ion engine
for our craft. We are not too concerned with the time span, a mission of
5 years or so would not be bad.  As long as we are decreasing the amount
of debris in orbit, we are being beneficial.  Comments on this scheme from
everyone would really be helpful.
 
------------------------------
 
From: Joe Beckenbach <jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu>
 
As for encapsulation:  for anything too big to vaporize but too small to grab
easily, perhaps spray on some foam concrete or let it plow through layers of
foam metal, something either to increase its size or to slow it down so it
will either embed or decay.  I think this is the basic idea that everyone's
been trying to figure out how to do.
 
------------------------------
 
From: KEVIN@A.CFR.CMU.EDU (Kevin Ryan)
 
Cleaning orbital junk, eh?  If only the atmosphere did a better job of
slowing them down, at least for a little while... 
 
   Enter the little men in white shirts and wire-frames, with little 
plastic pocket protectors.  They smile at the brass hats.  "We have a 
solution to the orbital debris problem.  Detonate a large, clean
(relatively clean, of course - all things are relative) thermonuclear
device in the upper atmosphere.  It will cause a large and temporary
'hump' in the atmosphere, thus greatly slowing the orbital junk, which
will soon reenter.  After the 'hump' subsides, relaunch the satellites
of your choice.  This cleans out debris in _all_ orbits which intersect
this rather large 'hump.'  If you don't get them all, use a larger
device, or do it repeatedly."  Slowly, the brass hats start to smile. 
This would mean getting to use some of their BIG toys... 
 
   I wish I was spinning this out of imaginary cloth.  I have seen 
serious (!) suggestions for creating such an atmospheric 'hump' to 
slow/divert/destroy ICBM's - and if it works for high suborbital 
missiles, it should work for LEO debris, which should be at the very 
least less aerodynamic.
 
   Before I'm flamed, let me emphasize - "Not on MY planet, monkey boy!" 
Just thought I'd chuck it in for amusement...
 
------------------------------
 
From:	henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
 
Jordin Kare has observed that the kind of 1MW laser that would be used
as a feasibility-test system for a laser launcher could also be quite
useful in sweeping up debris.  It could vaporize very small pieces,
and could de-orbit larger ones by blowing pulses of gas off their
leading surfaces (a laser retrorocket).
 
------------------------------
 
From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
 
   Over the past couple of weeks we've seen a few ways to clean dust and
grit out of low Earth orbit, where it could damage satellites, shuttles, or
the space station. Two of the more memorable ones were the ice cube in an
opposing orbit, and the giant flypaper. I submit that there is an easier
and more selective way to do the same thing.
   According to some calculations I made this afternoon, and which I'm
still having trouble believing, it's very easy, assuming that most of the
grit is going spinward, in the direction of most satellite launches. This
grit goes from west to east as seen by an observer on the ground. A mirror
is placed in the sunlight in the east as seen by a terrestrial observer.
The mirror reflects sunlight across the sky, from east to west, so that it
is shining directly into the path of the orbiting grit.
   The scenario I used was a mettalic flake 1mm in diameter, and 0.1mm
thick, in a circular orbit 300km above the surface of Earth. It turns
out that the photon pressure on the flakes lowers the perigee of the orbit
to 100km, at which time it can be said to be braking in the atmosphere and
out of our way, in only 50 hours of exposure. If we have 5% coverage, this 
is 1000 hours real time, or roughly six weeks.
   The advantage to this approach is that it works best on small objects. A
communication satellite would suffer a delta-v of only about 1m/s, which I
presume is within the tolerance of the onboard thrusters to compensate.
   An alternative solution is to put a giant sunshade which blocks light
reaching orbit as they cross from day to night, while still letting the
particles get the sun in their faces as they go from night to day. I favor
the first approach because it is easier to stabilize the mirror than a
sunscreen, since solar pressure on the mirror acts to oppose Earth's
gravity, while solar pressure on the sunshade adds to Earth's gravity.
Also, a mirror can be easily aimed to sweep different orbits, while a
sunshade or a retrograde ice cube would require a lot of effort and time to
do the same.
 
   Here are the calculations:
 
   I used the following parameters for the solution of the great cosmic
vacuum cleaner:
 
   Particle is a cylinder: 1 mm in diameter
                           0.1 mm thick
   Particle's specific gravity: exactly 7x10^3 kg/m^3
   Particle orbiting at exactly 300 km in a circular orbit
   Mass of Earth: exactly 6x10^24 kg
   Earth has no higher order gravitational moments.
   Gravitational constant: exactly 6.67x10^-11 N m^2/kg^2
   Gravitational acceleration at Earth's surface: exactly 9.81 m/s^2
   Radius of Earth: 6.387x10^6 m
   Radius of the orbit: 6.687x10^6 m
   Orbital velocity: 7.736x10^3 m/s
 
For purposes of momentum transfer from the particle: I used the effective
area of the particle as 1/2 the area of an end cap, and assumed that all
radiation incident on the (tumbling) flake was absorbed. This is actually a
conservative estimate, since the actual figure goes from 1/2 for a perfectly
absorbing slab to 2/3 for a perfectly reflecting slab. This under-estimation
of the area will absorb any inefficiencies in the mirror, since I am still
using a power flux at the particle of 1.4 kW/m^2, the solar flux in space
at one astronomical unit.
   Force on the particle is Psolar/(speed of light) * area of particle.
This gives an acceleration of 3.333x10^-4 m/s^2 for as long as the particle
is in the beam.
 
   Now, it is necessary to find the delta-v on a particle orbiting at
300 km to drop the perigee to 100 km. This turns out to be about 60 m/s. See
the note at the end of this article for the math behind this calculation. 
The acceleration will provide this impulse in only 50 hours. If we have 5%
coverage, this is 1000 hours real time, or roughly six weeks.
   Now, I have to justify my assumption that hitting the particle several
times will result in the lowering of the perigee, but will not change the
apogee, which will stay at 300 km. Assume that the orbit is initially
circular. I hit it with the beam as it traverses some 15 degrees of its
orbit. The particle slows down by some small amount, then continues in its
orbit as a free particle. From classical mechanics, a gravitational orbit
is closed (no precession). So, the particle must return to the point at
which it received the initial impulse. This argument then repeats for each
orbit. So, after giving it a delta-v of 60 m/s, the apogee is at 300 km
while the perigee is at 100 km. It is now hitting atmosphere, and will
quickly be removed from worry.
 
   For a Clarke orbit, the delta-v is 1500 m/s, which takes quite a bit
longer, but the algebra is essentially the same. In this case, though, the
mirror has to rotate to track the sun as it moves relative to the orbit
over a period of one year. The mirror must shine into the orbits always at
apogee to get the efficiency I've postulated, and apogee will precess with
respect to Earth and Sun, since it will always point to the same fixed
stars.
 
------------------------------
 
From: Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU
 
I like this approach a lot!  However, I'm concerned about two questions:
 
  1. How big a mirror do we need?  What is the size of the cross section 
     through which most of the grit goes? 
 
  2. What are the magnitudes of the forces involved on the mirror itself,
     and how much of its time can be spent usefully?
 
My guess is that the mirror would have to be very large and that it
would have somewhat less than a 25% duty cycle because it would probably
want to remain in a single orientation throughout its orbit.  However,
I don't really trust my guesses on this at all.
 
------------------------------
 
From: Christopher Neufeld <neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>
 
   I'm still working out the orbital dynamics for the mirror, but I usually
have a pretty good feel for the orbits without doing the math (that's why I
suspected my initial erroneous results). The situation I'm looking at is a
dynamically unstable SOLAR orbit leading Earth by a bit. I would choose
the position of the mirror and its angle so that the light pressure from
the reflection exactly balances Earth's pull. If it drifted away from
Earth a bit, the pull would be weakened, and it would tend to drift
further, so the mirror would have to be furled slightly to lower the
outward solar pressure and bring it back into line. If it drifted toward
Earth, the pull would be strengthened, and extra mirror kept in reserve
for that eventuality would be unfurled until it is back where it belongs.
The feedback scheme shouldn't be impossible.
   Anyway, in a while I'll work out the details of the sail: its mass 
per unit area, position with respect to Earth, and a typical size.
I expect that the mirror can be shining in a useful direction at least 90%
of the time. More details as they become available.
 
------------------------------
[ End of excerpt ]

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Article concerning Orbital Debris
Date: 4 May 90 17:30:51 GMT
Reply-To: dbm0000@DOMAIN_2.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave McKissock)
Organization: sei
 
    With the recent postings concerning orbital debris, I thought the
readers on the net might be interested in the following article which
just appeared in the April 1990 copy of Station Break, a monthly
newsletter on the Space Station Freedom Program. Anyone wishing to be
added to the Station Break mailing list should place their requests in
writing on business letterhead to the editor at the following address:
 
    Lee Ann Landers, Station Break/TADCORPS,
    600 Maryland Ave., SW, #200, 
    Washington D.C. 20024
 
    (202) 554-8677                     
 
    I don't believe it costs anything to subscribe to the newsletter
(i.e. its FREE). 
 
    Any typos aren't my fault, as I am a perfect typist. There must be
a problem with your copy of RN :) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             NASA Steps Up Ability to Track Man-Made Debris,
                     Info to Aid Station Designers
 
      Since an orbiting paint fleck could cause some damage to Space
Station Freedom, NASA is aggressively researching ways to deal with
even the most minute orbital debris. Learning to detect the man-made
debris is important to the design of Freedom and other future
spacecraft. 
 
      "We must learn the population density and occurrence of the
orbital debris, so our space station engineers and designers will know
how to protect it from the hits it may receive," said William Djinis,
program manager of the NASA Orbital Debris program at Headquarters in
Washington, D.C. 
 
      "NASA has made a considerable effort over the years and is
striving toward understanding the orbital debris environment and its
trends," he added. 
 
      However, neither NASA nor any other space-faring nation can
currently accurately detect man-made orbital debris from 0.1
centimeters (smaller than a period) to 1 centimeter (smaller than a
penny) [see charts at the end of this]. 
 
      While the trackable orbital debris encompasses 3,000 used rocket
stages, inactive satellites, and a few active satellites, information
about the debris measuring less than 10 centimeters in diameter is
slim. Using new radar systems, NASA hopes to more accurately measure
debris less than 10 centimeters. Estimates are based on a linear
extrapolation, which has an uncertainity factor of two to five. The
ability to detect tiny objects may be important because, for example,
a .3-centimeter aluminum sphere traveling at 6.17 miles per second
(32,360 feet per second) has the same energy as a bowling ball flying
down an alley at 60 miles per hour (88 feet per second). Currently,
mathematical models indicate population densities as a function of
orbital altitude, debris particle size, and future time. The data are
collected from radars, optical telescopes, and materials returned from
space. 
 
      Because more data are necessary to build mathematical with a
reasonable certainty for spacecraft design, NASA and the U.S. Space
Command are looking toward the Haystack radar and its auxiliary, the
new Near Earth Assessment Radar (NEAR), close to Boston, Mass., for
some answers. 
 
      NASA will spend $15 million in 1990 and 1991 to develop and
build NEAR and NASA will get observation time on Haystack and NEAR.
NASA will use Haystack data until useable data starts filtering in
from NEAR in about two years. The agency is planning to build a new
radar near the equator in the late 1990s to aid the measuring of
orbital debris. 
 
      "Space Station Freedom engineers can use the data to conduct a
sound, well-structured design process," Djinis said. Data from the
Long Duration Exposure Facility, which was returned to earth in
February, also will help designers understand how to protect Freedom
from near microscopic bombardments of orbital debris to larger pieces
of space junk. 
 
      As new data have been collected from other sources, the math
models have been updated. The current 1984 model, being used for
spacecraft design, has been updated as a result of obtaining new data.
This 1988 update is being used for hazard and risk analyses, but not
yet for spacecraft design, as it has the same degree of error (factor
of 2 to 5) as the 1984 model.  
 
                             Graphic #1
                SOURCES OF TRACKED OBJECTS BY ALTITUDE          
 
                       Active/Inactive   Rocket    Fragmentary    Total
                         Spacecraft      Bodies      & Other      Debris
 
  Low Earth Orbit         1134            651        4138         5293
 
  Medium Earth Orbit       232            302         149          683
 
  Geosynchronous
  Earth Orbit              239            123           1          453
 
  Total                   1695           1076        4288         7059*
 
    * 472 tracked objects pending entry
  
                              Graphic #2
                     KINETIC ENERGY AND DEBRIS EFFECTS
 
  tiny dot    Less than .01 cm      ====   Surface Erosion
 
medium dot    Less than .03 cm      ====   Possibly Serious Damage
 
good size
dot           .3 cm at 10 km/sec    ====   Bowling Ball at 
              (32,630 ft/sec)              60 mph (88 ft/sec)
 
big ink       1 cm Aluminum Sphere  ====   400 lb. Safe at
smear         at 10 km/sec                 60 mph (88 ft/sec)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave McKissock              sakissoc@csd.lerc.nasa.gov
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NASA LeRC: Responsible for the remarkable & ingenious Space Station 
           Freedom Electrical Power System 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Opinions expressed herein probably bear absolutely no resemblance to
the official NASA position.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 06/07/90 (Forwarded)
Date: 7 Jun 90 20:09:19 GMT
Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, June 7, 1990              Audio Service:  202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
This is NASA Headline News for Thursday, June 7:
  
Columnist Jack Anderson's column discusses space debris and says 
"U.S. and Soviet officials are quietly conducting junk-reduction 
talks."  Anderson says NASA is handling the negotiation with the 
Soviets" in hopes of keeping politics out of it."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA 
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.
  
    Thursday, June 7:
 
       11:30 A.M.             NASA Update will be transmitted.
 
       12:00 P.M.             Mission of Apollo/Soyuz
       12:30 P.M.             COBE
       12:45 P.M.             C.A.S.I.S. Workshop
                              (Center of Atmospheric and Space
                               Information Sciences)
 
        2:00 P.M.             STS Operations-Live Press Briefing
                              Launch Schedules and Priorities 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All events and times are subject to change without notice.  These 
reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12:00 P.M. 
EDT.  This is a service of the Internal Communications Branch, 
NASA HQ.  Contact: JSTANHOPE on NASAmail or at 202/453-8425.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Select TV:  Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band 72 Degrees 
West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From: willner@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Willner, OIR)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: International Dark-Sky Association
Date: 13 Jun 90 22:18:01 GMT
 
    The International Dark-Sky Association is an educational
organization whose goal is "stopping the adverse environmental impact
on dark skies by building awareness of the issue of light pollution
and of the solutions."  The organization is only about two years old
but (as of June 6) has 488 members in 41 states of the US and in 20
other countries.  IDA's main activity is collecting and disseminating
information; it has produced 32 Information Sheets on good and bad
outdoor lighting as well as a slide set.  (The slides are also sold by
the Astronomical Society of the Pacific). 
 
    Some quotations from IDA information sheet No. 23, "Campus
Lighting, and Other Such Applications" may be of interest.  (No
copyright notice on the sheet; total length is two pages single-spaced.) 
 
    "Certainly, campuses are used extensively at night, and effective
nighttime lighting is needed for many tasks.... 
 
    "However, there is good lighting and there is bad lighting.  There
is no excuse to have bad lighting.  Such lighting is often
counterporductive to the needs, and to safety and security." 
 
    [Discussion of characteristics and examples of good and bad
lighting. Recommendations are full cutoff fixtures for low glare and
good efficiency, metal halide lamps when excellent color rendering is
needed, low pressure sodium when color rendering is not important, and
high pressure sodium when some color rendering, but not white light,
is needed.] 
 
    "There is no excuse not to use quality lighting.... 
 
    "... good lighting of campuses at night can improve the
attractiveness of the campus, make the areas more efficient, aid
greatly in security and safety of the areas, and do it all at less
operating cost.  Everyone wins, except the molesters and thieves and
those who sell poor quality lighting fixtures." 
 
    IDA's address is 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ 85716 USA.  Those
seeking - or offering - information on light pollution issues should
write directly to IDA.  Those interested in supporting IDA may want to
consider membership ($20, $10 "student or limited income") or a larger
contribution.  (IDA qualifies under tax code section 501c3, so
contributions are tax-deductible in the US.) 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (REBECCA KOLBERG, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.space,clari.news.top
Subject: Space junk making it crowded up there
Date: 11 Oct 90 14:00:48 GMT
  
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Accumulation of man-made junk in Earth
orbit could render some well-traveled pathways too risky to use and
may imperil the space shuttle and planned space station, a
Congressional report warned Thursday. 

	``Unless nations reduce the amount of orbital debris they
produce each year, future space activities could suffer loss of
capability, loss of income and even loss of life as a result of
collisions between spacecraft and debris,'' the Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) said. 

	So-called space junk includes deactivated spacecraft, spent
rocket stages, fragments of spacecraft and their equipment, paint flakes, 
engine exhaust particles, and spent Soviet reactors, the report said. 

	In the vacuum of space, objects stay in orbit for a very long
time.  Even tiny objects, like a snippet of wire, can inflict considerable 
damage if they strike spacecraft at high speeds.  Velocity to stay in 
Earth orbit is 18,000 miles per hour. 

	``Continued steady growth of orbital debris could by 2000 or
2010 render some well-used low-Earth orbits too risky to use,'' the
OTA said. 

	The Congressional analysis offered no exact estimate of the
amount of man-made debris currently orbiting Earth.  However, they
noted some experts estimate there may be 30,000 to 70,000 bits of
debris 0.4 inches in diameter or greater, and many more smaller
objects are thought to be in orbit. 

	``Neither the number nor the distribution of these objects is
sufficiently well known to predict which methods of protection would
be most cost-effective,'' the 64-page report said. 

	Echoing echoes concerns raised earlier this year by the
General Accounting Office, the OTA said fast-moving debris in
low-Earth orbits ``could pierce inhabited spacraft such as the planned
international space station Freedom,'' posing a risk to humans aboard.

	The report pointed out that the tiny paint chip that damaged
the shuttle Challenger's windshield in 1983 probably would have had
the power to puncture the spacesuit of an astronaut who happened to be
conducting a maneuver outside a spacecraft. 

	``The OTA study highlights the fact that we can no longer be
so cavalier about what we leave behind in space,'' said Sen. Ernest
Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation. 

	If space-faring nations and organizations took a number of
``relatively simple preventive measures,'' the steady growth in production 
of man-made space junk could be greatly reduced, the OTA said. 

	Such steps include designing launch vehicles and spacecraft so
they have minimum potential for breaking up, protecting spacecraft
batteries from shorts that can cause explosions, and reducing the
altitude of spent rocket stages to the point where atmopsheric drag
effects will bring them down. 

	``An international treaty or greement specifically devoted to
orbital debris may be necessary,'' the OTA said, although it conceded
the United States and the Soviet Union currently are the two largest
contributors to the problem. 

	Although it is technically feasible to remove existing debris
from low altitudes, the analysts found the cost of such removal is not
warranted at this time. 

	Proposals to clear Earth's orbit of debris have included using
large balloon-like objects to sweep up debris and using the space
shuttle or the planned orbital maneuvering devices to capture inactive
satellites. 

	The OTA is the analytical agency that advises Congress on
technical issues. 

    I get a hoot from these scare tactic articles.  The only way I can
    think of to get a velocity difference from space craft to junk for any
    given orbit are:
    
    1.  Inclination.  Two objects taveling at different angles to each
    other, but each having the same velocity.   This is the vector sum
    of the difference of the two or for an 18000 mph orbit, one equitorial
    the other polar, is about 7500 mph.
    
    2.  Elliptic.  The junk or space craft has an orbit highly elliptical in
    nature but neither have the velocity required to escape earth orbit. 
    One object is in LEO, the other has a peragee (sp?) = to LEO  
    
    3.  Combination of 1 and 2.  
    
    4.  Retrograde orbits.  I am not shure if there have been many launches
    counter to the Earths rotation?
    
    I am not going to want to be the one standing in front of a 10,000 mph
    paint chip, but given that the difference velocities are a function of
    the angles between the objects and not the orbital velocity of any one
    object, Freedoms inclination should be made equal to the MAJORITY of
    objects launched at and to Freedoms planned flight altitude.
    
    This is to minimize probabilities of junk encounter and resultant
    damage.
    
    Les

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROB STEIN, UPI Science Editor)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.tw.environment,clari.news.aviation
Subject: Space junk, light, radio signals blocking view of Universe
Date: 18 Feb 91 19:41:49 GMT 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Humanity's view of the Universe is being
obscured by increasing amounts of space junk, glare from city lights
and radio signals, endangering astronomers' ability to study the
Cosmos, scientists warned Monday. 

	``Astronomy addresses the fundamental questions that many of
us wonder about: Where do we come from? What's going to happen to our
sun? What is the evolution of the universe?'' said Andrea Dupree of
the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
``This is a science that we really can't afford to lose.'' 

	Astronomers depend on their ability to use a variety of types
of telescopes on Earth and in space to detect faint energy in such
forms as visible light, X-rays and infrared signals. 

	``This means that astronomers look to place their instruments
in many places. On the surface of the Earth, we search for high
moutain tops or we search for quiet valleys and we search for deserted
plains,'' she said. 

	David Crawford of the Kitt Peak Observatory in Tucson, Ariz.,
said light pollution already has made it impossible for people in most
places to simply enjoy the stars, and is threatening astronomers'
ability to work. 

	``Light pollution, which continues getting worse and has in
many places gone up exponentially, will remove forever our view of
this natural wonder -- the universe,'' he said, speaking at the annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

	The problem stems from inefficient use of light, which
produces glare and often wastefully illuminates the sky above the
ground, costing money and energy without improving safety, he said. 

	``Astronomy is not saying -- absolutely not saying -- 'Turn off 
your lights.' What (we're) saying is, 'Use good lighting,''' he said. 

	The problem could be alleviated by using improved types of
lighting, he said, adding, ``We must do what we can now to protect the
nighttime environment.'' 

	Paul Vanden Bout, director of the National Radioastronomy
Observatory in Charlottesville, Va., said astronomers' studying the
cosmos by detecting radio signals already must work in remote areas to
escape the ``electronic buzz'' from such household items as microwave
ovens, electric razers and garage door openers. 

