From ota Tue Jun 21 03:07:19 1988 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04751; Tue, 21 Jun 88 03:07:04 PDT id AA04751; Tue, 21 Jun 88 03:07:04 PDT Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 03:07:04 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806211007.AA04751@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #259 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 259 Today's Topics: Re: A New Holiday? Re: dialing for dollars that Canadian guy again Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) Anonymous quotes and NASA corruption NASA apologist rantings NSS... Re: More on anti-matter Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto Re: Shroud of Turin (Re: Ruskies find Heaven ...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 May 88 05:03:15 GMT From: okstate!richard@rutgers.edu (Richard Brown) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? >From article <8998@oberon.USC.EDU>, by robiner@ganelon.usc.edu (Steve): > In article <24337@bbn.COM> mfidelma@BBN.COM () writes: >>Does anybody else out there think that July 20 (the day of the first moon >>landing) should be a recognized holiday? > > I think it's a marvelous idea. It could be called moon-day and it would > remind everyone how important space exploration is. It would also be a > yearly event during which media would undoubtedly seize on to demonstrate > how far we've come in the last year. ( let's not start until 1989, OK? ) All RiGGGGGHHHTTTTTTT!!!!!! This makes much better sense than manny of the holidays now celebrated! BTW, I have maintained for many years that event made a united civilization at least conceptually possible, if not necessarily immanent(sp)(i'm a computist, not a writer). Alas, it appears that anyone interested in being a part of such a civilization in the near term at least, had better be very familier with the cryllic alphabet......... Someone has pointed out that 'Mir'means 'peace' like "the war is over, -- We won" We lost a tiny handfull of much-celebrated explorers following the dream to the moon and beyond - and we stopped 'dead in the water'. In more robust days, we launched a great many expeditions westward and celebrated those who happened to return alive. Where has all our spirit gone? enough blather - richard -- Richard Brown, Oklahoma State University, Computer Science UUCP: {cbosgd, ihnp4, rutgers}!okstate!richard ARPA: richard@A.CS.OKSTATE.EDU BITNET: ....CISXRVB ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 88 16:17:51 GMT From: actnyc!jsb@uunet.uu.net (The Invisible Man) Subject: Re: dialing for dollars I would like to propose that future I.Q. tests include the following question: "Is it appropriate to post articles asking for money on the net?" I suspect a 'No' answer to this question would correlate highly with intelegence thus adding to the reliability of I.Q. measurement. However: In article <11148@apple.Apple.Com> grady@apple.UUCP (Grady Ward) writes: )Recently on the net I've seen a few messages asking for money. The )senders supply such worthy reasons as education, feeding a starving )sister, and so on. ) )Taking advantage of this trend, I would like to ask you all for money, )too. ) [ discriptions of the good fortune of the Grady Bunch deleted. ] )Less than a year ago, I founded a Hi-IQ club which now has over 130 )members around the world, I got a recent copy of the society's newsletter (Grady will send you one if you ask) and, aside from an interesting short piece by weemba, I find talk.bizarre better written and more informative. Well, maybe I mean more written and better informative? One article that particularly bothered me in this journal, a discussion of possible gender bias in I.Q. measurement, ends by saying that "only time and extensive research will prove" whether or not, if a cognative "difference exists" beteween men and women, "... it [can] truly be used as a marker of superiority in the hierarchical ranking of peoples". Sounds bizarre to me. If one rates high enough in the hierarchical ranking of peoples, one is entitled to disrupt newsfroups at will asking for spare change. Since I rate really high in the h.r. of p. too, I am continuing the disruption by not removing any of the froups of the original posting. Any of you folks who also rate high in the h. r. are invited to join me. And bring your lawn darts. -- "Notitiae gratia notitiarum" jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb) ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 88 17:33:59 GMT From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Subject: that Canadian guy again >"For perfect safety... sit on a fence| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >and watch the birds." --Wilbur Wright| {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry Not content to flame our all-American Post Office, now Henry The Foriegner is abusing his position in Zoology to slur our bicycle makers! And in sci.SPACE! I bet he's a Space Alien -- does anybody know