	But even those areas are being threatening by the
proliferation of satellite communications, he said. 

	``If you look at the plans for some of the satellite
communications systems being discussed you see that they propose to
cover the entire Earth so you can communicate effectively from any
spot on Earth,'' he said. ``That means if you have a radio telescope
at any spot on Earth you will see these satellites.'' 

	Satellites already in orbit used for navigation and
communication operate in a band that interferes with astronomers, as
do telephones on airplanes, he said. 

	``It seems like a bad trade not to be able to see the universe
at this frequency in return for being able to telephone home and say,
'I bet you can't guess we're I'm calling from,''' he said. 

	An international conference scheduled for 1992 is planned to
protect certain frequencies, he said. 

	David Talent of Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co. in
Houston who has been studying space debris for NASA, said such junk
poses a major threat to orbiting equipment, such as the Hubble Space
Telescope (HST). 

	``The possibility of damage through collision is certainly a
real possibility,'' he said. 

	There are about 6,700 objects orbiting Earth large enough to
be tracked by the U.S. Space Command, Talent said. About 95 percent of
those are ``pure trash,'' such as leftover pieces of rockets and dead
satellites, he said. 

	In addition, there perhaps 3.5 million objects that are too
small to be tracked by could pose a danger, he said. 

	Because these objects travel at high speeds, a
ball-bearing-sized object will hit with an impact equivalent to the
explosive power of four or five hand grenades, he said. 

From: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space debris and chaotic orbits
Date: 1 Apr 91 22:46:45 GMT
Organization: The NSS BBS, Pittsburgh PA (412) 366-5208
 
The following is part of a running conversation I've been having on the
usenet sci.science echo re the probability of orbital debris striking a
satellite.  I repost it here for general interest.
  
 PB>>>... [edited: conversation re probability of a satellite or shuttle
 PB>>> running into space debris in orbit]
 PB>>> It's not the large stuff that you have to worry about, that
 PB>>> can be and is tracked by NORAD.  It's the paint flecks, loose bolts, and
 PB>>> misc stuff that falls off everytime somebody jettisons a booster.  I
 PB>>> believe the current estimate is that the Hubble can expect to run into
 PB>>> something just big enough to wreck it (about the size of a marble)
 PB>>> within the next 15 years.
 
(Leslie Rohrer)
 LR>>         I'm skeptical, but in any case, it won't be anything
 LR>>        orbital that does it. It will have to be something NOT in orbit.
 
 
 PB> Found it:
 PB> "What Goes Around, Comes Around: What to do About Space Debris",
 PB> by Dr. Gay E. Canough & Dr. Lawrence P. Lehman; Analog Science
 PB> Fiction/ Science Fact, March 1991, pp54-67.
          
 PB> Includes bibliography of 28 recent articles on the problem of
 PB> space debris and its consequences.
 
 PB> Synopsis:
 PB> 1) "Each time a satellite or other spacecraft is launched,
 PB> there are items discarded from it that remain in orbit.  These
 PB> include payload fairings, used upper rocket stages and bolts
 PB> that are blown off as part of pyrotechnic deployment of booms,
 PB> antennae, or solar panels....In addition, solid rocket motors
 PB> have aluminum oxides in their exhaust and these particles may
 PB> be a source of corrosion (by collisional pitting) to other
 PB> spacecraft. Many spacecraft are painted and after they are in
 PB> orbit for a time, the constant cycling in and out of hte sun
 PB> and exposure to atomic oxygen causes the paint to flake off.
 PB> These point flakes, traveling at 7 km/sec ... can cause
 PB> significant damage.  The most famous example of this was a
 PB> space shuttle window (Challenger, 1983) which had to be
 PB> replaced when a 4 mm pit was formed in it by collision with a
 PB> 0.2 mm paint flake.
 
 PB> 2) "There are over 7,000 trackable objects in orbit", trackable
 PB> by NORAD using radar, over 10 cm in diameter.  "MIT scientists
 PB> set out to get some idea of the population of smaller objects
 PB> in orbit.  Using telescopes, they could see about 8 times the
 PB> number of objects tracked by radar, implying over 50,000
 PB> objects larget than 1 cm." [This does not come close to
 PB> counting all of the paint flecks and bolts up there].
 
 PB> 3) "In space, debris does not stay put.[!] In fact the orbital
 PB> location of a debris object cannot be predicted for longer than
 PB> a couple of weeks.  After a few months, the object may be found
 PB> with equal probability anywhere within a volume bounded by its
 PB> apogee, its perigee, and the north and south latitude lines
 PB> equal to its inclination".  Chaotic orbital dynamics again.
 PB> What is worse, these things thusly tend to stay in the "space
 PB> lanes" commonly traversed by LEO satellites and the shuttle.
 PB> Oh yes, the stuff inhabits geosync orbit too, although to a
 PB> somewhat lesser degree.
 
 PB> 4) "A hypervelocity collision of a working spacecraft with a
 PB> 10cm (1.4 kg for aluminum) piece of space debris will
 PB> completely demolish the craft.... An 80 gram piece (3.8 cm,
 PB> aluminum) of debris striking a satellite at 10 km/s has the
 PB> same energy as 1 kg of TNT."
 
 PB> 5) "....The larget the structure, the higher the probability of
 PB> a hit. Estimates range from 1% to 10% probability that Freedom
 PB> will suffer major damage sometime during its 10-year life due
 PB> to collision....For the Hubble space telescope, there is about
 PB> a 1% chance (over its 17-year life) that it will be severely
 PB> damaged by a collision with debris."
 
 PB> The article goes on to give further information on the dangers
 PB> of and probabilities of collisions with space debris, and then
 PB> to give suggestions as to what to do about it.
 
--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--  
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG

Article: 2477
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space
Subject: Junk may endanger space missions
Date: 25 Jun 92 15:33:43 GMT
 
	CHICAGO (UPI) -- The day may come when space missions no longer 
will be feasible because of all the junk in orbit, scientists warn. 

	That conclusion came Wednesday with completion of a two-day
conference at the University of Chicago, during which scientists noted
telescopes and radar keep track of more than 7,000 objects in space
larger than 4 inches. 

	The objects range from a screwdriver dropped by an astronaut
to Russia's Mir space station. 

	University of Chicago Physicist John Simpson said it may
become impossible in 20 to 30 years to operate space missions if the
amount debris left in orbit continues to accumulate at its current rate. 

	``Not only scientists of the future but the whole of humanity
will hold scientsts and politicians of today responsible if we leave
space an ugly and dangerous area,'' said Joel Primack, a space
scientist at the University of California. 

	The junk orbits Earth at about 24,000 mph and even a sand-size
piece of debris has been known to cause damage to U.S. spacecraft.  A
fragment weighing just 2 pounds could destroy a ship and at least two
shuttle missions have had to dodge pieces of old Russian rockets,
scientists said. 

	They estimated there is a chance, although small, the Hubble
Space Telescope will be destroyed by debris. 

	NASA scientist Donald Kessler said with collisions and
explosions of spent fuel in existing junk, the number of objects is
expected to increase even if nothing new is launched. 

	Scientists did say design work is being done on rockets that
would enable them to dump unused fuel to prevent explosions and
spacecraft can be designed to fall back to Earth once their useful
life ends. 

    Just an off the wall idea...but would it be feasible to use a large
    on-orbit parabolic mirror to focus the sun's light on debris with the aim of
    vaporising it (so the bits left would be even smaller than these dangerous
    grains of sand)? Would a laser be better? I am supposing that since they
    track thousands of objects they could keep the object at the focus
    somehow for long enough to zap it but without the energetically
    difficult problem of physically chasing after the object. Perhaps
    instead of vaporising the whole object it would be possible to give it
    a kick that would send it into a lower orbit where hopefully it will
    dip into the atmosphere and the orbit would then decay.

Conversely, they could use the light pressure to slow the objects down over 
time and deorbit them. In other words, use your plan but only hit them when 
they're approaching the mirror so that they slow and eventually fall out of 
orbit. Trouble is they aren't tracking the "grains of sand" stuff and the 
bigger stuff they're happier to have in a trackable size.

Article: 2819
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.tw.space,clari.tw.environment
Subject: U.S and Japan agree to clean up space junk
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 92 18:26:10 PST
 
	TOKYO (UPI) -- The Japanese and U.S. governments will cooperate in
cleaning up space junk generated from abandoned rockets, satellites or
other debris, a Tokyo newspaper reported Saturday.

	An agreement to launch a joint project to strengthen ground-based
monitoring of space trash and to prevent its accumulation will be signed
at a Japan-U.S. conference on cooperation in space starting in Washington 
Wednesday, according to the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan's largest daily.

	Citing government sources, the report said the Japanese and U.S.
governments have agreed to enlist cooperation from European and former
Soviet nations in setting up the project on a global scale by April.

	The cooperation agreement includes plans to strengthen ground-based
observation of orbital debris, development of tests to simulate
collisions between a space station and flying junk, and development of a
robot satellite designed to grab passing debris, the newspaper said.

	Aerospace scientists have long warned of the dangers of allowing
space junk to float about, but national governments intent on promoting
outer space development have not until recently placed priority on
cleaning up the debris already generated.

	According to the U.S. government, an estimated 3.5 million pieces of
junk measuring at least 1 millimeter across are floating in space near
Earth, with the number bound to increase as space exploration proceeds.
Space trash travels at about 5 miles per second, according to scientists.

	``One junk sample measuring one centimeter across traveling at such
speed carries with it a destructive kinetic energy equivalent to a
compact passenger car traveling at (30 mph) smashing into an object,''
Yomiuri said.

	U.S. satelites that have been retrieved and returned to Earth for
inspection have been found riddled with holes.

	Designers of the international space station Freedom, sponsored by
the United States, Japan and European countries, recently recommended
boosting the station's protective walls by two to three times the
structural strength of earlier designs. The U.S. government has also
released a handbook recommending ways of designing rockets and satellite
systems that reduce or eliminate the creation of junk.

        The negative aspects of light pollution are finally beginning
    to appear in the mass media literature.  In the Sunday, November 29,
    1992 edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE, an article entitled "Astronomers
    criticize plan to light ski trails" written by Yvonne Daley appears 
    on the front page (73) of the "New England" section.

        In summary, the article tells of a plan by the Mount Mansfield
    Resort in Stowe, Vermont, to install 65, 25-foot high wooden utility
    poles, each holding two 400-watt lights, along 8,800 feet of land
    atop the highest mountain in the state.  The lights would illuminate
    20.9 acres of snow-covered forest each night during the ski season 
    for a three-year test trial.  It will cost $200,000 to install this 
    lighting system.

        The Vermont Astronomical Society has naturally complained on how
    this light pollution would ruin one of the more pristine views of
    the night sky in the region.  Judging from the reactions of skiers
    interviewed by the GLOBE, they neither know nor care what will happen
    to everyone's evening view of the heavens - or how constant light will 
    affect plants and animals in the area - just so long as they get to 
    ski.

        My question is, has the VAS contacted the International Dark-Sky 
    Association (IDA) for help and does the IDA know of the VAS's plight?

        In the Monday, November 30, edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE, there
    is a front-page article on light pollution by Scott Allen.  It 
    describes how Boston and many other cities have lost their views of 
    the stars to growing light pollution, detailed by SKY & TELESCOPE 
    associate editor Stephen J. O'Meara.  The article also explains how
    poor lighting not only makes life difficult for astronomers, but
    wastes billions of dollars in fuel each year and is apparently not 
    a deterrent to urban crime.

        I consider this attention a good start at least.  I think it is 
    about time that human ignorance and apathy were kept from doing any 
    further harm to the world, don't you?

        Larry

Article: 55446
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Re: Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:06:24 GMT
 
>> something unknown that is not in the catalog..... 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> found pieces that NORAD did not know about or had reported lost.
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Russia (ex-USSR) ?
> Other known launching nation(s) (China, Japan, France, etc...) ?
> Unknown launching nation(s) ?
> Meteorites ?
> Little natural satellites ?
> High altitude physical phenomena ?
> Very high-flying secret aircraft ?
> Other ?
> Within the computer software analysing these events, is there some
> kind of filter eliminating the objects (if any) which disappear soon
> after being detected, or which don't obey strictly the laws of
> gravitation and/or atmospheric re-entry ?
 
J. Pharabod,  Thanks for writing.
 
[for the novice out there:  satellite: anything going around the earth, not
just your MTV comm-sat]
 
	95% of those "unknown" objects are cataloged as debris pieces.
We do not have 24 hour coverage of every little piece up there, so if
a debris "event" (explosion, breakup, asat, whatever) occurs, unless a
sensor is lucky enough to catch it in the act, we get surprised on the
next observation.  It is quite exciting (for my group) when a rocket
body we had been tracking for X years goes missing and XX number of
little satellites show up on the screen in the same general orbit. 
You ever try to reverse-engineer an explosion?? 

	Another type of "unknown" is the lost satellite or the
administratively decayed satellite.  Once a satellite gets below the
90 min period mark and atmospheric drag starts to become a factor, our
software starts losing satellites.  If anyone wants to figure out
exactly how to model atmos. drag for any given object, feel free to
send us the code. 

	For any elset to be "good", at least three observations are
needed. Make that "three observations that correlate to a single elset
within our tolerances".  If an elset comes out that seems good but
doesn't correlate to any known object, then that becomes a UCT
(uncorrelated track) and gets thrown into the back numbers of the
satcat for more analysis until it can be found reliably, can be given
a name/origin and then find its way into the 2XXXX numbers. 

	Back to your questions:  We do what is called NFL (new foreign
launch) to find elsets on non-US launches.  Thus, those unknown pieces
have just as much chance of being ours as anybody elses.  And
EVERYBODY who makes a launch from Earth is included...even if we
didn't think they could. Meteorites are possible...and DSP satellites
can track them as they reenter, but most are very short-lived and not
really "orbitting".  High altitude physical mysteries...sure, although
I HIGHLY doubt it.  BTW, there are lots of work-arounds for the
Northern Lights, so they are no biggie.  If you can fly an aircraft
(even at LEO) then you need to talk to the NASP people and quick! 
Nope, no aircraft can fly where we look...save that really big white
and black jobbie with the giant doors and NASA scrawled alongside it. 

	Oh, back to natural satellites...those are a teaser and one of
the big topics that our group is working on... 
 
"Other?"

	And for the computer software...if three or more obs line up,
then you have a track...realistic or not.  And yes, people have made
claims of tracking an object that ascended radially outward from the
center of the planet, pausing occasionally.....but the latest person
to make that claim was tracking it more than 15 years ago and I have
not heard of any other claims that date later.  So, you UFO groupies
can chew on that for a while. (BTW, I have _NO_ more info on those
incidents.....I have no interest in them and don't wish to
pursue.....<ie: I have better things to do with my time than to write
stories for the tabloids>)  BTW, given the bugginess of both the
software and the sensors (even now, problems creep up), I would be
more apt to place blame on the equipment than to UFOs. 
	
					Cheers,
							Fuzzy.
 
==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |    
=(___)=      |      "We do debris"     | "You must be," said the Cat, "or you 
   U  ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu |       wouldn't have come here."
==============================================================================

    "Man will not fly for fifty years." - Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

Article: 58544
From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: message from Space Digest
Date: 9 Mar 93 16:35:29 GMT
Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: [via International Space University]
 
Press Release Nr.10.93
Paris, 9 March 1993
 
First European Conference on Space Debris
 
The European Space Agency (ESA) will organise the first European
Conference on Space Debris between 5 and 7 April 1993 at its European
Space Operations Centre (ESOC) in Darmstadt, Germany. The French
(CNES), Italian (ASI) and German (DARA) space agencies and the British
National Space Centre (BNSC) co-sponsor the first event ever on the
studies carried out in Europe under the leadership of ESA. 
 
This international forum will be a unique opportunity for experts from
the United States, Canada, Russia, Japan and Europe to take stock of
the activities undertaken as space debris is becoming a growing
concern for manned and unmanned space activities. 
 
Many questions will be raised such as how many debris and meteoroids
are in near-Earth orbit, the computer tools available or being
developed to predict the growing number of natural and man-made
debris, the analysis of material returned from space and the risk run
by satellites in general and in geostationary orbit in particular. 
 
The presentations range from the orbital debris environment
projections for the Space Station Freedom to the impacts detected on
the Long Duration Exposure Facility including the post-flight
investigation programme for the first solar generator of the Hubble
Space Telescope that will be recovered in December 1993. 
 
A round table discussion scheduled for 7 April 1993 will explore the
possibilities offered to control and regulate debris. The problem of
space debris requires discussion by all partners active in space. The
European Space Agency has chosen to be instrumental in this joint
effort and created a Space Debris Working Group in 1986. The
conference will give exposure to the first results. 
 
Journalists are welcome to follow the whole conference. For more
information or requests for accreditation, please contact the Public
Relations Office at ESOC, Darmstadt (Germany) - 
 
Tel. +49 6151.90.2270/ 90.2696 -
Fax +49 6151.90.2961.

Article: 60703
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de
Subject: message from Space Digest
Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: [via International Space University]
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 15:31:19 GMT
 
Press Release Nr.17-93
Paris, 7 April 1993
 
First European Space Debris Conference ends today
 
At the initiative of the European Space Agency (ESA), the First
European Space Debris Conference was held in Darmstadt, Germany, from
5 to 7 April 1993 gathering together 251 world experts from 17
countries including China, India, Japan, Russia and the USA. 
 
The main conclusions of the conference are:
 
- Ground based observations with radar and optical facilities reveal
the existence of about 7,000 objects in space, which do not represent
an immediate danger.  However, adequate actions have to be taken in
order to keep the debris hazard for manned and unmanned missions
within safe limits.  Of most concern are the long-term prospects of the
debris hazard, particularly in those regions in space which are most
heavily used, e.g. low Earth (900-1500 km) and the geostationary
orbits (about 36.000 km). 
 
- Clean up of debris is neither technically practical nor economically
feasible. The thrust of the action must be towards preventing the
creation of debris. Several preventive measures have been identified
and implemented in space activities, such as releasing residual
propellant in rocket upper stages to preclude a subsequent explosion
generating many fragments, and the reorbiting at higher altitudes of
geostationary satellites at the end of their mission in order to avoid
collision with operational satellites. Further possibilities include
destructive re-entry into the atmosphere to burn up the spacecraft or
selection of orbital parameters to limit the lifetime. 
 
- The space debris problem can only effectively be solved by
international cooperation. 
 
Bilateral discussions between space agencies on the debris issue have
taken place since 1987. Furthermore, on the occasion of this First
European Space Debris Conference, the first multilateral discussions
among representatives of NASA, the Russian Space Agency, Japan and ESA
took place in Darmstadt (on 2-3 April) to present results of their
research activities, to identify possibilities for cooperation and to
discuss methods for debris reduction. 
 
In view of the high interest this ESA initiative has stimulated, it is
envisaged to hold a second conference on the debris issue in about 2-3
years from now. 
 

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2823               Friday  7-May-1993            Circulation :  6952 

        VNS MAIN NEWS .....................................   70 Lines
        VNS COMPUTER NEWS .................................  165   "
        VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH ..............................   65   "

        Please send subscription and backissue requests to EXPAT::VNS

VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH:                           [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent]
=====================                           [Littleton, MA, USA            ]

	City Lights and Space Ads May Blind Stargazers

	{New York Times	Tuesday, May 4, 1993 Science Times, Page C1}
        {contributed by Jeff Zitelman}

    As the glare of artificial light spreads ever more pervasively  across
    the planet's night skies, astronomers are having nightmares. America's
    great observatories now face the possibility that huge commercial
    billboards may soon be rocketed into orbit, while cities fearful of
    crime are flooding the night sky with ever brighter lights. Added to
    this plague of light pollution, astronomical observatories also face
    increasing interference from such mundane sources as radio-operated
    garage-door openers.

	...

    A major uproar followed the announcement last month that Space
    Marketing Inc. of Roswell, GA., in cooperation with Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory in California and the University of Colorado,
    planned to launch a one-mile-wide display satellite into orbit around
    Earth. The spacecraft, made of thin plastic film, would reflect sunlight 
    to Earth from aluminized letters or symbols. Orbiting at an altitude 
    of about 180 miles, the sign would be just legible to the naked eye.
	
    A description by its developers says that from the ground the satellite
    will appear to be somewhere between the size of the full moon and the
    size of a half moon, depending on variations in atmospheric effects.
    But highly reflective parts of the spacecraft that catch the Sun at an
    optimum angle may make it seem much brighter than the Moon.

	...

    The announcement prompted an angry letter to astronomers throughout the
    world from Dr. Derek NcNally, a British astronomer who is chairman of
    an environmental committee of the United Nations International Council
    of Scientific Unions.

    "The ultimate disaster for astronomical science is now clearly
    identified: commercial advertising from space," he wrote. "Such a
    misuse of space involving the launch of solar reflectors carrying
    advertising material, to appear as bright as the Moon (as a minimum),
    orbiting with 90-minute periods, will virtually wipe out deep-sky
    astronomy."

    The mile-wide spacecraft, shaped like an ordinary billboard, would be
    visible over any given spot on Earth for only about 10 minutes at a
    time, and would not be visible at all during the middle of the night
    when it would be out of reach of the  Sun's rays, its designers say.

    Mike Lawson, president of Space Marketing, denied in an interview that
    the proposed spacecraft would hurt astronomy. "The purpose of our
    'Environmental Space Platform' is to  help scientists who could not
    otherwise afford to do so to put environmental sensors into orbit," he
    said. "The project will be supported by commercial sponsors identified
    with environmental causes, who can display our symbol in advertising,
    just as sponsors of the Olympics do."

    When it is launched in 1996, it will cause astronomical observatories
    no more problems than do airplanes flying across the lines of sight of
    the big telescopes, Mr. Lawson said. Moreover, the "Environmental Space
    Platform",  consisting almost entirely of thin Mylar plastic, would 
    re-enter the atmosphere and burn up within 20 days of launching.

    These assurances have not mollified opponents.

	...	

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
        Please send subscription and backissue requests to EXPAT::VNS

    Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
    provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
    VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2823      Friday  7-May-1993   <><><><><><><><>

Article: 4495
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.demonstration,clari.tw.environment
Subject: Boycott threatened over billboards in space
Date: Thu, 13 May 93 12:28:52 PDT
 
	PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- A coalition of public interest and
scientific groups Thursday threatened to organize an international
boycott of any product advertised on a billboard in space. 

	State chapters of the Public Interest Research Group held news
conferences across the country, including the United Nations, and
picketed the headquarters of Space Marketing Inc., the Roswell, Ga.
firm marketing the space billboards. 

	And the coalition, comprised of groups ranging from the
Audubon Society to the International Astronomers Union, issued its
boycott threat in a letter to Space Marketing Chief Executive Officer
Mike Lawson. 

	``We urge you to withdraw your plans,'' the letter said. ``A
space billboard would destroy the serene nocturnal skyline, interfere
with astronomical research and star-gazing and become and unsightly
distraction for anyone trying to enjoy the great outdoors.'' 

	For a fee of $15 million to $30 million, Space Marketing is
offering to advertise products on one mile-long mylar billboard that
will be launched 180 miles into space.

	The billboard would orbit Earth for 30 days and appear to the
naked eye about the size of the full Moon.  Its designers say it would
only be visible at any given spot on Earth for about 10 minutes a day.

	But detractors say that's 10 minutes too long.

	``This is one of the most offensive advertising ploys in the
history of Madison Avenue,'' said Sheila Ballen, executive director of
the Pennsylvania chapter of PIRG. 

	``Imagine you're out in the wilderness, and you look up at 
the beautiful Moon and right next to it there's a sign that says
'McDonalds, ''' Ballen said, 

        ``It's raping our environment when you commercialize space.'' 

Article: 3588
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Billboards in Space
Date: 20 Aug 93  11:12:52
 
         "Billboards in Space - Should They be Outlawed? "
                Subject of September Presentations
               
        "Billboards in Space - Should They Be Outlawed?", will be the
topic of panel discussions sponsored by the San Diego L5 and OASIS
Policy Committees in September. 

        San Diego L5, a chapter of the National Space Society, will
hold its event at 7940 Silverton Avenue, Suite 101 in Mira Mesa, San
Diego, on Saturday, September 11 (Saturday) at 7pm. 

        OASIS, the Los Angeles area chapter of the National Space
Society, will present its discussion on S-1145, the "Billboards in
Space" Act on Saturday, September 18 at 2pm at the El Segundo Public
Library, located at 111 W. Mariposa Avenue in El Segundo. 

        Admission to these events is free and open to the general public. 

        The two sponsoring organizations seek public comments on the
Billboards in Space Act, legislation under review by the U.S. Congress
that would outlaw satellites in space designed to carry messages
visible from the Earth. An Atlanta, Georgia company plans to orbit a
display bearing an environmental message and ozone sensors; the
proposed legislation would ban this satellite. 

        For more information about these events, or about the National
Space Society, please call OASIS at 310-364-2290, or San Diego L5 at
619/295-3690. 
 
--- Maximus 2.01wb

From:	US1RMC::"David.Anderman@ofa123.UUCP" "David Anderman" 28-AUG-1993 
To:	aws@iti.org
CC:	nss-chapters@hela.iti.org
Subj:	S1145
 
Commentary on S-1145, the Space Advertising Prohibition Act
 
        After reading the text of S-1145, it is clear that the bill is
intended solely to prohibit the orbiting of displays visible from
Earth for the purpose of commercial advertising. The bill, as
currently written, does not forbid companies from placing
advertisements on the sides of rocket stages, nor does it prohibit
companies from filming and transmitting commercials from orbital
stations. 

        As the bill's focus is narrow, it is also sharp: the bill
imposes severe penalties for companies that do orbit space billboards,
with fines up to $30 million. Furthermore, the bill prohibits the
importation of goods from foreign companies participating in space
billboards. Should the bill become law, it would extremely difficult
for any company to reap a financial gain from orbiting space
billboards. 

        I believe that the debate on the bill should be similarly
focused on the  single issue of whether billboards in space should be
prohibited at this time. 

        There are three possible scenarios should S-1145 be defeated:
 
        1)      One or two companies orbit billboards, with no
appreciable results; under this scenario, there is little or no damage
to the night sky. 

        2)      A moderate amount of billboards are orbited. Due to
orbital mechanics, it would be rare to actually see a billboard. Once
sufficient billboards are orbited to be visible on a daily basis,
legislation could be created to regulate the industry. As Peter Kokh
has put forward, the billboards could be scheduled to appear during
periods of bright moonlight. 

        3)      The sky is littered with billboards. Again, it would
be simple to regulate or prohibit the industry at this point. However,
it is important to keep in mind that billboards appear over any one
spot on a daily basis, hundreds of rocket launches would be necessary.
This new market would likely be sufficient to spur development of
cheaper, commercial launch systems. 

       I would recommend that anyone interested in this issue request
a copy of S-1145 from their Senator. 
        
Please direct any comments you may have on this issue to Allen
Sherzer, Chair of the NSS chapters Assembly Policy Committee at
aws@iti.org 
-- 

David Anderman
Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 10:34:22 PDT
% From: David.Anderman@ofa123.UUCP (David Anderman)
% Subject: S1145
% To: aws@iti.org
% Cc: nss-chapters@hela.iti.org

Article: 42718
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: lmg1@navahonavaho.cc.bellcore.com (geary,lawrence m.)
Subject: NJ Light Pollution Crisis
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 23:13:21 GMT
Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)
 
If you live in New Jersey you may have noticed new lights going up
along state roads and interstates, courtesy of the Department of
Transportation. The lights are extremely bright and the heads are
angled at 45 degrees - just about perfect for causing the maximum
amount of light pollution. They also create potentially dangerous
amounts of glare in the eyes of drivers, and can be annoying from
several miles away.
 
As these lights have been installed at exits along Route 78 over the
past year or two, the NJAA observatory has experienced a dramatic
decline in the darkness of its skies. The southern sky up to about
30 degrees from the horizon is useless, and now the eastern sky is
marked by a glow that resembles a perpetual moonrise.
 
If these lights continue to go up, the night sky over *all* of our
state will be systematically destroyed over the next few years.
 
Fortunately, the deleterious effects of these lights has been brought
to the attention of the NJ-DOT, and they are pausing to evaluate their
work. The evaluation period will only last a month. NOW IS THE TIME
WHEN YOUR INPUT CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
 
Please WRITE to the NJ-DOT and ask them to stop this lighting program
before it is too late. Most of these installations are not really needed
at all. Where lighting is needed, ideally, the heads of the lights should
be replaced with full cut-off fixtures, preferably dimmer ones. As an
alternative, light shields can be installed to keep the light from
being directed upward or into the eyes of drivers.
 
This is a make or break situation. Your letter can make a difference.
Please write to:
 
 Mr. Richard C. Dube
 Director, Traffic and Engineering
 NJ Department of Transportation
 E & O Building, 7th Floor
 1035 Parkway Avenue
 CN 61
 Trenton, NJ 08625


Article: 42736
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: etlmksr@etlxd30.ericsson.se (Mark Slater)
Subject: Light Pollution (UK)
Sender: news@ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 08:18:38 GMT
 
Hi all
 
I've been reading some of the post about the problem of light pollution and
peoples concern about it. For those of us living in the UK, the British
Astronomical Association is running a campaine to make people aware of 
this problem and solution that can improve the situation. They are also
working with/informing both MPs and local government officals who, I am
glad to say, are starting to reconnise this as a problem. I know the BAA
are willing to give information to anyone about their campaine. If you
wish to know more write to them at:
 
	  The British Astronomical Association
	  Burlington House
	  Piccadilly
	  London
	  W1V 9AG
 
Mark
 
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
|Mark Slater			|  E-mail : etlmksr@etlxd30.ericsson.se  |
|Ericsson Ltd, Burgess Hill, UK	|  Tel    : (0444) 234403 (day)		 |
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+


Article: 43042
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: lmg1@navahonavaho.cc.bellcore.com (geary,lawrence m.)
Subject: Re: Light Pollution in Rural Towns
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, New Jersey
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 15:07:09 GMT
Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)
 
In article <26qdrn$sj1@news.bu.edu> jhendric@bu.edu (James Hendrickson) writes:

>Recently, I joined the battle against light-pollution.  The amount of outdoor 
>lighting in my area has more than doubled in the last 5 years.  On a street
>near my house, about half the yards have wasteful lights in them, and all of 
>these houses are relatively new.
 
People are ignorant and fearful and convinced by conventional wisdom
that more light == more security. This ignorance extends to town
officials, lighting engineers and officials at power companies. I
recently posted about the extremely bright highway lights installed by
NJ-DOT, apparently with the intent of putting them everywhere in the
state. They have heads tilted at 45 degrees or more so much of their
light goes straight up. They create such intense glare that they can
interfere with drivers a mile away. And yet the lighting "experts" at
the highway department apparently thinks this is a Good Thing. We are
dealing with people who probably have never seen a night sky and don't
know there is such a thing. They are the type who turn ON their
outdoor lights when they're home, insist that businesses should have
lights burning all night when they are closed, the brighter the better. 
 
It is important to realize that these people don't give a DAMN about
the night sky. The only way to reach them is to hammer on them about
glare creating safety hazards, and about light spraying upward being a
total waste of electricity. (The latter argument doesn't work with
power company people who apparently *want* us to waste energy.) Talk
about the beauty of the night sky will get you blank stares. 
 
In my town, through the efforts of one person, we now have a new
lighting ordinance which, over time, will eliminate or reduce much of
the worst of the lighting problems. If you are willing to get
involved, join your town's environmental commission or planning board
and begin agitating for better lighting. Educate yourself. Take light
meter readings. Meet with power company representatives. Get facts.
Write letters. Eventually you may win. If you do nothing, you will
definitely lose. 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Geary                                (908) 699-2369
navaho!lmg1                                lmg1@cc.bellcore.com
------------------------------------------------------------------


Article: 42954
From: jhendric@bu.edu (James Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Light Pollution
Date: 10 Sep 1993 17:02:52 GMT
Organization: Boston University
 
Are you from Haystack observatory?  I'm with the Amateur Telescope
Makers of Boston and I attended our monthly meeting last night at the
CfA, and one of the highlights of the meeting was to inform the group
about the proposed shopping center to be built in Westford.  Excess
lighting from this facility would contribute to the skyglow at the
Haystack Observatory, which is also the location of the ATMoB clubhouse.  
Members were advised to attend planning board meetings and promote 
low-impact lighting, but no bylaw info was issued. 
 
You can also contact the IDA.  You can usually find their ad in Sky &
Tel magazine.  They're based out of Tucson, AZ. 
 
I know that the battle against light-pollution is quite tough, I'm
fighting it at my observing location. 
 
Good luck keeping those skies reasonably dark.
 
Jim

Article: 4726
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.local.california,clari.tw.science
Subject: City to switch on brighter streetlights
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 7:46:52 PDT
 
	SAN DIEGO (UPI) -- Following hours of debate and testimony
over the issue of changing current yellowish street lights favored by
Palomar astronomers, the City Council voted 5-4 Tuesday to make the
change to brighter white lights. 

	The 6:45 p.m. vote followed testimony from citizens who said
the high-pressure sodium vapor lamps would lower the crime rate
because people would be able to see and prevent would-be attackers or
be able to identify them in court. 

	Robert Brucato, assistant director at Palomar Observatory,
disputed those concerns, saying the change won't improve street
lighting conditions, but will contribute to light ``wash'' that tends
to blind terrestrial telescopes.  The low sodium street lights which
were approved in 1984 by another city council ``don't contribute to
light pollution,'' said Brucato. 

	Councilmember George Stevens, who voted for the measure along
with its author John Hartley, said it will cost the city $185 to
change each light.  The conversion will occur over a six-year period,
with certain high crime areas targeted first. 

Article: 45158
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Atlanta Lights Up!
From: ken.poshedly@cld9.com (Ken Poshedly)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 15:44:00 -0600
Organization: C-9 Communications
 
From: ken.poshedly@atlastro.cld9.com
Subject: Atlanta Lights Up!
 
Below is the verbatim text on a subject near and dear to us all:
 
ATLANTA MAYOR REVEALS PLAN FOR 'INTERNATIONAL CITY OF LIGHTS'
 
(Copyright 1993 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper)
By David Penrod, staff writer
 
Atlanta Mayor Maynard H. Jackson unveiled Tuesday (October 12) a grand
plan for illuminating the exterior of office towers and hotels, a proposal 
that its designer said would light up Atlanta for the 1996 Olympics. 
 
"If we light just 34 buildings, we can be the international city of
lights," said Douglas Leigh, an Atlanta native who drafted the master
lighting plan and designed many of the landmark lights on New York
City's Broadway. 
 
The plan calls for illuminating 82 buildings along the Peachtree
Street corridor from Downtown through Midtown and into the Buckhead
area of Atlanta. 
 
Building owners would pay Georgia Power Co. for the cost of the
electricity. 
 
But the mayor touted the program mainly as a way to improve the public
safety. "Aesthetic beauty, marketing of Atlanta, public safety, public
safety, public safety," Jackson said. 
 
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1991 approved
exterior lighting as a better use of energy than the current practice
of leaving internal lights on at night, according to Cory Berish, a
senior EPA science advisor. 
 
The owners of 13 buildings already have agreed to install exterior
lighting, including Resurgens Plaza, the Flat Iron and Healey
buildings, Hyatt Regency Hotel and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 
 
Those buildings would join 10 others that were illuminated before the
master plan was released. One of them, One Peachtree Center, was cited
as the best example of the proposed lighting program. 
 
A Georgia power spokesman said the utility is paying to develop the
master plan as part of its effort to encourage energy use during
off-peak periods, to increase public safety and to improve Atlanta's
economic development opportunities. 
 
General Electric Co. has agreed to donate lamps for several public
buildings. 
 
(end of story)

Well folks, comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcome:
 
Maynard H. Jackson
Mayor, City of Atlanta
Atlanta City Hall
68 Mitchell St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30335-5101
(404) 330-6100
 
Georgia Power Co.
Office of the President
333 Piedmont Ave. NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3374
(404) 526-6526
 
General Electric Co.
Commercial & Industrial Lighting Sales
7000 Central Park Way, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30328
(404) 913-3820
 
Environmental Protection Agency -- Region IV
Attn. Cory Berish, EPA Science Advisor
345 Courtland St. NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365-2401
(404) 347-4727
 
Resurgens Plaza
Office of the Management
945 East Paces Ferry Rd. NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
(404) 233-7922
 
The Flat Iron Building
Office of the Management
84 Peachtree St. NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 659-1440
 
The Healey Building
Office of the Management
57 Forsyth St. NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 522-3146
 
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Office of the President
265 Peachtree St. NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 577-1234
 
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Office of the President
72 Marietta St. NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2899
(404) 526-5151
 
One Peachtree Center
Office of the Management
303 Peachtree St. NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
(404) 220-3400
 
Sorry folks, there's no Douglas Leigh listed in the Atlanta
telephone directory (and the "D. Leigh" ain't him either).
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * The earth is round so we can't see too far down the road.
 * [C-9]:Atlanta Astronomy Club BBS*-Reply "To:<username>@atlastro.cld9.com"

Article: 76605
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wdwells@nyx10.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Re: Returning to Earth
Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 01:18:24 GMT
 
Steve Sell <siksws@rcinet.res.utc.com> wrote:

>I know that Space Debris is becoming a problem.  In the past couple of
>years, there have been some launch delays due to debris in the launch
>path.  Howver, NASA tracks all debris through radar anda such.  If a
>satellite is lost, and comes within a certain range of a space vehicle,
>NASA is probably tracking it as unidentified.  I'm not 100% familiar
>with this, so if anyone is, please jump in.
 
Greets Steve,

	I happen to be somewhat of an expert on this matter.
 
	First, NASA doesn't "track" cah-cah.  The SSC (Space
Surveillance Center in Cheyenne Mtn) does.  Those are USSPACECOM
screen watchers and AFSPACECOM analysis folks.  ANY info that NASA
gets is weeded-out SSC data.  We track about 7000 objects from about
50,000 observations daily.  It's not that NASA wouldn't love to claim
they track debris, but quite honestly, they don't have nearly the
budget of the military to do these things. 

	As for cross-tagging.  First, we VERY rarely straight-out lose
something.  What can occur is that two known sats cross paths and
somewhere in the crossing, the SSC will mis-tag an object with the
other sat.  Of course, after a bit of analysis, this is corrected and
the proper tags are restored.  Losing sats (as opposed to
cross-tagging) takes a bit of effort.  Causes would be a VERY high
apogee that is only seen during a quick perigee dive, a sat that
appears to start eating the atmosphere in a big way (100-80km) and the
drag terms start playing havoc with the tracking software (see the
latest Chinese incoming), manuevering sats, sats near the 10 cm size
(our publicized "limit"), solar events, ie: anything really out of the
ordinary.  We keep data on objects from birth to death, so it has to
really try hard for us to lose it.  Unless, of course, it explodes and
then we start tracking all its children. 

	As for close approaches of debris/sats to the shuttle.  We run
a program that calculates the miss distance between orbits of the
shuttle and everything else.  If something gets close, we tell NASA
and they manuever if need-be. 

	Thanks for the interest in debris...

	And my thanks to Bill Higgins for pointing out this article...
 
			Fuzzy.
===============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |       "I want peace on earth,
\'o.O'       |     HQ AFSPACECOM/CN    |         goodwill toward men." 
=(___)=      |      "We do debris"     |"We're the government. We don't 
   U  ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu | do that sort of thing."   -SNEAKERS 
===============================================================================

Article: 76778
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Returning to Earth
Sender: usenet@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU (Net News Administrator)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 16:54:39 GMT
 
In article <1993Oct29.164957.16056@sun1x.res.utc.com>,
Steve Sell <siksws@rcinet.res.utc.com> wrote:

>I know that Space Debris is becoming a problem.  In the past couple of
>years, there have been some launch delays due to debris in the launch
>path.  Howver, NASA tracks all debris through radar anda such.
 
No, actually, NASA isn't able to do this. Large objects like entire
used upper stages are tracked by NORAD (not NASA). But smaller
objects, like a wrench an astronaut accidentally lost, are too small
to track. At the speeds typical of orbital collisions, even a paint
chip can be dangerous. 
 
                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder

Article: 79168
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wdwells@nyx10.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Re: How much junk in our orbit?
Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 23:15:09 GMT
 
>> > o Solid rocket exhaust can be clouds of aluminium dust moving at
>> >   high velocities
>> 
>> Are these dust clouds dangerous, e.g. could the Shuttle fly through one
>> unharmed?  How are they tracked?  (I would guess the individual dust
>> particles would be orders of magnitude smaller than the wavelength
>> of a radar signal, so they ought to be invisible to radar.)
>
>I posted the original statement but confess to not knowing how
>much potential for damage they represent.  I suspect they disperse
>quickly and would have a low beta (ballistic coeff) and fall out
>rapidly.  If anyone has real data hop into this discussion!
 
Gee, I guess this is where I am supposed to jump in.
 
For more info on this subject, check out the LDEF studies on the Al
and Au debris collection plates. 
 
Okay, those particles are _NOT_ tracked.  WAY too small.  We track
objects 10 cm across and larger (that is our public figure that is
often cited).  As for damage, neglible.  Microscopic pit marks were
left on the LDEF collection plates.  Nothing to write home (or NASA)
about. I can't remember what the shuttle is protected against, but we
have been told the SSF will supposedly shield against 1cm objects in
general with 3cm in critical areas.  Now, were you paying attention? 
We track to 10cm, they (NASA) protects to 1-3cm.  You figure it out. 
Earth-orbiting is a crap-shoot.  We just haven't hit snake-eyes, yet. 
Actually, we are not overly concerned about that considering that more
rockets/shuttle/people will be lost in the launch phase than debris
will ever take out.  That maybe heartless, but it is economics-smart.
Shielding to a higher degree means less of a payload (if any) and
building radar/optical sites to track to 1cm is _not_ going to make it
with Congress. 
 
The good news is that small stuff goes away rather quickly (as
mentioned before...big b-star terms decay rapidly).  The bad news is
that even paint chips can crack windows. 
 
Cheers,
		Fuzzy.
 
===============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |       "I want peace on Earth,
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |         goodwill toward men." 
=(___)=      |      "We do debris"     |"We're the government. We don't 
   U  ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu | do that sort of thing."   -SNEAKERS 
===============================================================================
 

From:	US1RMC::"esj@harvee.billerica.ma.US" "Eric S Johansson" 27-DEC-1993 
To:	nelpag@yeehah.Merk.COM
CC:	
Subj:	NELPAG Circular #2

NELPAG Circular No. 2                                     1993 December 22

New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG)

Editor:     Daniel W. E. Green [Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory;
               60 Garden Street; Cambridge, MA  02138]  (telephone 617-495-7440)
               e-mail:  green@cfa (.bitnet, .span, or .harvard.edu)

Secretary:  Eric Johansson     (telephone 508-667-0137)
               email:  esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  or  esj@temerity.polaroid.com

     "Subscription" to this irregular news/information Circular is
available by sending three self-addressed, self-stamped (29-cent)
regular-sized (9.5x4-inch) envelopes (SASE) to Dan Green at his postal
address, or by sending your e-mail address to either Dan or Eric using
the e-mail addresses above.  Sections in this Circular are written by
Dan (D.G.) or Eric (E.J.) unless noted otherwise. 

     NOTE:  NELPAG Circular No. 1 was the letter dated 1993 October 18
and addressed to all current International Dark-Sky Association (IDA)
Members throughout New England.  It described the background behind
the planned November 6 meeting (which was scheduled during the
light-pollution conference that was sponsored by Sky and Telescope
magazine and held on October 2 at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics in Cambridge) and encouraged interested individuals to
attend that meeting.  -- D.G. 

                                  ***********

1993 OCTOBER MEETINGS IN BOSTON AREA
     Just to re-cap the October 2nd meeting, which was held here at
Harvard College Observatory on the same weekend that the professional
lighting engineers (IES) were meeting in nearby Salem, MA, there were
about 30 people in attendance, mostly from the New England states
(plus two from Arizona, three from New York, and one from New Jersey).
Less than a dozen of these same people showed up at the Monday
afternoon IES session on light pollution. -- D.G. 

1993 NOVEMBER 6 MEETING OF NELPAG
     For comparison, we had about 18 dedicated people show up at the
inaugural NELPAG meeting on November 6, representing all of the New
England states except Connecticut.  The chairs in Phillips Auditorium
were moved into a large circle for open discussion, and this worked
quite well.  The name "NELPAG" was accepted by vote after discussion. 
The topic of dues was raised, but the general con- sensus was that
there should be no dues, and that there could be informal con-
tribution for things such as snacks and coffee/tea for NELPAG
meetings.  (There is no charge for use of the meeting rooms at Harvard
Observatory, and the cost of communication is eliminated by use of
e-mail or self-addressed, self-stamped envelopes.)  It was announced
that the Dark Sky Bill had been re-introduced in the Massachusetts
state legislature on Nov. 3, this time with about half a dozen
co-sponsors; it could use more co-sponsors to help passage, and all
Massachusetts people are encouraged to contact their state senator
and/or re- presentative to ask them to co-sponsor the bill.  There
will be another hearing for this bill at the state house in the spring
of 1994, and amendments can be added to the bill (which had been
developed using wording recommended by Dave Crawford, IDA) at that
time; the general feeling at this Nov. 6 meeting was that stronger
wording was definitely needed.  The actual wording is provided later
in this Circular. 

     Mario Motta suggested that "working groups" or committees be
established to work on specific problems, and the following NELPAG
working groups were established:  lighting fixtures (Bob Wylie,
Chair); power utilities (Dan Green, Chair); city/town recommended
bylaws package (Mario Motta, Chair). Motta's group will meet in
January in the Boston area, prior to the regional NELPAG meeting (see
below), to put together suggested amendments to the Massachusetts bill
and to work on a standard wording for town constitutions. Bob Wylie
(who is also Chairman of the Obtrusive Light Committee and Roadway
Lighting Committee of the professional lighting engineer group IESNA)
was to produce a small several-page pamphlet of companies that sell
good outdoor lighting fixtures (presumably with illustrations). 

     It was mentioned that each state within New England should
organize a local group to have more frequent local meetings in which
people can work on light pollution problems together.  Mario Motta
asked for volunteers for those states represented at the meeting, with
the following Chairs for state groups chosen:  MA, Mario Motta
(617-334-3648); RI, Bill Gucfa (1101 Roosevelt Ave., Pawtucket, RI 
02861); NH, Marion Hochuli (603-888-0141); VT, Brad Vietje
(802-685-2203); ME, Anthony Dater (207-985-4087).  It was agreed that
for most region-wide meetings, Boston was a good meeting location, in
that it is probably the most accessible site for all New Englanders to
reach.  It was also proposed, however, that local state groups
occasionally host a region-wide NELPAG meeting for the purpose of
having out-of-state "recognition" for the local efforts, for which the
media (newspapers, etc.) can be called on for help; no such meetings
have yet been officially planned or scheduled. 

     The question was raised as to whether there are any laws in the
Dept. of Motor Vehicles code in Massachusetts (and other New England
states) that forbid glare along roads that could affect driver safety.
 Other notes jotted down by Eric:  (1) Lexington (MA) has lighting
bylaws dealing with light trespass, but they are unenforced.  (2) Any
lighting bylaw wording should be quantifiable; wording like
"unreasonable" or "excessive" has made laws unenforceable; apparently
there was a case in Winchester (MA) where a judge tossed out a case
because of the unquantifiable wording.  (3) Get permission from town
engineer before calling local utilities about town lighting; remember,
make friends with the town officials, as they can make it very easy or
very difficult to make change happen.  (4) Beware of "great deals"
from utilities; power companies tend to offer fixtures that are
expensive to run, spread light all over the place, and are just too
bright; to boot, the deals that they offer last for a "long" time
(15-20 yrs).  (5) Peter Talmage of Maine pointed out that you need
both lighting bylaws and lighting policy; in most towns, lighting
policy is set by the power utilities.  -- D.G. and E.J. 

     Officers were elected, with Mario Motta presiding over the open
voting. Without much discussion (or thought), it was quickly decided
that Dan Green would be "president", and that the "central
contact/meeting moderator" would be Eric Johansson.  However, these
titles may not be the best titles, considering the nature of this
volunteer group.  I thus propose that I simply be called the Editor
(of the NELPAG Circulars), and that Eric be called the "NELPAG
Secretary"; this should accomplish the same goals and at the same time
give people a more realistic idea of our "positions" within NELPAG,
and we can confirm this proposition at the next meeting of NELPAG on
January 29.  -- D.G. 

NELPAG MEETING PLANNED FOR 1994 JANUARY 29
     It was agreed at the November 6 meeting to have a another
regional NELPAG meeting very soon at the Harvard College Observatory
at 60 Garden Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts (in Phillips
Auditorium, upper parking lot, between Garden Street and Concord
Ave.).  It was agreed that Saturdays were good, but that mornings
would be better than afternoons.  With this in mind, we chose
Saturday, January 29, from 10:00 a.m. to 12 noon as the time for the
next full NELPAG meeting.  We hear that Massachusetts State
Representative Jim Marzilli of Arlington will be present to talk about
the lighting bill that he has just re-introduced at the State House in
Boston, and what can be done to help it along (a hearing will be held
at the State House in the spring, and we will discuss this).  In the
event of inclement weather (snow!), contact me or Eric by telephone or
e-mail on Friday (or early Saturday) prior to the meeting. 

     A local meeting will be held in the Boston area in January
sometime before the larger regional meeting on January 29.  This
meeting is being hosted by Mario Motta and will address the problems
of amendments to the pending Mass. bill and also recommended by-laws
for towns and cities. Contact Dan or Eric or Mario if you would like
to attend.  If you cannot attend but have ideas or suggestions after
reading over the enclosed Mass. and Maine outdoor lighting bills,
please send your suggestions to Dan or Eric within the next two weeks.
-- D.G. 

MASSACHUSETTS DARK-SKY BILL
     The bill was re-filed by Rep. Marzilli on Nov. 3, and the wording
is the same as last year's bill (H. 3159), but a new bill number will
be assigned: 

An Act to Limit Outdoor Night Lighting, Conserve Energy and Reduce
Light Pollution. 

Section 1.  Chapter 85, Section 2 of the General Laws is hereby amended by
inserting the following new section:

     "Cities by ordinance and towns by by-law shall introduce a code
for the design and installation of outdoor night lighting, the purpose
of which is to ensure that outdoor night lighting fixtures 1) conserve
energy; 2) preserve the natural night environment; and 3) reduce or
eliminate light pollution; while providing adequate night-time safety,
utility, and security; and to implement this code in the installation
of all public lighting fixtures and as a condition of subdivision and
planning approvals." 

Definitions:
     "Light Pollution" - General sky glow caused by large numbers
of poorly-designed light sources.
     "Light trespass" - Bothersome local lighting, shining beyond
the intended effective illumination zone that may glare into the
eyes of motorists, home-owners, and others.
     "Outdoor light fixtures" - outdoor artificial illuminating
devices, installed or portable, used for flood-lighting, general
illumination, or advertisement.  Such devices shall include, but
are not limited to, search, spot, flood, and area lighting for:

     a)   buildings and structures;
     b)   recreational facilities;
     c)   parking facilities;
     d)   landscape lighting;
     e)   outdoor advertising displays, billboard, signs;
     f)   public and private street lighting; and
     g)   walkway lighting.

     Policy - It shall be the policy of the Commonwealth and each of its
cities, towns, communities, authorities, and agencies to introduce a code for
the design and installation of outdoor night lighting, the purpose of which is
to ensure that outdoor night lighting fixtures 1) conserve energy; 2) preserve
the natural night environment; and 3) reduce or eliminate light pollution;
while providing adequate night-time safety, utility, and security; and to
implement this code in the installation of all public lighting fixtures and as
a condition of subdivision and planning approvals.

     Purpose and Intent - The purpose of this policy is to ensure that outdoor
lighting does not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment
of dark-sky activities.  It is the intent of this policy to encourage the
types, kinds, construction, installation, and use of outdoor electrically
powered illuminating devices, lighting practices, and systems which will
conserve energy, while preserving the natural environment and increasing
night-time safety, utility, security, and productivity.

     I suggest that individuals request a Massachusetts Legislative
Directory from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 24 Province St.,
Boston, MA  02108 (send a self-addressed #10 business envelope with 75 cents
postage) or call 617-720-1000.  This booklet gives names, addresses, and
phone numbers of all Massachusetts legislators and Committee members, along
with an outline of how bills become laws.  Call or write your state Senator
and Representative; ask them to support this bill and request that they
co-sponsor it; thank them for their support.  Members of the Energy Committee
as of last spring were:  Senators Montigny (Bristol), Norton (Bristol),
Berry (Essex), S. P. O'Brien (Hampden and Hampshire), Leahy (Middlesex),
Swift (Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden and Hampshire); Representatives Herren
(Fall River), Binienda (Worcester), Gardner (Holliston), Cabral (New Bedford),
Galvin (Canton), Valianti (Marlborough), Marzilli (Arlington), Fagan
(Taunton), Paulsen (Belmont), Gauch (Shrewsbury), Cousins (Newburyport).

   -- Paul Messerschmidt (Energy Innovations Group, 49 Hancock St., Boston, MA
02114-4132; phone 617-695-9875; e-mail 71600.2367@compuserve.com)

FERRY PROBLEM IN MAINE
     I got a call from Terry Cline (Sustainable Environments, Peaks Island,
ME) on Dec. 10; he was referred to us by NELPAG member Peter Talmage.  
Apparently Terry is involved in a lighting conflict where the lighting
in question is onboard a ferry.  At first the problem didn't seem to be one
we could help with, but some fallout from the ferry lighting does fall in
our domain.  The following retelling of the problem is mostly from memory, so
any mistakes are my fault, but I believe the basic outline is OK.  The current
passenger ferry to Peaks (and other islands) originally had a low (2-ft-candle)
lighting level.  This was not quite enough to read by, so in response to rider
complaints, the ferry company installed really bright (50-ft-candle) 2x4-foot
fluorescent lights in the car/passenger ferry.  The resultant lighting looks
like bad office lighting.  There were plans to build a new passenger ferry with
the same bright lighting, but a few people spoke up and the proposed
70,000-lumens fluorescent lighting was dropped to 42,000 lumens, which is a mix
of incandescent and fluorescent.  The bright ferry interior lighting kills off
all dark adaptation, which left riders stumbling in the dark when they get off
the boat.  So again passengers complained about not being able to see on the
docks, and the ferry company then installed bright lighting on land at the
docks!  Terry indicated that the bright dock lighting may prompt some of the
island towns to add more street lights because ferry passengers think the
roads are too dark.  I sent Terry some info I had on hand to deal with the
dock lighting issues and I'll check the IDA archives for more possibilities.
I also suggested that Terry might consider dealing with the ferry interior
lighting issue from a dark adaptation/glare/safety standpoint (i.e., it's
glare that reduces visibility not just low light levels).  -- E.J.

NOTES FROM STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
     "I'm afraid that while I have tried to influence the local owners that be,
it has come to no avail here --- there is no city lighting engineer and the
closest thing to such a person is a zoning official who rules on illuminated
signs and flood/spot-lighting, etc.  When last I phoned his office to register
a complaint about glaring mercury vapor floodlighting filling our bedroom from
a GM car dealership across the street (this is supposed to be a residential
area).  His secretary informed me that 'he did not drive around at night after
work!'  Say what?  Would you believe that this is a typical response from just
about every city department, no matter what the problem, and action is nil ---
but I keep trying and am meeting with a new young representative to discuss
such things."  -- W. Alexander Keith, III, 11/5/93

NOTES FROM EASTFORD, CONNECTICUT
     "I have been discussing light pollution issues with a business
acquaintance of mine who is sympathetic to our cause, and
coincidentally, a legislator in Connecticut.  Based on my discussions
with this individual, I believe that a regional approach would be
beneficial and ultimately more effective than efforts on a local
level."  -- Don Munroe, 12/2/93 

NOTES FROM LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
     "The town of Lexington is seeking alternatives to converting the town to
standard high-pressure sodium streetlights.  The town's Lighting Options
Committee (of which I am the Chair), with the help of Ripman Lighting
Consultants, has recently completed the design of a demonstration project
involving a range of color-corrected, energy-efficient streetlights.
Installation will occur in the next few months.  Our goal is to identify
light sources that provide good color rendition and good visual acuity,
keep lumen levels close to current levels, and save the town money and
energy.  We are also using various fixtures that shield the light to avoid
glare and light spill.  If other communities are interested in these issues
and want further information about this project, drop me a note.
-- Myla Kabat-Zinn (58 Oak St., Lexington, MA  02173)

NOTES FROM WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS
     "I live in Watertown.  I've observed that they are installing full
cutoff lights on some main streets (e.g., Mt. Auburn St.).  Cambridge (MA)
seems to have converted most of their lights now:  Mass. Ave. seems to be all
full cutoff.  As far as I can see, Belmont only has four full cutoff lights,
on Common St. in Cushing Square.  My brother-in-law is a manager at Boston
Edison. I asked him about the practice of installing the cutoffs.  He said
that Boston Edison installs either the globe type or the cutoff type based on
the direction of the individual town.  They cost the same, they use the same
power, and Edison has no preference between the two.  When people complain to
Edison about light pollution (this only happens occasionally), he simply sends
them to their town, to have the city fathers direct Edison to remedy the
problem.  Edison loves to follow official orders.  He suggested that I try to
educate the Belmont and Watertown city councils about the need for a general
phaseover to cutoffs."  -- Jerry Burchfiel, 11/29/93

ANOTHER SOURCE FOR INFORMATION
     "I am the Editor of the Electronic Journal of the Astronomical
Society of the Atlantic (EJASA), which is posted each month on the
sci.astro, sci.space, sci.space.news, and sci.misc USENET newsgroups. 
I have been the EJASA Editor since its founding in August of 1989.  I
have a number of articles regarding light pollution and how to fight
it in past issues of the EJASA. You and your colleagues are most
welcome to these and any other EJASA articles you wish.  I have been
using the EJASA as one way to make people aware of the harm of light
pollution and, judging by the mail I have received, it is working. 
David Crawford is a member of my EJASA e-mail distribution list. All
EJASA issues should be available from the ASA anonymous FTP site at
chara.gsu.edu (131.96.5.29).  If you cannot access them please let me
know and I will e-mail the issues you request.  I invite you to place
your name and network address on my EJASA e-mail list, if you wish.  I
also extend the offer to anyone you know who might also be
interested." -- Larry Klaes (klaes@verga.enet.dec.com), 11/1/93 


OTHER NOTES
     There is now an e-mail mailing list for NELPAG members and other
interested parties.  To get on the mailing list, send mail to
nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com  with your return e-mail address.  To
send mail to the list, send the e-mail to  nelpag@yeehah.merk.com  and
the e-mail will be distributed automatically.  The only rule for using
the list are that users of the mailing list should not send large
files or messages to the mailing list without checking with me (Eric)
first.  Other rules may evolve as the list grows.  If you are not
already on the Internet and you want to be, call me and I'll help you
get connected via some Internet provider in your area.  Thanks to Rich
Brennan (owner of merk.com) for giving us a home for the NELPAG
electronic mailing list and thanks to Gary Gitzen, for the mailing
list software. 

     I have not received any comments from folks yet, but I have
received interesting papers from Tony Dater (Kennebunk, ME) and Bob
Wylie (Danvers, MA). Dater has sent us a large set of papers, whose
titles are: 
 
(1) Town of Kennebunk (ME) Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (enacted March 28, 1992)
(2) Town of Hollis (ME) Street Light Policy (adopted)
(3) Gardener (ME) lighting bylaws (adopted 1990)
(4) Falmouth (ME) Existing Street Lighting Criteria and options (adopted)
(5) Sanford (ME) street lighting policy (adopted)
(6) Portland (ME) lighting bylaw proposal
(7) Kennebunk Street Light Committee Minority report 
(8) Kennebunk Long Term Street Light Policies (draft)
(9) Kennebunk Outdoor Lighting Policies (draft)
(10) Kennebunk Street Light Committee Policy for Street Lights at Private Road
      Intersections (draft)
(11) Kennebunk (ME) lighting point system (draft)
(12) Initial Rated Light Output of Various Lamps (taken from the Sylvania
      #pl-150, G.E. #9200 and Phillips #SG-100 catalogs)
(13) A few pages of sample full cutoff lighting
(14) Memo on the state of existing incandescent platter street lights in other
      communities.
(15) Talmage Engineering info sheet on 1) full cutoff "Radial Wave" and
      "Admiral's Hat" HPS lighting and 2) quick info on "picking the right
      lighting distributions.
(16) Summary on Main Electric Power Utilities and Outdoor Lighting
(17) Letter from Lawerence Bartlett, lighting consultant for Enterprise
      Engineering to Donald LaPointe of Kennebunk Light and Power district on
      street lighting selection.
(18) A worksheet comparing costs of different street lights in Kennebunk, ME. 

Wylie's paper is photocopied and sent to recipients of this Circular by
postal mail.   -- E.J.

     As of December 20, I had 21 people who are receiving this Circular
by SASE, as well as 22 people who are directly receiving this by e-mail.  The
notes written by individuals other than Eric and myself (above) were sent to
me.  The next Circular will probably be prepared after the meeting on
January 29, and we encourage all who have interesting notes to share with
NELPAG to send them to Eric or me by early February.  Please share this
Circular will all interested people.  Good communication is a very
important goal to this cause of ours!  Happy New Year to all.  -- D.G.

ENCLOSURES (by postal mail):

(a)  Maine state outdoor lighting bill (IDA Info Sheet No. 46, 3/92);
(b)  Paper from Bob Wylie entitled "Lighting Equipment Suitability for
     Non-obtrusive Lighting of Outdoor Spaces" with diagrams.

                                  ***********  

The NELPAG supports the International Dark-Sky Association and recommends
that all individuals/groups who are interested in the problems of light
pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to the IDA Newsletter
(IDA membership costs $20.00 per year; send check to
International Dark-Sky Association, 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ  85716).
-- 

HOME: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  HAM  ka1eec
WORK: esj@temerity.polaroid.com   617.386.4687 

The trouble with incompetents is that you will never know when 
they will disappoint you and be competent.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Errors-To: nelpag-request@yeehah.yeehah.merk.com
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.yeehah.merk.com>
% Precedence: bulk
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.US (Eric S Johansson)
% Organization: gators 'r us
% Subject: nelpag circular #2
% To: nelpag@yeehah.Merk.COM

Article: 50667
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: nitz@lds.loral.com (Brian Nitz)
Subject: Re: Light pollution & environmentalists
Sender: news@lds.loral.com
Organization: Loral Data Systems
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 22:33:13 GMT
 
  Astronomers and environmentalists face similar challenges in their
battle against wastefulness.  Cooperation could reward all of us. 
Light pollution is not just an aesthetic nuisance, and it's effects
are not confined to those in the astronomical profession, consider
this: 
 
  Approximatly 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide are released in the
production of one kilowatt-hour of electricity. 
 
  Assume that each of us have just one unnecessary 100 watt bulb
burning all night.  100 watts isn't much, most high pressure sodium
and mercury vapor lights consume much more than this. 
 
From this we can calculate:

2.3 lbs/kwh * (.1kw * 8hr/day) = 1.84 lbs/day
1.84lbs * 365.25 = 672 lbs/year
 
That's just the CO2 produced by one person.

672 * 50000 = 33600000 lbs/year for a small city
672 * 250000000 = 168000000000 lbs/year for our nation
 
  Yes, that's 168 Billion pounds of excess CO2.  As astronomers
we should be aware that excess CO2 can be damaging (see Venus.)
 
  For those of you in areas serviced by nuclear power, I don't have
the number for how much nuclear waste is produced per kw/hour.  Does
anyone else have this information? 
 
A similar calculation shows that our nation would spend over 3 billion
dollars on the electricity for these unnecessary 100 watt lights.
---
 Just my humble opinion.  Standard disclaimers apply.

From:	US1RMC::"dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu" "D.W.E. Green/SAO/
        617-495-7440" 25-JAN-1994 20:53:30.48
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
CC:	
Subj:	Preliminary distribution of revised Mass. lighting bill via Dan Green

Revised Massachusetts Night Lighting Bill:  NELPAG Committee version 2.

    Compiled 1/23/94 by committee consisting of M. Motta, B. Volz, M. Ratner,
    E. Johansson, D. Green; following version is to be presented to Rep.
    Marzilli at NELPAG meeting on January 29.  (revised 1/24/94, 1/25/94)
    Comments are solicited by Friday for possible revision before Saturday
    meeting.

Informal Title:  Massachusetts Outdoor Lighting Bill

Official Title:  An Act To Limit Outdoor Night Lighting, Conserve Energy, and
                 Reduce Light Pollution

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that outdoor night lighting fixtures
1) conserve energy; 2) reduce or eliminate light pollution; and 3) reduce
glare to improve street and highway safety; while providing adequate
night-time safety, utility, and security.

Section I.  No state funds shall be used to install or replace any
permanent outdoor luminaire unless:

   A. The luminaire is a full-cutoff luminaire when the rated output of the
      luminaire is greater than 1,800 lumens;
   B. The luminaire's maximum illuminance does not exceed the minimum
      illuminance recommended for that purpose by the Illuminating
      Engineering Society of North America;
   C. For roadway lighting, a determination is made that the purpose
      of the lighting installation or replacement can not be achieved by
      any of the following means:
          1. Reduction of the speed limit in the area to be lighted; or
          2. Installation of reflectorized roadway markers, line,
             warnings or information signs;
   D. The commissioner(?) ensures that consideration is given to minimizing
      glare and light trespass.

Exceptions from the provisions of this bill are permitted only when:

   A. Federal laws, rules and regulations take precedence over these
      provisions; or
   B. A determination is made that there is a compelling safety
      interest that can not be addressed by any other method.


Section II.  Cities by ordinance and towns by by-law shall introduce
a code for the design and installation of outdoor night lighting and
shall implement this code in the installation of all public lighting
fixtures and as a condition of subdivision and planning approvals for
city, residential, and commercial lighting.

The following guidelines shall apply to any new or replaced permanent
outdoor luminaire:

   A. The luminaire shall be a full-cutoff luminaire when the rated output
      of the luminaire is greater than 1,800 lumens;
   B. The luminaire's maximum illuminance shall not exceed the minimum
      illuminance recommended for that purpose by the Illuminating
      Engineering Society of North America;
   C. The city or town ensures that consideration is given to minimizing
      glare and light trespass.

Exceptions from these guidelines are only permitted if:

   A. State or Federal laws, rules and regulations take precedence over
      these codes; or
   B. The city or town determines that there is a compelling safety
      interest that can not be addressed by any other method; or
   C. For roadway lighting, the city or town determines that the purpose
      of the lighting installation or replacement can not be achieved by
      any of the following means:
         1. Reduction of the speed limit in the area to be lighted; or
         2. Installation of reflectorized roadway markers, line,
            warnings or information signs;


Section III.  Definitions
  A. "Luminaire" means the complete lighting system, including the lamp and the
     fixture.
  B. "Direct light" means light emitted directly from a lamp off a reflector
     or through a refractor of a luminaire.
  C. "Lumen" means a unit of measurement of luminous flux.
  D. "Fixture" means the assembly that holds the lamp and may include an
     assembly housing, a mounting bracket or pole socket, a lamp holder, a
     ballast, a reflector or mirror, and a refractor or lens.
  E. "Full-cutoff luminaire" means a luminaire that allows no direct light
     emissions above a horizontal plane through the luminaire's lowest
     light-emitting part.
  F. "Glare" means direct light emitting from a luminaire that causes reduced
     vision or momentary blindness.
  G. "Light pollution" means general sky glow caused by large numbers of
     poorly-designed light sources.
  H. "Light trespass" means light emitted by a luminaire that shines beyond
     the boundaries of the property on which the luminaire is located.
  I. "Outdoor light fixtures" means outdoor artificial illuminating devices,
     installed or portable, used for flood-lighting, general illumination, or
     advertisement.  Such devices include, but are not limited to, search,
     spot, flood, and area lighting for buildings and structures; recreational
     facilities; parking facilities; landscape lighting; outdoor advertising
     displays, billboard, signs; public and private street lighting; and
     walkway lighting.
  J. "Permanent outdoor luminaire" means any luminaire or system of luminaires
     that is outdoors and that is intended to be used for 7 days or longer.

*****
NELPAG Comments/Notes (responses are solicited!):
 (1) The Policy and Purpose/Intent parts of the bill were deleted due to
     (needless?) repetition.
 (2) Eric suggested for the first sentence of Section II that we add something
     about commercial lighting, thus the last line.
 (3) Eric also wonders if we should add "D. Security lighting should be
     activated be motion detectors" to Section II.
 (4) Dan wonders if something should be added such that parking lots and car
     dealer lots, etc., turn off lights after a specified time (like 11 p.m.)
     -- this has been done in Arizona ordinances, for example.
 (5) Section I.(C.) was edited slightly following comments from Paul
     Messerschmidt.
 (6) Paul suggests that, in Section I.(D.), we replace "The commissioner(?)
     ensures that consideration..." with "Consideration".  Dan feels that
     Paul's change is not specific enough.
 (7) Paul says that Exception (A.) under Section I is unnecessary, "since
     federal jurisdiction ALWAY takes precedence".  But this was taken from
     the Maine bill, which has been law for over 2 years.  Ditto for Exception
     (A.) under Section II.
 (8) Paul proposed alternative language for Exception (B.) under Section I:
     "A determination has been made, established through an open, public
     hearing process, that there is a compelling safety interest that can not
     be addressed by any other method."  This Exception was slightly modified
     above as per Paul's alternate suggestion.

Send your comments by Friday to Dan (Internet address:  green@cfa.harvard.edu).
Further revisions may change the content of this proposal by Saturday.  The
meeting on Saturday is from 10 a.m. to 12 noon here at Harvard Observatory.

F.Y.I.:  A 100-watt indoor light bulb is rated at just under 1800 lumens;
    according to IDA literature, most outdoor street lighting is rated at
    8000 lumens and above (i.e., way over the 1800-lumen limit proposed here,
    which was taken directly from the already-passed Maine lighting bill).
    Bernie wondered whether the 1800-lumen limit is not low enough (i.e.,
    perhaps we should pick 1000 or 1500 lumens); this is a question for our
    lighting engineers or consultants.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.yeehah.merk.com>
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 20:41:00 -0500
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
% Subject: preliminary distribution of revised Mass. lighting bill via Dan Green

Article: 51196
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: rick@posms.austin.tx.us (Rick Kirchhof)
Subject: Dark sky ordinance vote -- please read
Organization: Department of Redundancy Dept.
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 05:55:03 GMT
 
I am posting this for a friend without net access, though I share the
views and goals of this group.  As a member of the Austin Astronomical
Society, I am a dark sky lover and amateur astronomer.  I would ask that 
if you have a moment, please look this over.  
 
I have attached a cover letter from the group seeking this change, 
as well as the proposed ordinance.  The city of Dripping Springs is 
about 50 km. West of Austin, Texas.  They have a excellent opportunity 
to keep what we in Austin have long ago lost.
 
I encourage discussion of this topic.  I would appreciate hearing of
similar situations and the outcomes.  Please e-mail any sample ordinances
and related info.  Since this is a learning situation, please share your
experience with us.  I will forward them to Texans for Responsible Outdoor
Lighting.
 
Thanks!
 
Rick Kirchhof   Austin, Texas                   | Experience is what you
Domain: rick@posms.austin.tx.us                 | get when you don't
Bang path: .....!cfi.org!posms!rick             | get what you want.            
=========================================================================
 
********* Begin cover letter attachment **********
 
Dear colleagues,
 
This communication is an appeal for help (not money).  Our
situation is this: Texans for Responsible Outdoor Lighting was
formed by Austin area astronomers to deal with the issues of light
pollution and urban skyglow. Were all members of the International
Dark-Sky Association and promulgate their agenda as well as the
recommendations published by the International Astronomical Union.
 
Our goal is to address these problems through the legislative
process with state and local ordinances.  We started small, with
one of the rural suburbs of Austin, as a means of gaining
experience and developing our level of sensitivity and
sophistication.  We also wanted to learn the intricacies of dealing
with the press and to develop methods of public education.  We have
had good success during the past year.  The City of Dripping
Springs is currently considering voting on the proposed Outdoor
Lighting Control Ordinance included with this appeal.  Here's where
your help is requested. Would you and/or your associates please
take the time to write the City Council and express your support
for this ordinance?  
 
Dripping Springs City Council
P.O. Box 384
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
 
Your support may have more leverage that just getting an ordinance
passed in this small city. We feel, whether rightly or not, that
Dripping Springs, being the first in Texas, is likely to be held
forth as an example for other communities and the State Legislature
to examine when the time comes for them to consider taking similar
action.  We strongly hope that this example is one of a successful,
innovative outdoor lighting plan that saves money, reduces
pollution, improves human visibility and cures light trespass as
well as minimizing urban skyglow.  We appreciate your letter
writing, and THANKS!
 
Texans for Responsible Outdoor Lighting
HC 4, Box 379
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
(512) 858-1664
 
********** Begin proposed Ordinance attachment **********
 
 
City of Dripping Springs Committee on Outdoor Lighting
 
Proposed Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance
 
 
The City Council of Dripping Springs adopts the following order
regulating outdoor lighting:
 
1.	The legislative intent of this ordinance is:   
 
1.1	to regulate the permitted use, construction and installation
     of outdoor lighting fixtures of all types whether fixed or mobile;  
 
1.2	to require that outdoor lighting does not unreasonably
     interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of property
     within the City's jurisdiction;	
 
1.3	to encourage the types, kinds, construction, installation and
     use of electrically powered outdoor illumination devices,
     lighting practices and systems which will: 		
 
		A. 	conserve energy which would:
			a.	minimize the emissions of carbon dioxide,
                                sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides;
			b. 	minimize electromagnetic field strength of
                                 power transmission lines;
		B. 	preserve the natural nighttime environment;
		C.	increase nighttime safety, utility, security and
                        productivity;		
		D. 	minimize glare;  	
 
1.4	to minimize light pollution for the benefit of the citizens
     of Dripping Springs and thereby preserve the rural character
     within the City's jurisdiction;
 
1.5	to minimize urban skyglow which has a detrimental effect on
     astronomical activities and thereby foster the potential
     within the City of Dripping Springs for public and private
     astronomical education, research and development;
 
1.6	to use fixtures with good photometric control to distribute
     the light in the most effective and efficient manner;	
 
1.7	to use the minimum amount of light necessary to meet Federal
     and State requirements;	
 
1.8	to use full cutoff shielding where required and wherever else
     feasible;
 
1.9	to use energy efficient light sources;
 
1.10	to energize light fixtures only when necessary;	
 
1.11	to require that certain light fixtures be turned off between
     11:00 p.m. and sunrise;
 
1.12	to restrict the emission of light in wavelengths not normally
     visible to the human eye.
 
2.	The Dripping Springs City Council declares that:	
 
2.1	the natural night sky is rapidly disappearing throughout the
     Texas hill country;	
 
2.2	the night sky is an important aspect of our environment;	
 
2.3	a dark night sky has become a valuable natural public asset;	
 
2.4	the ability to gaze at the night sky and be able to see stars,
     planets, comets and galaxies with a minimum of interference
     from urban skyglow constitutes a reasonable use and enjoyment
     of property by the residents of Dripping Springs;
 
2.5	it is a necessary and essential municipal affair for the City
     to regulate the use of outdoor lighting within the City's jurisdiction;	
 
2.6	the regulation of outdoor lighting can substantially: 		
 
	A.	reduce the financial burden to the local economy;		
	B.	reduce the consumption of fossil as well as nuclear fuels;
	C.	reduce the growth of urban skyglow;		
	D.	reduce needless pollution of the electromagnetic spectrum;
	E.	improve the appearance of the City;		
	F.	reduce the emissions of toxic atmospheric gasses;		
	G.	improve human vision at night, especially for the
                citizens who suffer cataracts or glaucoma;		
	H.	protect the natural nighttime environment;		
	I.	minimize instances of light trespass;		
	J.	reduce the strength of electromagnetic fields;		
	K.	help establish the area as a regional site for
                astronomical education, research and development;		
	L.	help establish the City as a leader in environmentally 
                prudent economic development.
 
3.	Exemptions from regulation.	
 
3.1	Lighting in place or operable immediately preceding the
     effective date of this ordinance is exempt.  The replacement
     of these grandfathered fixtures is governed by Section 6.9 of
     this ordinance.	
 
3.2	Incandescent lights of 100 watts or less and fluorescent
     lights of 20 watts or less are exempt only where total
     luminous output does not exceed 1,000 lumens per acre and no
     light is emitted above a horizontal plane.	
 
3.3	Lighting for which light is produced directly by the
     combustion of fossil fuels is exempt.	
 
3.4	Lighting in which light is produced in glass tubes filled with
     neon, argon or krypton is exempt.	
 
3.5	Sports or recreational lighting that is turned off between
     11:00 p.m. and sunrise, or as soon as a specific sporting or
     recreational event in progress at 11:00 p.m. is concluded is exempt.	
 
3.6	Lighting used by law enforcement, fire, and medical 
     professionals is exempt.	
 
3.7	Lighting employed during emergency repairs of roads and
     utilities is exempt.	
 
3.8	Lighting required by law to be installed on motor vehicles is exempt. 	
 
3.9	Lighting required for the safe operation of aircraft is exempt.
 
3.10	Lighting required to save life or property from imminent peril 
     is exempt.	
 
3.11	Lighting installed on Federal and State facilities is exempt.
     Voluntary compliance is encouraged.	
 
3.12	The Dripping Springs City Council shall not grant permanent
     exemption to this ordinance for any outdoor illumination
     device which is energized between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise
     unless such permanently exempted devices meet all of the
     following criteria:		
 
		A.	No light is emitted above a horizontal plane,
                         and		
		B.	the light emitted does not constitute light
                         trespass, and		
		C.	the light shall be emitted in three (3) or fewer
                         visible wavelengths and		
		D.	the total light output of the device(s) shall not
                         exceed ten thousand (10,000) lumens.	
 
3.13	The Dripping Springs City Council is hereby empowered to grant
     permanent exemptions to this ordinance only in cases where
     all of the following criteria are met:		
 
		A.	The permanently exempted fixture is not energized
                        between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise, and		
		B.	The permanently exempted fixture's efficacy meets
                        or exceeds the efficacy of outdoor lighting devices
                        that otherwise satisfy the requirements and
                        prohibitions of this ordinance, and		
		C.	The permanently exempted fixture complies with the
                        legislative intent of this ordinance.  	
 
3.14	The Dripping Springs City Council is hereby given the
     authority to grant temporary exemptions to this ordinance not
     to exceed ten days per exemption and with a limit of two
     extensions for each temporary exemption.
 
4.	Materials and methods of installation.	
 
4.1	This ordinance is not intended to prohibit the use of any
     design, material or method of installation not specifically
     proscribed by this ordinance, provided such alternative meets
     the legislative intent of this ordinance. 
 
5.	Conformance with applicable codes.	
 
5.1	All artificial outdoor lighting fixtures  shall be installed
     and operated in conformance with the provisions of this
     ordinance.	
 
5.2	All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be installed and operated
     in conformance with the Building Code and Electrical Code of
     the City of Dripping Springs.	
 
5.3	All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be installed and operated
     under appropriate permit and inspection.
 
6.	Prohibitions	
 
6.1	The installation of street lights other than low-pressure
     sodium is prohibited.	
 
6.2	The installation of dusk to dawn security lights other than
     low-pressure sodium is prohibited.	
 
6.3	The installation of parking lot and walkway lighting other
     than low-pressure sodium is prohibited.	
 
6.4	Any illumination device energized between 11:00 p.m. and
     sunrise which emits light above a horizontal plane is prohibited.
 
6.5	The operation of searchlights and lasers for advertising
     purposes between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise is prohibited.
 
6.6	All outdoor illumination of any building and/or surrounding
     landscape, public or private, between  11:00 p.m. and sunrise
     is prohibited.  Security lighting is excluded from this prohibition.
 
6.7	The illumination of any sports or recreational facility,
     public or private, between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise, except to
     complete a specific organized activity or event already in
     progress at 11:00 p.m., is prohibited.	
 
6.8	The installation of street lights which exceed by more than
     ten percent (10%) Federal and State minimums for total luminous 
     output and peak luminous flux at ground level is prohibited.	
 
6.9	The replacement, enlargement, alteration, repair or
     improvement of any existing outdoor lighting equipment which
     becomes damaged or inoperable with equipment which does not
     conform with this ordinance is prohibited.  This prohibition
     applies to all fixtures exempted in Section 3.	
 
6.10	The illumination of any billboard or advertising sign, whether
     on-premise or off-premise,  between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise is
     prohibited, except instances that meet one of the following criteria:
 
	A.	On premise signs may remain illuminated between 11:00
          p.m. and sunrise only while the business is open to the public, or

	B.	on or off premise signs may remain illuminated between
          11:00 p.m. and sunrise only if no light is emitted above
          a horizontal plane and the light emitted does not
          constitute light trespass.	
 
6.11	Any illumination device energized between 11:00 p.m. and
     sunrise, except those exempted by Section 3, which constitutes
     light trespass is prohibited.	
 
6.12	Any illumination device not exempted by Section 3 which emits
     energy in wavelengths not visible to the human eye is
     prohibited.  Prohibited wavelength emissions are those shorter
     than 350 nanometers (ultraviolet).  This prohibition is not
     intended to restrict the use of any equipment other than that
     used for visible lighting.
 
7.	Violations and penalties.	
 
7.1	It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to
     erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve or
     convert any lighting structure of any type, or cause the same
     to be done, contrary to or in violation of any provision of
     this ordinance.  Any person, firm or corporation violating any
     provision of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of an
     infraction and/or a misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. 
     Each person, firm or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a
     separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof
     during which any violation of any provision of this ordinance
     is committed, continued or permitted.	
 
7.2	Any person convicted of a violation of this ordinance shall
     be  punished by:		
 
	A.	a fine of not less than twenty dollars ($20) and not more
          than one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation.
	B.	a fine of not less than twenty dollars ($20) and not more
          than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for a second
          violation of the same provision at the same site by the
          same owner and/or agent.
 
7.3	The third and any additional violations on the same site and
     perpetrated by the same owner and/or agent shall each
     constitute a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by 
     a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) and not more than
     five hundred dollars ($500) and/or time in jail not to exceed
     six (6) months.
 
7.4	Payment of any penalty herein provided shall not relieve a
     person, firm or corporation from the responsibility of
     correcting the conditions consisting of the violation.
 
8.	Public nuisance.
 
8.1	Any lighting fixture erected, constructed, enlarged, altered,
     repaired, moved, improved or converted contrary to the
     provisions of this ordinance shall be, and the same is hereby
     declared to be, unlawful and a public nuisance.	
 
8.2	The Dripping Springs City Council or its appointed authority
     shall, as appropriate, upon order of the City Council or its
     appointed authority, commence necessary proceedings for the
     abatement, removal and/or enjoinment of any such public
     nuisance in the manner provided by law.  Any failure, refusal
     or neglect to obtain a permit as required by this ordinance
     shall be prima facie evidence of the fact that a public
     nuisance has been committed in connection with the erection,
     construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, movement,
     improvement or conversion of an outdoor lighting structure.
 
9.	Conflicts.  Where any provision of this ordinance conflicts
     with the statutes, codes or laws of the United States of
     America or the State of Texas, the most restrictive shall
     apply unless otherwise required by law.
 
********** End proposed Ordinance attachment **********
 
-- 
Rick Kirchhof   Austin, Texas                   | Experience is what you
Domain: rick@posms.austin.tx.us                 | get when you don't
Bang path: .....!cfi.org!posms!rick             | get what you want.            
===========================================================================

From:	US1RMC::"esj@harvee.billerica.ma.US" "Eric S Johansson"  7-FEB-1994 
To:	nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
CC:	
Subj:	Information on residential lighting (fwd)

Judith Block writes:

>Path: harvee.billerica.ma.us!merk!spdcc!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!olivea!sgigate
>Newsgroups: sci.engr.lighting
>From: Judith Block <blockj@rpi.edu>
>Subject: Information on residential lighting
>Message-ID: <CKJy8w.1H0@dove.nist.gov>
>Sender: daemon@dove.nist.gov
>Organization: NIST
>Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 15:41:19 GMT
>Approved: recnews@dove.nist.gov
>Lines: 8

A newly published source of information on how to light homes, using
the latest energy-efficient lamps, luminaires and controls, is now
available from the Lighting Research Center.  Titled "The Lighting
Pattern Book for Homes," it includes practical designs and plans for
installing quality lighting in every room of the house.  This book is
appropriate for those who help people light their homes, including
contractors, utility personnel and retailers. For more information,
contact the Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, NY 12180. Fax 518 276-2999. E-mail leonal@rpi.edu 
-- 

HOME: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  HAM  ka1eec
WORK: esj@temerity.polaroid.com   617.386.4687 

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.yeehah.merk.com>
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.US (Eric S Johansson)
% Subject: Information on residential lighting (fwd)
% To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 22:57:58 -0500

From:	US1RMC::"dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu" "D.W.E. Green/SAO/
        617-495-7440"  9-FEB-1994 18:41:36.01
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
CC:	
Subj:	NELPAG Circular No. 3

NELPAG Circular No. 3                                     1994 February 9

New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG)
Editor:     Daniel W. E. Green [Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory;
             60 Garden Street; Cambridge, MA  02138]  (telephone 617-495-7440)
               e-mail:  green@cfa (.bitnet, .span, or .harvard.edu)
Secretary:  Eric Johansson     (telephone 508-667-0137)
             email:  esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  or  esj@temerity.polaroid.com

     "Subscription" to this irregular news/information Circular is
available by sending self-addressed, stamped (29-cent) regular-sized
(9.5x4-inch) envelopes (SASE) to Dan Green at his postal address, or
by sending your e-mail address to either Dan or Eric using the e-mail
addresses above.  Sections in this Circular are written by Dan (D.G.)
unless noted otherwise.  Contributed information for this Circular
concerning outdoor lighting problems in New England (or pertinent info
from outside New England) are welcomed.  Please circulate this
newsletter to all interested parties. 

                                  ***********

LOCAL BOSTON AREA MEETINGS HELD ON 1994 JANUARY 23 AND FEBRUARY 3
     Five NELPAG members met at the home of Mario Motta (Lynnfield, MA) on the
evening of January 23 to re-write the Massachusetts Outdoor Lighting Bill that
was published in NELPAG Circular No. 2.  In addition to Mario, those attending
the meeting were Eric Johannson, Bernie Volz, Michael Ratner, and Dan Green.
A new and expanded version of the bill was written that was based heavily on
the Maine lighting bill (also published in the last NELPAG Circular).
This was circulated to NELPAG members by e-mail during the week prior to the
January 29 meeting for revision, and the resulting version was presented at
the January 29 meeting (see below).
     It was agreed at the January 23 meeting that another local meeting (open
to all interested individuals) will be held on Sunday evening, February 27,
beginning at 7 p.m., for the purpose of developing local city/town information
packages concerning proper outdoor lighting.  This will obviously take several
meetings to complete, but such a package should be available at the time of
the Energy subcommittee hearings at the State House this spring.  Contact Dan
or Eric if you wish to attend the February 27 meeting; the location will be
determined once we have an idea how many people plan to attend.
     As a result of discussions at the Jan. 29 NELPAG meeting at Harvard
Observatory, our proposed Massachusetts outdoor lighting bill was greatly
reduced in size again, and a special local meeting was called for Feb. 3, in
which to work further on revisions, again at Mario Motta's house.  Prior to
the Feb. 3 meeting, several new versions of the bill were circulated by the
local group via e-mail.  The Feb. 3 meeting included all those present at the
Jan. 23 meeting, plus lighting consultant Bob Wylie.  A nearly final bill was
produced at that meeting, with slight grammatical revisions added the next day
before distribution on the NELPAG e-mail network.  The "current" version of
the bill is published below, and this was sent to Rep. Marzilli on February 8.
Meanwhile, the next scheduled local meeting is still on course for the evening
of Feb. 27.  -- D.G.


NELPAG MEETING ON 1994 JANUARY 29
     About 14 people attended the scheduled meeting in Phillips Auditorium here
at Harvard Observatory --- two from Maine and the rest from Massachusetts.
Peter Talmage talked about what has been happening in Maine, specifically that
lighting engineers associated with IES have submitted a revised bill to their
state legislature to replace the bill that was passed a couple of years ago
(which was published in NELPAG Circular No. 2); the suggested revision is
included with this Circular (3 pages).  Bob Stefanik, Director of the Oak
Ridge Observatory (Harvard, MA), spoke for a while on his efforts concerning
bylaw-mandated light controls in the towns of Harvard and Boxboro and
concerning satisfying the Environmental Impact Statements regarding the Fort
Devens military base located 10 miles from the Observatory.
     Most of the remainder of the meeting was devoted to talk about the
Massachusetts Outdoor Lighting Bill (latest version is included below).  State
Rep. Jim Marzilli of Arlington was present to talk about the legislative
process for passing a bill in this state and also to comment on our suggested
revision of the Lighting Bill.  The discussion was enlightening, and Marzilli
explained how difficult it is to pass a bill in this state.  Normally hearings
on a bill are not scheduled for two years in a row, but Marzilli thinks that
he can get an Energy Committee hearing for this spring (date unknown much in
advance).  Marzilli encouraged deletion of any direction to cities and towns
in the bill, because cities and towns tend to rebel at such state bills.  The
new wording is directed toward state lighting only, the idea being that we
should take one step at a time.  If the bill below should pass, then one can
think about addressing towns and cities in a separate bill.
     We agreed that new people should testify at the next hearing (Steve O'Meara
and Paul Messerschmidt testified last March at the Massachusetts State House),
and we began talking about who would be available.  Mario Motta has volunteered
to testify as a physician with data concerning elderly night vision and glare
lighting (see his remarks below), and he thinks that he can get one or two of
his older patients with cataracts to testify on our behalf.  Bob Wylie has
agreed to testify both as a lighting consultant and as an older person with
cataracts who has difficulty with poor night street lighting.  Bob Stefanik
will be available as a professional astronomer who is regularly dealing with
outdoor lighting laws and battles.
     The January 29 meeting went well over the scheduled two hours because of
the talk concerning the proposed Massachusetts bill, and we never got to the
point of planning another NELPAG regional meeting.  Three months was thought
to be a good interval between such meetings, so perhaps we can tentatively
schedule another NELPAG meeting for Saturday, May 21, for 10 a.m.-12 noon at
Harvard Observatory.  Please send your comments on this to Dan or Eric for
preferred alternate days if May 21 is not good for you, and we'll try and pick
the best date.  Another NELPAG Circular will be issued around April to give
further updates and to give a definite date and time for the next NELPAG
regional meeting.  -- D.G.


Revised Massachusetts Night Lighting Bill:  NELPAG Committee version 7B.
1994 Feb. 7; revision by Dan Green, Bernie Volz, Bob Wylie, Eric Jacobsson,
Mario Motta, and Michael Ratner.

Informal Title:  Massachusetts Outdoor Lighting Bill

Official Title:  An Act to Improve the Quality of Outdoor Night Lighting to
                 Conserve Energy, Reduce Light Pollution, and Improve Safety
                 by Reducing Glare

No state funds shall be used to install any new permanent outdoor luminaire or
to replace an existing permanent outdoor luminaire unless:

   A. The new or replacement luminaire is a full-cutoff luminaire when the
      rated output of the luminaire is greater than 1,800 lumens;
   B. If a lighting recommendation or regulation applies, the minimum
      illuminance specified by the recommendation or regulation is used;
   C. If no lighting recommendation or regulation applies, the minimum
      illuminance adequate for the intended purpose is used, giving full
      consideration to energy conservation, glare, and minimizing light
      trespass;
   D. For roadway lighting, a determination is made that the purpose
      of the lighting installation or replacement can not be achieved by
      installation of reflectorized roadway markers, lines, warnings
      or informational signs, or other passive means; and
   E. Adequate consideration has been given to conserving energy and
      minimizing glare, light pollution, and light trespass.

Exceptions from the provisions of this bill are permitted only when:

   A. Federal laws, rules and regulations take precedence over these
      provisions;
   B. Fire, police, rescue, or repair personnel need light
      for temporary emergency situations;
   C. There are special requirements, such as sports facilities and monument
      or flag lighting; all such lighting shall be selected and installed to
      shield the lamp(s) from direct view to the greatest extent possible, and
      to minimize upward lighting and light trespass; or
   D. A determination has been made, established through an open, public
      hearing process, that there is a compelling safety interest that can not
      be addressed by any other method.

Definitions
  A. "Luminaire" means a lighting system, including a lamp or lamps together
     with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect
     the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
  B. "Lamp" means the component of a luminaire that produces the light.
  C. "Lumen" is a specific standard unit of measurement of luminous flux.
  D. "Full-cutoff luminaire" means a luminaire that allows no direct light
     from the luminaire above a horizontal plane through the luminaire's lowest
     light-emitting part.
  E. "Direct light" means light emitted directly by a lamp, off a reflector,
     or through a refractor of a luminaire.
  F. "Glare" means direct light emitted by a luminaire that causes reduced
     vision or momentary blindness.
  G. "Light pollution" means general sky glow caused by the scattering of
     artificial light in the atmosphere, much of which is caused by
     poorly-designed luminaires.
  H. "Light trespass" means light emitted by a luminaire that shines beyond
     the boundaries of the property on which the luminaire is located.
  I. "Outdoor light fixtures" means outdoor artificial illuminating devices,
     installed or portable, used for flood-lighting, general illumination, or
     advertisement.
  J. "Permanent outdoor luminaire" means any fixed luminaire or system of
     luminaires that is outdoors and that is intended to be used for 7 days or
     longer.
  K. "State funds" means any bond revenues or any money appropriated or
     allocated by the Massachusetts Legislature.
  L. "Roadway lighting" means permanent outdoor luminaires that are specifically
     intended to illuminate roadways for automotive vehicles.


FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE MASSACHUSETTS OUTDOOR LIGHTING BILL
     "I met with Mayor Peter Torrigian of Peabody on 2/4/94, and gave him a
copy of the above bill.  I explained in detail the reason and merits of the
bill, and he seemed genuinely interested.  He stated that he would show it to
his legal department and to his town engineers, and then come back to me with
comments and suggestions.  If we can show cost savings and improvement in
public safety, he would support the bill.  This is important, as he is also
the chairman of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and therefore his
recommendations would go statewide.  He is also a well-respected mayor in
Massachusetts.  At this point he seems in favor of the measure.
     I also contacted Dr. Alan L. Lewis, who is the dean of Ferris State
University's College of Optometry.  He has done research on the effects of
glare, showing that glare is a hazard, and is sending me a packet of these
studies in support of full-cutoff streetlighting.  Hopefully these will be
of help in convincing legislatures to pass the light-pollution bill.
     I will keep you posted on any more developments."   --- Mario E. Motta


NELPAG STAFF NOTES
     Arthur Upgren (Van Vleck Observatory) writes to say that, with
Connecticut being until now the only state without a NELPAG state Chair, he will
assume that role effective immediately.  He can be reached at e-mail Internet
address AUPGREN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU or at Astronomy Dept., Wesleyan University,
Middletown, CT  06457.
     Paul Messerschmidt of Boston has agreed to Chair the Power Utilities
Committee of NELPAG --- a position originally taken by me at our formation
meeting in November, but a position much better held by a professional energy
consultant such as Paul, who has many contacts with power companies.  -- D.G.


NEW SOURCE BOOK ON HOME LIGHTING
     "A newly published source of information on how to light homes, using the
latest energy-efficient lamps, luminaires and controls, is now available from
the Lighting Research Center.  Titled "The Lighting Pattern Book for Homes," it
includes practical designs and plans for installing quality lighting in every
room of the house.  This book is appropriate for those who help people light
their homes, including contractors, utility personnel and retailers.  For more
information, contact the Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, NY 12180 (Fax 518 276-2999; e-mail leonal@rpi.edu)."
-- Judith Block

NOTES FROM NEW JERSEY
     The following was sent to Dan Green by the Sky and Telescope columnist
on light pollution; it was edited for use in this Circular:
     "I was very pleased to receive NELPAG Circular No. 2.  The mere existence
of NELPAG and its newsletter is important.  But I was impressed with both.  I'm
not aware of any other regional light pollution group of this sort.  Perhaps it
will be a good model upon which to form others.
     Of course, the question of just what kind of organization works on each
level -- local, state, regional -- is interesting.  We don't want to have
various groups needlessly reduplicating each other's efforts, or diluting
strength from each other or from the IDA.  I've wondered what would be best
here in NJ -- we do have the UACNJ (United Astronomy Clubs of New Jersey --
despite the fact it now includes one Pennsylvania club), and its l-p notes in
its small newsletter.  I'd like to hear any thoughts you may have on these
matters.
     Which reminds me how much I liked your comment (and conviction) at the
[IAU light-pollution] colloquium in Washington, DC, in 1988:  we've got to get
the astronomy magazines involved in the l-p fight.  Five and a half years
later, S&T has come along very well, while Astronomy magagine's failure to
have almost anything on l-p in recent years is amazing (even for them!)."
   -- Fred Schaaf  [e-mail:  fschaaf@aol.com]


NOTES FROM KENNEBUNKPORT, MAINE
     Since 1977, the town of Kennebunkport has had a Street Lighting Committee,
which is a 5-member group of citizens that (a) has developed and updated the
town's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance and (b) continues to advise the town on
matters pertaining to outdoor lighting.  Most of the advising has been to review
street lighting requests from citizens and to review new offers from the local
utility to "upgrade" the existing lighting.
     Kennebunkport is fortunate to still have minimal street lighting consisting
of fixtures that primarily use low-lumen incandescent lamps.  Over the years,
the town has not been persuaded by the local utility to "modernize" our
system and expand it, so we still have low levels of glare and light pollution
and a moderate operating cost.  (Some utility proposals would have increased
the lighting levels and numbers of fixtures by a factor of about five.)
However, cost is becoming a concern, so the town is now interested in looking
into what options it has.
     The Committee is presently studying the situation and has found that many
fixtures are in the wrong place, that there may be more than are needed, and
that higher-efficiency fixtures could be used.  As a result, we are now writing
a policy that, with public input, will decide where the town wants to put
lights, what light levels it wants to have, and what type of light source and
fixture it wants to use.  When the policy is accepted, we will draw up a
town-wide lighting plan that will detail where and what size and type of light
are to be installed.  The plan will be given to our local utility, which will
install and maintain the fixtures.
     I must add here that this is all possible due to a lot of communication
with our local utility, Central Maine Power, which is willing to look at
offering the new fixtures with lower-lumen lamps that the town would like to
use and rent.  These fixtures are nothing like anything they presently offer,
so I commend them on their willingness to look at "friendlier" lighting.
(From a marketing standpoint, they realize this may be a new area.)  They are
going to install some test fixtures for evaluation by the town.  The fixtures
will be "modernized" versions of our present radial wave platter reflector
fixtures and "modernized" admiral's hats fixtures.  Both types will use
coated 35-watt HPS lamps.
     On the state level, Maine's lighting control bill is being challenged by
a rewritten bill that I fell would strip a lot of the teeth out of the
existing bill.  This new bill was drafted by an ad hoc group of members
of the state chapter of the IES.  Printed on the last three pages of this
Circular is the existing law with the recommended deletions (cross-outs)
and the recommended changes and additions (high-lights).  They are concerned
with poor and unnecessary definitions and with the overly-restrictive
"full-cutoff" requirement as defined in the law.  The rewrite adds an
excellent "Statement of Purpose", but the changes to (a) requiring lighting
to be designed to the latest IES recommendations, and (b) allowing many
exceptions, gives a great deal of leeway.  At present, it appears that this
bill may not be heard this session.  We have been working on some amendments,
which incorporate some of the proposed new bill's well-thought-out points
but will retain the original law's clearer controls.
    --- Peter Talmage (P.O. Box 497A, Kennebunkport, ME  04046)


ENCLOSURES (by postal mail):
Proposed lighting-engineers' revision to existing Maine state outdoor
 lighting bill.

                                  ***********  

The NELPAG supports the International Dark-Sky Association and recommends
that all individuals/groups who are interested in the problems of light
pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to the IDA Newsletter
(IDA membership costs $20.00 per year; send check to
International Dark-Sky Association, 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ  85716).

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.yeehah.merk.com>
% Precedence: bulk
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Wed Feb  9 17:11:46 EST 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:10:25 -0500
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
% Subject: NELPAG Circular No. 3

From:	VERGA::US4RMC::"dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu" "D.W.E. 
        Green/SAO/617-495-7440  30-Mar-1994 2113" 30-MAR-1994 21:08:56.33
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
CC:	
Subj:	NELPAG Circular No. 4

NELPAG Circular No. 4                                     1994 March 30

New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG)

Editor:     Daniel W. E. Green [Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory;
             60 Garden Street; Cambridge, MA  02138]  (telephone 617-495-7440)
             E-Mail:  green@cfa (.bitnet, .span, or .harvard.edu)

Secretary:  Eric Johansson     (telephone 508-667-0137)
             E-Mail:  esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  or  esj@temerity.polaroid.com

     "Subscription" to this irregular news/information Circular is
available by sending self-addressed, stamped (29-cent) regular-sized
(9.5x4-inch) envelopes (SASE) to Dan Green at his postal address, or
by sending your e-mail address to either Dan or Eric using the e-mail
addresses above.  Sections in this Circular are written by Dan unless
noted otherwise.  Contributed information for this Circular concerning
outdoor lighting problems in New England (or pertinent info from
outside New England) are welcomed.  Please circulate this newsletter
to all interested parties. 

                                  ***********

LOCAL BOSTON AREA MEETINGS HELD ON 1994 MARCH 6 AND 21

     Four NELPAG members met at the home of Mario Motta (Lynnfield,
MA) on the evening of March 6 to work on a proposed package of
recommended ordinance or by-law wording for towns and cities with
regard to regulating outdoor night lighting.  In addition to Mario,
those attending the meeting were Bernie Volz, Michael Ratner, and Dan
Green.  As a result of this meeting, I drafted a first list of
ordinance suggestions and e-mailed them to the NELPAG mailing list on
March 8.  Bernie remarked to me that what I had put together looked
too much like a bill and not enough like typical by-laws as found in
the papers of local Massachusetts towns.  Bob Wylie sent by postal
mail more than two typewritten pages of proposed changes, and comments
also have come from a couple of others.  A re-edited version of the
city/town suggested bylaw wording will be circulated in the next
NELPAG Circular, for comment by NELPAG members.  It was further agreed
at the March 6 meeting that we should schedule very soon a meeting
specifically to address plans for the anticipated hearing on our
proposed bill at the Massachusetts State House.  A meeting was
scheduled for March 21 at Harvard Observatory. 

     On the morning of March 21, we learned (via Alan MacRobert's
astronomy column in the Boston Globe newspaper!) that our hearing was
scheduled for the following day, Tuesday, March 22.  So on Monday
evening, the following individuals met at Harvard to discuss plans for
the hearing and to put together a package of written material for the
Energy Committee members:  Dan Green, Bernie Volz, Mario Motta, Michael
Ratner, Steve O'Meara, and Eric Johansson.  A 26-page package was
constructed (with 11 copies made to carry to the State House the
following morning), based largely on IDA literature (Information
Sheets 34, 42, 49, 65, 61, 24, 23, 54, 4, and 46, in that order ---
the last one being the Maine state outdoor lighting bill passed a
couple of years ago), but also including the revised wording of our
bill and local NELPAG contacts, plus some technical information from
the Kennebunkport literature provided by Peter Talmage.  We arranged
to have three of us provide testimony at the hearing on March 22:  Bob
Wylie, Mario Motta, and Bob Stefanik.  Unfortunately, we had little
time to prepare. 

THE HEARING ON MARCH 22

     Six of us showed up at the hearing on the morning of March 22 at
the Massachusetts State House in Boston:  Dan Green, Steve O'Meara,
Paul Messerschmidt, Mario Motta, Bob Wylie, and Bob Stefanik.  After
some concern that we wouldn't be heard, because re-filed bills are not
normally heard the second year (usually only written testimony is
accepted), the Energy Committee Chairman turned the meeting over to
Rep. Jim Marzilli of Arlington (who filed our bill) to conduct our
testimony.  Unfortunately, only about half a dozen of the committee
members were present for our testimony, which was the last of the day
(the committee has 11 House members and 6 Senate members).  But all of
the members did get our 26-page packet, and we made available through
Marzilli's office complete copies of two papers on glare and the eye
that we had received from Dr. Alan L. Lewis of Ferris State University
in Michigan; these papers are "Disability Glare --- A State of the Art
Report", by J. J. Vos (1984, CIE Journal 3(2), 39) and a textbook
chapter by Lewis entitled "Basic Concepts in Environmental Lighting".
I began our bill's oral testimony by explaining why the wording had
changed from addressing cities and towns to addressing only
state-funded lighting, and I then introduced Bob Wylie, Mario Motta,
and Bob Stefanik (in that order).  I think that we made an impact,
especially with our concentration on glare from poorly-shielded
outdoor lighting affecting drivers, particularly elderly drivers. 

     Next we are planning to go to the State House to meet
individually with the Energy Committee members.  A vote reportedly
will be held in the first half of April, which will determine whether
the bill will move to the floor of the House for a full vote or will
be shelved "for further study".  We suspect that there is a tremendous
amount of support to be had on this glare issue from groups such as
the AARP (the national organization of retired citizens), and
regardless of how the vote goes this year on this bill, we have really
gotten the ball rolling. 

     We really encourage all Massachusetts residents to contact their
representatives (both House and Senate members, and especially those
on the Energy Committee) immediately to express support for our bill
(mention it by number "H. 1652").  The Energy Committee members are
listed again here for convenience: Senators Montigny (Bristol), Norton
(Bristol), Berry (Essex), S. P. O'Brien (Hampden and Hampshire), Leahy
(Middlesex), Swift (Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden and Hampshire);
Representatives Herren (Fall River, Chairman), Binienda (Worcester),
Gardner (Holliston), Cabral (New Bedford), Galvin (Canton), Valianti
(Marlborough), Marzilli (Arlington), Fagan (Taunton), Paulsen
(Belmont), Gauch (Shrewsbury), Cousins (Newburyport).  The current
plan is for Paul Messerschmidt, Dan Green, Mario Motta, and Bob Wylie
to arrange appointments in the next week or two to talk with Committee
members one-on-one, but your support is also needed by way of phone
calls and letters to your representative! 

SCHEDULED REGIONAL NELPAG MEETING ON 1994 MAY 21

     No unfavorable comments have been received regarding my proposal
in the last NELPAG Circular for another regional meeting to be held on
Saturday, May 21, from 10 a.m.-12 noon at Harvard Observatory.  So we
will go with this plan, and we hope to see as many of you as possible
at that meeting.  -- D.G. 

ENCLOSURES (by postal mail):

1) Two-page information sheet on the Wisconsin bill from the Milwaukee
   Astronomical Society newsletter (supplied by Steve O'Meara of Sky and
   Telescope magazine).

                                  ***********  

The NELPAG supports the International Dark-Sky Association and
recommends that all individuals/groups who are interested in the
problems of light pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to
the IDA Newsletter (IDA membership costs $20.00 per year; send check to:

International Dark-Sky Association, 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ  85716).

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.yeehah.merk.com>
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 20:59:52 -0500
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
% Subject: NELPAG Circular No. 4

From:	VERGA::US4RMC::"dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu" "D.W.E. 
        Green/SAO/617-495-7440  07-Apr-1994 1134"  7-APR-1994 11:35:59.56
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
CC:	
Subj:	NELPAG Circular No. 5

NELPAG Circular No. 5                                     1994 April 6

New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG)

Editor:     Daniel W. E. Green [Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory;
             60 Garden Street; Cambridge, MA  02138]  (telephone 617-495-7440)
             e-mail:  green@cfa (.bitnet, .span, or .harvard.edu)

Secretary:  Eric Johansson     (telephone 508-667-0137)
             email:  esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  or  esj@temerity.polaroid.com

     "Subscription" to this irregular news/information Circular is
available by sending self-addressed, stamped (29-cent) regular-sized
(9.5x4-inch) envelopes (SASE) to Dan Green at his postal address, or
by sending your e-mail address to either Dan or Eric using the e-mail
addresses above.  Contributed information for this Circular concerning
outdoor lighting problems in New England (or pertinent info from
outside New England) are welcomed.  Please circulate this newsletter
to all interested parties. 
                                  ***********

CAMPAIGN FOR SUPPORT OF MASSACHUSETTS OUTDOOR-LIGHTING BILL

     Here's the latest news on the outdoor-lighting bill currently
being discussed by the Mass. state legislature.  I spoke today with
Rep. Jim Marzilli, who said that most likely the bill will be
"favorably reported" and put aside until next year.  (There is the
chance that the bill could be killed, but Marzilli says he can keep
that from happening.)  There's a very faint chance that the bill could
be voted on by the 17-member Energy Committee in the next 1-2 weeks,
but most likely it will not come to a vote UNLESS: There is
immediately a massive letter and phone campaign by Mass. people to
their own senators and reps on the Energy Committee; the committee
members are really only interested in hearing from their constituent
district voters (key point).  There is no point, according to
Marzilli, in our doing anything further at the State House (re:
lobbying).  Our energies should now be spent in getting people to call
or write in support of H. 1652, and people should be given the
complete list of Energy Committee members (I have an updated list to
distribute below; there have been 3 retirements and 3 additions to the
House list), determine who represents them, and contact them, asking
them to support this bill now being considered by the Energy
Committee, noting the substitute wording that Marzilli will insert
(the old wording is still there), and making comments about night
glare and safety for motorists and pedestrians, about conservation,
and about improving the appearance of our nighttime environment (NOT
commenting about the night sky unless you make it a minor comment!). 

     I am looking into getting a mailing list from Sky & Telescope
magazine for all of their Mass. subscribers, but there the problem is
POSTAGE.  They have kindly agreed to give us such a list free of
charge, considering our volunteer effort to be a worthy cause (and our
thanks to Kelly Beatty and Douglas Dinsmore for this), but there are
perhaps 2000-3000 subscribers in Mass. alone, giving postage costs of
around $700 (at 29 cents each), and the printing costs for 1-2 pages
must be considered.  Yes, I'm afraid that we should perhaps start having 
dues, but even they might not cover such a large mailing.  Donations, 
anyone?  Some help will also be needed to mail out such a list. 

     Anyway, those contacting elected officials should be clear that
it's important not to talk about astronomy or the night sky. 
Remember:  Conservation, aesthetics (less tacky night lighting), and
safety are the real issues here.  Marzilli says not to worry if the
bill doesn't make it to a vote this year:  Getting massive support now
will give it a lot of credibility for next year.  (But we should still
try for this year, so let's get going!!) 

     The Energy Committee members are listed here for convenience. 
This list is true as of April 6, 1994, but the districts are listed
mostly as of a year or two ago, and there has been some
re-districting, so one needs to check around.  Jim Marzilli actually
said that those voters who don't have reps listed below should write
ONLY to Governor William Weld (and also perhaps to Paul Cellucci, the
Lieutenant Governor).  ALL people should write to Gov. Weld, even if
they also contact one or two of the elected officials below.  If you
write, send your letter to your elected official at the following
address: State House; Boston, MA 02133.  If your rep's phone number is
not listed below, try these numbers:  House switchboard 617-722-2000;
Senate Clerk 722-1276; Energy Committee switchboard 722-2090. 

      ENERGY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

      Senators Mark Montigny, Chair (Bristol)
           Thomas Norton, Vice-Chair (Bristol)
           Frederick Berry (Essex)
           Daniel Leahy (Middlesex)
           Shannon P. O'Brien (Hampden and Hampshire)
           James Swift (Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden and Hampshire);
      Representatives Albert Herren, Chair (Fall River)
           John Binienda, Vice-Chair (Worcester)
           Frank Cousins (Newburyport)
           Bill Galvin (Canton)
           Barbara Gardner (Holliston)
           Ronald Gauch (Shrewsbury)
           Steven Kulik (western Mass. - Greenfield area; 617-722-2575)
           Jim Marzilli (Arlington; 617-722-2430)
           John Quinn (Dartmouth; 617-722-2070)
           John Rogers (Norwood, Westwood, Walpole, Medfield; 617-722-2370)
           Dan Valianti (Marlborough)

     In addition to Jim Marzilli (who filed the bill), the co-sponsors on
the outdoor-lighting bill are as follows:

     Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville; 617-722-2400)
     John McDonough (D-Boston; 617-722-2060)
     Anne Paulsen (D-Belmont; 617-722-2460)
     Douglas Petersen (D-Marblehead; 617-722-2210)
     Pamela Resor (D-Acton; 617-722-2060)

Some word of appreciation and support to any of them would also be good.

     For those unfamiliar with the proposed bill (given in NELPAG
Circular No. 3), the version filed last November calls for "cities and
towns to introduce a code for the design and installation of outdoor
night lighting, the purpose of which is to ensure that outdoor night
lighting fixtures conserve energy and reduce light pollution while
providing adequate night-time safety, utility, and security; and to
implement this code in the installation of all public lighting
fixtures and as a condition of subdivision and planning approvals." 
Due to concern over city and town objections to this proposed wording,
the NELPAG developed revised wording with the encouragement of Rep.
Marzilli in January and February, to the effect that the bill now
addresses only state funding for new and replacement outdoor night
lighting, which must be full cut-off (shielded) lighting except for
emergency and unusual situations.  When we testified before the Energy
Committee on March 22, we presented studies of how glare from unshielded 
(or improperly shielded) lighting affects motorists and pedestrians, 
especially those who are elderly and who suffer from cataracts. 

     When writing or calling in your support of bill number "H. 1652",
please be sure to mention that you are supporting the substituted
wording version of the bill as implemented by Rep. Marzilli.  Two
really good sources for letters from people in your district, if you
can initiate letter-writing campaigns, are the following:  (1) elderly
people, who will greatly benefit from the passage of such a law, with
regard to glare affecting eyesight at night; and (2) children in
schools, who will benefit both via safety and by being able to see the
stars better at night (educational).  Letters from both groups (senior
citizens and children) are very powerful ways to reach politicians. 

     Now is the time that you can make a difference for a good cause! 
Get all your friends and relatives to call or write today.  Clubs
should get actively involved as soon as possible, whereby club members
are contacted via phone or e-mail (or newsletter if time doesn't
permit phoning or e-mailing).  [A version of this particular Circular
would be what we send to the S&T list.]  -- D. Green 

                                  ***********  

NOTE:  When sending SASEs to Dan for your subscription to the printed NELPAG
 Circular, please write the Circular number on the back of the envelope; he's
 losing track of who's getting which issue!  So, if you've run out after
 receiving this particular issue (No. 5), send three more SASEs, and number
 them 6, 7, and 8 on the back side.

                                  ***********  

The NELPAG supports the International Dark-Sky Association and recommends
that all individuals/groups who are interested in the problems of light
pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to the IDA Newsletter

(IDA membership costs $20.00 per year; send check to
International Dark-Sky Association, 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ  85716).

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.yeehah.merk.com>
% Precedence: bulk
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Wed Apr  6 17:53:42 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Return-Path: <dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.harvard.edu>
% Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 17:54:21 -0400
% Message-Id: <9404062154.AA27278@cfa.harvard.edu>
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
% Subject: NELPAG Circular No. 5

From:	US4RMC::"nelpag@yeehah.merk.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 20-MAY-1994 
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU
CC:	
Subj:	Don't forget:  NELPAG meeting tomorrow!

 This is a reminder that we have scheduled a regional NELPAG meeting for
 tomorrow, Saturday morning, May 21, at Phillips auditorium at Harvard
 Observatory (60 Garden Street, Cambridge, Mass.), from 10 a.m. to 12 noon.
 Pete Talmage will be speaking about further developments in Maine, and we'll
 work on planning the annual IDA/S&T northeast meeting on light pollution,
 scheduled for Kennebunkport, ME, in October.  We'll also go over developments
 on the Massachusetts state outdoor-lighting bill and we'll further discuss
 developing our literature packages for distribution to city/town councils
 and to the public in general.  Also on the agenda will be discussion of
 a working group available to speak on light-pollution problems to
 government, school, and other public groups.  If you cannot attend this
 meeting but have thoughts or ideas to share, send them to me by e-mail
 today.     Thanks, Dan Green

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com>
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Fri May 20 10:13:22 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Return-Path: <dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.harvard.edu>
% Date: Fri, 20 May 94 10:12:53 -0400
% Message-Id: <9405201412.AA04251@cfa.harvard.edu>
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU
% Subject: don't forget:  NELPAG meeting tomorrow!
% Reply-To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com

From:	US4RMC::"nelpag@yeehah.merk.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 26-MAY-1994 
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.harvard.EDU
CC:	
Subj:	NELPAG Circular No. 6

NELPAG Circular No. 6                                     1994 May 26

New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG)

Editor:     Daniel W. E. Green [Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory;
             60 Garden Street; Cambridge, MA  02138]  (telephone 617-495-7440)
             e-mail:  green@cfa (.bitnet, .span, or .harvard.edu)
Secretary:  Eric Johansson     (telephone 508-667-0137)
             email:  esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  or  esj@temerity.polaroid.com

     "Subscription" to this irregular news/information Circular is
available by sending self-addressed, stamped (29-cent) regular-sized
(9.5x4-inch) envelopes (SASE) to Dan Green at his postal address, or
by sending your e-mail address to either Dan or Eric using the e-mail
addresses above.  Contributed information for this Circular concerning
outdoor lighting problems in New England (or pertinent info from
outside New England) are welcomed.  Please circulate this newsletter
to all interested parties. 
                                  ***********

NELPAG REGIONAL MEETING HELD ON MAY 21
     Nine people from Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts attended a
very productive NELPAG meeting at Harvard College Observatory on May 21.
There were three important items resulting from that meeting that I will
note here.  First is the decision to select Saturday, October 22, as the
time for the next meeting of the annual light-pollution conference
co-sponsored by Sky and Telescope magazine, the International Dark-Sky
Association, and the NELPAG.  Peter Talmage will serve as local host for
the meeting, which will begin at 1 p.m., at the Community Center of the
South Congregational Church in Kennebunkport, Maine, which is across the
street from the post office, on Spring Street (just off of Route 9).  After the
meeting, the group will have dinner and an evening tour of local outdoor
lighting; the Kennebunkport area has seen great successes in recent years
in local outdoor lighting ordinances, and this meeting will focus on what
has worked for the local group and how things developed for them.  It
promises to be a very enlightening meeting, and I encourage people from
all over the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada to attend this
meeting to learn how they can work effectively on constructively combatting
light pollution at their own localities.

     The second big item discussed at the May 21 meeting resulted from
Pete Talmage bringing numerous copies of a preliminary draft a document that
his group (the Kennebunkport Lighting Committee) produced entitled "Good
Neighbor Outdoor Lighting:  How to Select and Install Lighting that Conforms
to the Kennebunkport Outdoor Lighting Ordinance", part of which is reproduced
here with his kind permission.  The suggestion was raised that an effective
glossy brochure be published for nationwide distribution that would discuss
the problem of poor outdoor lighting in simple terms for the average "person
on the street", providing "illuminating" photographs showing good and bad
outdoor lighting, and listing where one should go for proper residential,
commercial, civic, and street night lighting fixtures.  The idea is to list
manufacturers of good fixtures (with company names, addresses, and phone
numbers), along with specific names and catalogue numbers of good fixtures.
We have decided to meet again in Portsmouth, NH, on June 19 [see note below]
to discuss developments and further directions on this brochure, which is
slated for completion in time for the October 22 meeting in Kennebunk.

     Steve O'Meara is pursuing the possibility of having Sky Publishing
Corporation publish the brochure, which is intended to be around 8-10 pages
long.  We are contacting lighting manufacturers to tell them of the plan, with
a possible printing run in the tens of thousands, and hope to get advertising
(only that pertaining to good outdoor fixtures will be accepted) to help pay
for the cost of printing and distributing the brochure.

     The third item is that we have asked for a half hour "under the tent"
at Stellafane in Vermont this coming August to discuss the progress of
NELPAG.  Stellafane is a big, annual, outdoor U.S.-Canadian amateur astronomy
meeting recently attended by as many as 2000 people each year.  This should
be a good opportunity to raise some further interest (and, hopefully, support)
for our cause.

     I have received no further news on the status of the Massachusetts
outdoor lighting bill, but will pass any news along this channel.
  -- Dan Green

JUNE 19 MEETING IN PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
     As noted above, we're scheduling a dinner meeting for 5 p.m. on
Sunday, June 19, to discuss the brochure that we are assembling and
also further details on the October 22 meeting.  We will meet at the
School House Restaurant, and all are invited to attend, but we need to
know numbers by June 15 (so please contact Dan or Eric by June 15 if
you plan to attend).  The School House Restaurant is located at 1465
Woodbury Ave., next to the K-Mart Shopping Center (and west of
Interstate 95).  If coming from the south (Massachusetts), get off
I-95 at the Portsmouth center exit (toward the right), whence you will
come promptly to a traffic circle; you want to continue straight, so
go halfway around the traffic circle, but instead of continuing
straight ahead on Route 1, bear right onto an exit ramp, which will
take you to Woodbury Ave., and you'll be going left and over Route 1
off of the exit ramp; then go about 1 mile to the restaurant (their
phone number is 603-431-4650 if you get lost).  Pete Talmage says they
have a function room for our group and good food.  Hope to see you there! 

                                  ***********  
    Enclosure [postal mail only]:  excerpts from the "Good Neighbor
Outdoor Lighting" document (preliminary first draft) of the
Kennebunkport (Maine) Lighting Committee, courtesy Peter Talmage. 
                                  ***********  

NOTE:  When sending SASEs to Dan for your subscription to the printed NELPAG
 Circular, please write the Circular number on the back of the envelope; he's
 losing track of who's getting which issue!  So, if you've run out after
 receiving this particular issue (No. 6), send three more SASEs, and number
 them 7, 8, and 9 on the back side.

                                  ***********  

The NELPAG supports the International Dark-Sky Association and recommends
that all individuals/groups who are interested in the problems of light
pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to the IDA Newsletter
(IDA membership costs $20.00 per year; send check to
International Dark-Sky Association, 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ  85716).

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com>
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Thu May 26 18:06:50 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Thu, 26 May 94 17:51:45 -0400
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.harvard.EDU (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.harvard.EDU
% Subject: NELPAG Circular No. 6
% Reply-To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com

From:	US4RMC::"nelpag@yeehah.merk.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 14-JUL-1994 
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
CC:	
Subj:	NELPAG Circular No. 7

NELPAG Circular No. 7                                     1994 July 14

New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG)

Editor:     Daniel W. E. Green [Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory;
             60 Garden Street; Cambridge, MA  02138]  (telephone 617-495-7440)
             e-mail:  green@cfa (.bitnet, .span, or .harvard.edu)

Secretary:  Eric Johansson     (telephone 508-667-0137)
             email:  esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  or  esj@temerity.polaroid.com

     "Subscription" to this irregular news/information Circular is
available by sending self-addressed, stamped (29-cent) regular-sized
(9.5x4-inch) envelopes (SASE) to Dan Green at his postal address, or
by sending your e-mail address to either Dan or Eric using the e-mail
addresses above.  Contributed information for this Circular concerning
outdoor lighting problems in New England (or pertinent info from
outside New England) are welcomed.  Please circulate this newsletter
to all interested parties. 

                                  ***********

NELPAG BROCHURE MEETING HELD ON JUNE 19 IN PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE

     Eight people from Maine (T. Dater, P. Talmage) and Massachusetts
(E. Johansson, D. Green, B. Volz, M. Motta, S. O'Meara, B. Wylie)
attended a productive meeting to further develop the light-pollution
brochure mentioned in NELPAG Circular No. 6.  Peter Talmage had
revised the version of his pamphlet that was distributed in part with
that last NELPAG Circular, and this revised pamphlet was discussed at
length at the June 19.  The brochure will focus on outdoor night
lighting for residential and business applications, though it will
also be directly useful to those on town and city councils looking for
educational information on the matter.  Pete Talmage has listed
numerous good lighting fixtures, which will be listed in the planned
brochure (toward the end) by company and catalog number along with
helpful application comments.  The first part of the brochure will
briefly outline what constitutes "Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting", and
there will be diagrams and photographs to show what is poor lighting
and what is proper lighting. 

     The latest version of the brochure (minus the diagrams pages,
which show proper and improper outdoor lighting fixtures) is provided
with this Circular (available by postal mail only).  Talmage produced
this revised version in response to comments made at the June 19
meeting and to suggestions made in a letter from Bob Wylie to Talmage
several days after that meeting. 

     Individual lighting companies are being contacted for potential
advertising to help underwrite the cost of the brochure.  Sky
Publishing Corp. is expressing interest in publishing the brochure,
with the requisite that some mention be made of light pollution's
adverse effect on astronomy. 

  -- Dan Green

JULY 23 MEETING IN PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE

     We agreed at the June 19 meeting to again hold a dinner meeting
on July 23 (Saturday) to discuss the progress of the brochure.  We
will meet at the same location, the School House Restaurant in
Portsmouth, NH, at 4:30 p.m. (see Circular 6 for directions).  All are
invited to attend. 

                                  ***********  
    Enclosure [postal mail only]:  text from the "Good Neighbor
Outdoor Lighting" brochure (third draft), courtesy Peter Talmage. 
                                  ***********  

NOTE:  When sending SASEs to Dan for your subscription to the printed NELPAG
 Circular, please write the Circular number on the back of the envelope; he's
 losing track of who's getting which issue!  So, if you've run out after
 receiving this particular issue (No. 7), send three more SASEs, and number
 them 8, 9, and 10 on the back side.

                                  ***********  

The NELPAG supports the International Dark-Sky Association and
recommends that all individuals/groups who are interested in the
problems of light pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to
the IDA Newsletter (IDA membership costs $20.00 per year; send check to:

  International Dark-Sky Association, 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ  85716).

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com>
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Thu Jul 14 14:23:31 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 14:21:47 -0400
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.edu
% Subject: NELPAG Circular No. 7
% Reply-To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com

From:	US4RMC::"nelpag@yeehah.merk.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 21-JUL-1994 
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU
CC:	
Subj:	time change for Saturday NELPAG meeting in New Hampshire

 NOTICE CONCERNING NELPAG MEETING ON JULY 23

 The meeting of the New England Light Pollution Advisory Group on Saturday,
 July 23, in Portsmouth, NH (see NELPAG Circular No. 7), has been changed
 from 4:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. -- so that interested people can get to their
 observing sites to observe Jupiter!!  The meeting should last from about
 3:30 p.m. until 5:00 or 5:30 p.m.     -- Dan Green

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com>
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Thu Jul 21 17:25:30 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Return-Path: <dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.harvard.edu>
% Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 17:25:42 -0400
% Message-Id: <9407212125.AA16762@cfa.harvard.edu>
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU
% Subject: time change for Saturday NELPAG meeting in New Hampshire
% Reply-To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com

From:	US4RMC::"nelpag@yeehah.merk.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 26-JUL-1994 
To:	nelpag@yeehah.Merk.COM
CC:	
Subj:	NEW CIE PUBLICATIONS (fwd)

"CIE, Hermann" writes:
>Path: harvee.billerica.ma.us!merk!newsie.dmc.com!uunet!dove!daemon
>Newsgroups: sci.engr.lighting
>From: "CIE, Hermann" <X0401DAA@AWIUNI11.EDVZ.UNIVIE.AC.AT>
>Subject: NEW CIE PUBLICATIONS
>Message-ID: <CtHpr5.4ps@dove.nist.gov>
>Sender: daemon@dove.nist.gov
>Organization: NIST
>Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 09:45:03 GMT
>Approved: recnews@dove.nist.gov
>Lines: 231
>
>We are pleased to announce the following new CIE Publications:
>
... edited ...
>
>Urban Sky Glow, a Worry for Astronomy
>
>CIE x008-1994
>ISBN 3 900 734 53 4
>
>On Saturday 3 April 1993, a symposium was held under the title of "Urban sky
>glow, a worry for astronomy". The organizer of the symposium was the Technical
>Committee TC 4.21 on "Interference by Light of Astronomical Observations". This
>TC works under Division 4 (Lighting and signalling for transport) of the
>Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage CIE. The symposium was held at the
>Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh, Scotland, in conjunction with a
>meeting of CIE Division 5 and with the LuxEuropa Conference. The programme
>included the following presentations by international experts on astronomy,
>lighting architecture, lighting engineering and instrumentation:

>- Interference by light of astronomical observations (Dr. A Schreuder; earlier
>presentation)
>- Astronomy as an endangered science (Dr. P Murdin)
>- Obtrusive light and sky glow: is it all gloom ? ( Dr. A Fisher)
>- A global network observation of night sky brightness in Japan: methods and
>results (H Kosai, S Isobe, Y Nakayama)
>- The Canary Islands experience (J D Castro; presented during the TC meeting)
>- Sky glow conscious lighting design (N Pollard)
>- The Edinburgh Lighting Vision (D Brennan)
>
>The publication is in English and contains 46 pages, 15 figures, and 8
>tables.  It is readily available at the CIE Central Bureau, Kegelgasse 27, 
>A-1030, Vienna/Austria.
>
-- 

HOME: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  HAM  ka1eec
WORK: esj@temerity.polaroid.com   617.386.4687 

The trouble with incompetents is that you will never know when 
they will disappoint you and be competent.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com>
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Tue Jul 26 15:08:04 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.US (Eric S Johansson)
% Message-Id: <H.eg.bBbGA5JGOu6@harvee.billerica.ma.us>
% Organization: gators 'r us
% Subject: NEW CIE PUBLICATIONS (fwd)
% To: nelpag@yeehah.Merk.COM
% Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 13:53:48 -0500
% Reply-To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com

From:	US1RMC::"DHILL@pao.hq.nasa.gov" "HILL, DIANNE" 19-AUG-1994 23:21:08.83
To:	release <press-release@mercury.hq.nasa.gov>
CC:	
Subj:	94-136 NEW DATA BRIGHTENS DEBRIS OUTLOOK FOR SPACE STATION

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C
August 19, 1994
(Phone:  202/358-1600)

RELEASE:  94-136

NEW DATA BRIGHTENS DEBRIS OUTLOOK FOR SPACE STATION

     Recent results from powerful radar measurements of orbital debris
are good news for the International Space Station. 

     NASA has just completed the third year of a campaign measuring
and monitoring the orbital debris environment using the Haystack
Orbital Debris Radar.  The Haystack Radar is operated for NASA by the
MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, Mass.  This powerful radar can
detect debris objects that are as small as a pea (about 1/4 inch in
diameter) orbiting 400 miles out in space. 

     The orbital debris population measured by Haystack has been
compared with predictions of the orbital debris environment based on
the NASA "Engineering Model". This model was developed using
measurements and data on the debris environment collected prior to
1988.  The measured orbital debris population differed from NASA's
predictions over all altitudes that were studied using the Haystack Radar. 

     At low altitudes (250-400 miles) the measured debris population
was below predicted levels.  Thus, this measurement campaign brings
good news to the International Space Station.  According to George
Levin, NASA's Orbital Debris Program Manager, Washington, D.C.,
engineers and scientists believe there are three major reasons why
their earlier predictions overestimated the Space Station debris
population. 

     "The first reason for this improvement in the orbital debris
environment is the success of NASA's Orbital Debris Mitigation
Program.  Since 1987, following the explosion of an orbiting 3rd stage
rocket belonging to the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA has made a
concerted effort to inform other spacefaring nations of the hazards to
spacecraft resulting from these types of explosions.  As a result of
these efforts ESA, Japan, China and Russia have all joined NASA in
modifying the designs of their launch vehicles and their satellites to
minimize the possibility of future accidental explosions in space," 
said Levin.

     A second reason for the improvement in the environment in this
region of space can be traced to the major economic and political
upheaval that occurred here on Earth during the last decade. 

     The end of the cold war saw a dramatic reduction in Russia's
military space program.  In previous years many intentional explosions
of satellites on orbit were attributed to the Russian military space
program. 

     The testing of anti-satellite weapons by both the United States
and Russia is believed to be another military space activity which
contributed to the low-Earth orbital debris population during the
early to mid-80's.  The cessation of these anti-satellite tests by
both the United States and Russia has helped to reduce the growth of
orbital debris. 

     A third reason for the improvement in the low-altitude space
environment also can be attributed to these same economic and
political changes. The world-wide launch rate has fallen almost 40% in 
the last nine years (from 129 launches in 1984 to 79 launches in 1993). 

     Levin explained that, "The forces of nature play a large role in
affecting the debris environment in low-Earth orbit.  Objects in these
low (250-400 mile) orbits are affected by changes in the solar cycle. 
During the peak of the solar cycle the density of the atmosphere
increases at these altitudes. 

     This increased density acts to slow down the orbiting debris
objects, causing them to re-enter the atmosphere.  Thus, much of the
debris injected into the proposed Space Station orbit during the early
to mid-80's reentered during the unusually strong peak associated with
the last solar cycle." 

     Of increasing concern to NASA is the orbital debris population
measured by the Haystack Orbital Debris Radar at higher altitudes
(500-650 miles).  In these orbits debris was found to be greater than
NASA's predictions.  Objects in these orbits are not significantly
affected by changes in solar activity. Thus, the lifetime of debris in
these orbits can exceed 1000 years.  The long orbital life at these
high altitudes also means that debris in these orbits will not pose a
hazard to the Space Station.  However, these orbits are important for
scientific, Earth observation, weather and communications satellites. 

     NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin has directed NASA engineers
and scientists to focus increased attention on these orbits.  NASA
must first understand the cause of the increased debris population in
the 500-650 mile altitude regime.   Only then is it possible to
determine the actions required to control the growth of debris in this
economically important area of space. 

     In addition the NASA Administrator has reaffirmed the space
agency's commitment to continue to work, both within the U.S.
Government as well as with other spacefaring nations, to protect the
space environment for future generations. 

 - end -

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: "HILL, DIANNE" <DHILL@pao.hq.nasa.gov>
% To: release <press-release@mercury.hq.nasa.gov>
% Subject: 94-136 NEW DATA BRIGHTENS DEBRIS OUTLOOK FOR SPACE STATION
% Date: Fri, 19 Aug 94 14:10:00 PDT
% Sender: press-release-Owner@hq.nasa.gov

From:	US3RMC::"nelpag@yeehah.merk.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  8-SEP-1994 
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU
CC:	
Subj:	NELPAG Circular No. 8

NELPAG Circular No. 8                                     1994 September 6

New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG)

Editor:     Daniel W. E. Green [Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory;
             60 Garden Street; Cambridge, MA  02138]  (telephone 617-495-7440)
             e-mail:  green@cfa (.bitnet, .span, or .harvard.edu)

Secretary:  Eric Johansson     (telephone 508-667-0137)
             email:  esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  or  esj@temerity.polaroid.com

     "Subscription" to this irregular news/information Circular is available by
sending self-addressed, stamped (29-cent) regular-sized (9.5x4-inch) envelopes
(SASE) to Dan Green at his postal address, or by sending your e-mail address
to either Dan or Eric using the e-mail addresses above.  Contributed
information for this Circular concerning outdoor lighting problems in New
England (or pertinent info from outside New England) are welcomed.  Please
circulate this newsletter to all interested parties.

                                  ***********

NELPAG BROCHURE MEETING HELD ON JULY 23 IN PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE

     Several NELPAG members from Massachusetts and Maine attended a
meeting to further develop the light-pollution brochure mentioned in NELPAG
Circulars 6 and 7.  Steve O'Meara (Sky and Telescope) presented figures
concerning costs regarding publishing the brochure by Sky Publishing Corp.,
and it was decided that Steve and Dan Green would take the edition of the
brochure that had been worked out to this point, enter it into computer
form in Cambridge, and give it to the Sky Publishing people for discussion.
Some results of that discussion will be presented by Steve at the next
meeting (Sept. 18; see below).  It may not be necessary to have advertisers,
as the cost is not excessive, but such issues still need to be addressed by
Sky Publishing.

     Other items were also discussed at this meeting, such as plans for a
NELPAG presentation at Stellafane a couple of weeks later, and light-pollution
discussions at the Vermont state environmental department (concerning ski-area
lighting) and at the Connecticut state legislature (concerning possible
outdoor lighting legislation in that state) that have involved NELPAG.

  -- Dan Green

NELPAG REPRESENTATION AT STELLAFANE 1994 (SPRINGFIELD, VERMONT)

     Peter Talmage, Mario Motta, Eric Johansson, and I (Bernie) gave a brief
(10-minute) overview of what NELPAG is and does to about 75 Stellefane
attendees during the Saturday afternoon tent talks.  I started by giving a
general overview of NELPAG --- when it was formed, how it is organized, and
what it does.  Mario spoke about the bill we've submitted to the Massachusetts
state legislature and what steps NELPAG is taking in the fight against light
pollution --- down-playing the astronomy angle, highlighting the energy and
safety issues.

     Peter spoke about the "Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting" brochure and
activities in Maine.  Eric added a few general comments regarding NELPAG
representation in the six New England states and on fighting light pollution.
Peter also handed out (for a $1 donation) many copies of the "Good Neighbor
Outdoor Lighting" brochure after the meeting was over.  --- Bernie Volz

SEPTEMBER 18 MEETING IN PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE

     We will again hold a dinner meeting on September 18 (Sunday) to discuss
the progress of the brochure and also the specifics for the annual Sky and
Telescope/IDA/NELPAG meeting (to be held this year on October 22 in
Kennebunkport, Maine; see NELPAG Circular No. 6).  We will meet at the
same location, the School House Restaurant in Portsmouth, NH, at 4:30 p.m.
on Sept. 18 (see Circular 6 for directions).  All are invited to attend.

COMMENTS ON A LIGHT SHIELD CALLED "Lite-Blocker"

     During August, I contacted Luminaire Technologies, Inc. (212 West Main
St., Gibsonville, NC  27249; phone 910-449-6310) to get information on the
Lite-Blocker (trademark).  The information and sample I received indicate
a well-designed product that is reasonably priced at around $16.  Essentially,
it is a rectangular piece of thin aluminum that fits on the outside of the
clear refractor of the typical 175-watt mercury-vapor barn beacon or yard
light.  It is quickly and easily attached by a spring at the top and bendable
tabs at the bottom.

     The shield completely blocks the light output of one-half of the
refractor; it does not allow any light emission on that half except straight
down.  It is therefore very effective at blocking light trespass and glare.
The problem that I see is that the shield does too good a job and would not
likely be acceptable to the home owner.  Utilities have already used many of
these, as they definitely do eliminate a glare or trespass problem quickly.

     I mentioned thoughts that I had on a design for a multiple-skirted shield
for the barn light, which would give full sheilding but still allow good
light distribution.  The folks at Luminaire Technologies were very receptive
to studying it with the possibility of producing it.  They are also
developing prototype louver shields for the big flood lights that the
utilities are using more frequently.

     If you have any ideas for shields that would have a wide application, or
need more information on the Lite-Blocker (trademark), contact Luminaire
Technologies.  They could possibly be one of the keys to helping improve
outdoor lighting and reduce light pollution.

    -- Peter Talmage [P.O. Box 497A, 226 Beachwood Rd., Kennebunkport, ME
                      04046; telephone 207-967-5945]

                                  ***********  

    Enclosure [postal mail only]:  copy of newspaper clipping on light
pollution issue from the U.K. Daily Telegraph (supplied courtesy of Bob Wylie)

                                  ***********  

NOTE:  When sending SASEs to Dan for your subscription to the printed NELPAG
 Circular, please write the Circular number on the back of the envelope; he's
 losing track of who's getting which issue!  So, if you've run out after
 receiving this particular issue (No. 8), send three more SASEs, and number
 them 9, 10, and 11 on the back side.

                                  ***********  

The NELPAG supports the International Dark-Sky Association and recommends
that all individuals/groups who are interested in the problems of light
pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to the IDA Newsletter
(IDA membership costs $20.00 per year; send check to:

International Dark-Sky Association, 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ  85716).

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com>
% Precedence: bulk
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Tue Sep  6 16:13:28 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Tue, 6 Sep 94 16:12:06 -0400
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (D.W.E. Green/SAO/617-495-7440)
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU
% Subject: NELPAG Circular No. 8
% Reply-To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com


From:	US1RMC::"nelpag@yeehah.merk.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  8-SEP-1994 
To:	nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
CC:	
Subj:	USNC/CIE September 1994 Newsletter (fwd)

"Jonathan E. Hardis" writes:

>Newsgroups: sci.engr.lighting
>From: "Jonathan E. Hardis" <hardis@garnet.nist.gov>
>Subject: USNC/CIE September 1994 Newsletter
>Message-ID: <CvGMIA.G9y@dove.nist.gov>
>Sender: daemon@dove.nist.gov
>Organization: NIST
>Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 16:44:33 GMT
>Approved: recnews@dove.nist.gov
>Lines: 1146
>
>USNC/CIE NEWSLETTER --- SEPTEMBER 1994
>Editor: Klaus D. Mielenz, P.O. Box 402, Terra Alta, WV 26764-0402
>Phone (304) 789-6665, Fax (304) 789-2483, E-mail kdm@enh.nist.gov
>
.... edited ....
>
>PUB-CIE#X008 (1994)  URBAN SKY GLOW, A WORRY FOR ASTRONOMERS.
>ISBN 3 900 734 53 4.  English.  46 pages, 15 figures, 8 tables.
>List Price $84, USNC Member Price $56.
>  In April 1993, a symposium on this topic was held at the Royal
>Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh, Scotland.  The symposium was
>organized by CIE Technical Committee 4.21, "Interference by Light of
>Astronomical Observations."  The proceedings of the symposium include
>the following presentations by international experts on astronomy,
>lighting, architecture, lighting engineering, and instrumentation:
>  Interference by Light of Astronomical Observations (A. Schreuder),
>  Astronomy as an Endangered Science (P. Murdin),
>  Obtrusive Light and Sky Glow:  Is it all Gloom? (A. Fisher),
>  A Global Network, Observation of Night Sky Brightness in Japan:
>  Methods and Results (H. Kosai, S. Isobe, Y. Nakayama),
>  The Canary Islands Experience (J. D. Castro),
>  Sky-Glow Conscious Lighting Design (J. Pollard),
>  The Edinburgh Lighting Vision (D. Brennan).
....
>TC1.14-93.10.02  LIGHTING EFFECTS ON VISION.  Chair: Boyce (US).
>The third draft of the TC's report needed to be updated and extended
>to cover topics such as the effects of lighting on reaction time,
>accommodation, and eye movement.  The resulting fourth draft was
>discussed at a meeting held in conjunction of the IESNA Annual
>Conference in August 1993.
...
>TC1.18-93.10.02  DISABILITY GLARE.  Chair: Vos (NL).  No progress reported.
...
>TC1.23-93.10.02  VISUAL ACUITY.  Chair: Walraven (NL).  A draft report
>has been circulated among TC members.  Insufficient feedback has been
>received to proceed with a second draft.
...
>TC1.25-93.10.02  FUNDAMENTALS OF DISCOMFORT GLARE.  Chair: Perry (GB).
>Status: unknown.
...
>TC1.39-93.10.02  DISCOMFORT GLARE EXPERIENCED BY ELDERLY PEOPLE.
>Chair: Kanaya (JP).
>  Working Program:  1. Survey recent data on discomfort glare for
>elderly people.  2. Analysis in order to propose recommendations.
>3. Write a report on the study.
...
>TC4.36-94.06.09  VISIBILITY DESIGN FOR ROADWAY LIGHTING.  Chair:
>Stark (US).  The BoA has authorized the establishment of this TC.
...
>TC5.04-94.03.22  GLARE IN OUTDOOR AREAS.  The report,
>"Glare Evaluation System for Use Within Outdoor Sports and Area
>Lighting," was edited and sent out for Division and Board balloting.
>With positive result the Report can be published without delay
>because it is in "printing-ready" shape available with the Central
>Bureau in Vienna.
...
>TC5.10-94.03.22   EXTERIOR SECURITY LIGHTING.  There has been no
>further progress in this committee.  According to the decision of
>the Edinburgh meeting, the chairman, Joye, has organized a meeting.
>However, once again this meeting was cancelled because too few people
>would attend.  Joye has been elected Director of Public Works and
>Energy of the Swiss Canton Geneva.  He will attend the Newark meeting
>where decisions about the future of this TC will be made.
...
>TC5.12-94.03.22  OBTRUSIVE LIGHT.  A relative complete draft report
>is available. What is still missing are limiting values for avoiding
>obtrusive light.  Limits for restricting obtrusive light are available
>based on theoretical considerations.  For an international recommendation
>more information on limits following from "best practice" is needed.
>In the discussions, German research (Eberbach) and recent Australian
>comparisons of practical occurring values with desirable limits, were
>taken into account.  At this moment, an Australian investigation is on
>practical acceptable limits is underway, and an Australian Standard will
>be published shortly.  Fisher is planning a next TC meeting for August
>1994 in Europe (probably Eindhoven).  At that meeting, the results of
>the Australian investigation and a complete draft of the CIE Report will
>be available.
>
>TC5.13-94.03.22  CIE/ISO STANDARD FOR THE LIGHTING OF EXTERIOR WORKING
>AREAS.  A second draft of the proposed standard will be made available
>by the chairman this month.  A TC meeting in Newark is foreseen.

-- 

HOME: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  HAM  ka1eec
WORK: esj@temerity.polaroid.com   617.386.4687 

The trouble with incompetents is that you will never know when 
they will disappoint you and be competent.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com>
% Precedence: bulk
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Mon Sep  5 16:41:25 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.US (Eric S Johansson)
% Message-Id: <H.eg.Q8zEYygGp4E@harvee.billerica.ma.us>
% Organization: gators 'r us
% Subject: USNC/CIE September 1994 Newsletter (fwd)
% To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Mon, 05 Sep 1994 14:55:46 -0500
% Reply-To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com

From:	US1RMC::"nelpag@yeehah.merk.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 22-SEP-1994 
To:	yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU
CC:	
Subj:	NELPAG Circular 9

NELPAG Circular No. 9                                     1994 September 21

New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG)

Editor:     Daniel W. E. Green [Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory;
             60 Garden Street; Cambridge, MA  02138]  (telephone 617-495-7440)
             e-mail:  green@cfa (.bitnet, .span, or .harvard.edu)

Secretary:  Eric Johansson     (telephone 508-667-0137)
             email:  esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  or  esj@temerity.polaroid.com

     "Subscription" to this irregular news/information Circular is
available by sending self-addressed, stamped (29-cent) regular-sized
(9.5x4-inch) envelopes (SASE) to Dan Green at his postal address, or
by sending your e-mail address to either Dan or Eric using the e-mail
addresses above.  Contributed information for this Circular concerning
outdoor lighting problems in New England (or pertinent info from
outside New England) are welcomed.  Please circulate this newsletter
to all interested parties. 

                                  ***********

ANNUAL JOINT IDA/S&T/NELPAG MEETING ON 1994 OCTOBER 22

     Eight people from Maine (J. Stockman, P. Talmage, T. Dater) and
Massachusetts (B. Volz, S. O'Meara, B. Wylie, D. Green, E. Johansson)
met on September 18 in Portsmouth, NH, to plan the details of the
agenda for the October 22 meeting in Kennebunkport, Maine, which was
announced in NELPAG Circular 6. 

     Directions to the meeting location:  driving northward on the
Maine Turnpike (I-95), get off at exit 2; after the toll booth, take a
left onto Route 109 and go one mile to Route 1; turn left onto Route 1
and go 2 miles; turn right onto Route 9 and go about 5-6 miles, past
two sets of traffic lights; soon after the second set of lights,
you'll cross the Kennebunk River; about 100 yards past the river, as
you're passing through the center of Kennebunkport, you'll pass a
monument; at the monument, turn left into a large parking lot; park
and walk to the Community Center (where our meeting will take place),
the back of which is visible at the right rear of this parking lot. 
(Alternatively, you could go a little past this parking lot and come
to Spring Street, turn left, and you'll come to the front of the
Community Center on your left; you can park on the street.) 

     It would be helpful if those planning to attend the main meeting
would contact Dan in advance, so we can get an idea of rough numbers. 
There will be no registration fee, thanks to the generous support of
Sky & Telescope, and all are invited to attend.  The actual meeting
will take place from 1:00 to about 7:00 p.m. at the Community House on
Spring Street in Kennebunkport. The planned agenda is given below.  We
will have dinner (likely together) between 7 and 9 p.m. at one or more
of the local restaurants.  Then, at 9:00 p.m., we will meet at St.
Monica's Church (parking lot) on North Street for the start of a
nighttime tour of outdoor lighting in the Kennebunks area, led by the
local group.  The Kennebunkport group has been very successful in
developing workable local ordinances for good outdoor lighting, and
this annual meeting is being held in Kennebunkport chiefly to look at
what has worked and why. 

AGENDA, Saturday, October 22

1:00 p.m. --- Introduction (Peter Talmage)
1:05 --- International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) Update (David Crawford,
         IDA President)
1:25 --- Understanding Luminance, Illuminance, and Glare, and their effect
         on people (Bob Wylie, lighting engineer)
1:45 --- The Kennebunkport Lighting Ordinance and Draft Lighting Policy
         (Peter Talmage, Chair, Kennebunkport Lighting Committee)
2:15 --- Lighting Ordinances in Other Maine Towns (James Stockman, lighting
         consultant, J. & M. Associates)
2:35 --- State of Maine Lighting Ordinance --- Peter Talmage
2:50 --- Working with the Maine Lighting Ordinance and How it Could be Modified
         (Lawrence Bartlett, Lighting Consultant, Enterprise Engineering)
3:05 --- Break, informal discussion
3:30 --- Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting booklet:  a Status Report and Review
         of the Current Draft (Dan Green, Smithsonian Observatory astronomer; 
         and Steve O'Meara, Assistant Editor of Sky & Telescope magazine)
4:00 --- Video presentation on outdoor lighting fixtures in the Kennebunkport
         area (Peter Talmage)
4:20 --- The latest in Good and Bad Outdoor Lighting Fixtures (James Stockman)
4:50 --- Update on Lighting at Wesleyan University (Arthur R. Upgren, Van
         Vleck Observatory)
5:05 --- Update on Lighting at the University of Maine at Orono (Alan
         Davenport, director, Maynard Jordan Planetarium)
5:20 --- New Cut-off Lighting offerings by Central Maine Power Co.
         (Len Noyes, C.M.P.)
5:35 --- Time slot for unannounced short topics from participants
6:00 --- General panel discussion on all topics
7:00 --- Conclusion of meeting
7:00-9:00 --- dinner in local restaurants
9:00 --- beginning of Kennebunks outdoor lighting tour (meet at parking
         lot of St. Monica's Church on North Street, Kennebunkport)

MODERATELY-PRICED LODGINGS IN THE KENNEBUNKPORT AREA

  [note:  make reservations well ahead of time, to ensure that you get a
          room; this is a tourist area]

The Beachwood Motel (Route 9, Kennebunkport; 207-967-2483)
The Kings Port Motor Inn (Route 9, Kennebunk Lower Village; 207-967-4340)
The Turnpike Motel (Exit 3 off I-95; Route 35, Kennebunk; 207-985-4404)
The Kennebunk Galley Motel (Route 1 south; 207-985-4543)
Econo Lodge at Kennebunk (Route 1 south; 207-985-6100)

                                  ***********  

    Enclosure [postal mail only]:  copy of news note on French "light balloons"

                                  ***********  

NOTE:  When sending SASEs to Dan for your subscription to the printed NELPAG
 Circular, please write the Circular number on the back of the envelope; he's
 losing track of who's getting which issue!  So, if you've run out after
 receiving this particular issue (No. 9), send three more SASEs, and number
 them 10, 11, and 12 on the back side.

                                  ***********  

The NELPAG supports the International Dark-Sky Association and recommends
that all individuals/groups who are interested in the problems of light
pollution and obtrusive lighting should subscribe to the IDA Newsletter
(IDA membership costs $20.00 per year; send check to
International Dark-Sky Association, 3545 N. Stewart, Tucson, AZ  85716).

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Sender: <nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com>
% Precedence: bulk
% X-Info: Urban dark skies in our lifetime.
% X-Info: Accepted by nelpag distribution list at Thu Sep 22 10:40:22 EDT 1994
% X-Info: Submissions to nelpag@yeehah.merk.com
% X-Info: Change requests to nelpag-request@yeehah.merk.com
% Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 10:39:36 -0400
% Message-Id: <9409221439.AA21009@cfa.harvard.edu>
% From: dan%cfaps1.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (green@cfa.harvard.edu;
        telephone 617-495-7440) 
% To: yeehah.merk.com..nelpag%cfa.DECNET@cfa.HARVARD.EDU
% Subject: NELPAG Circular 9
% Reply-To: nelpag@yeehah.merk.com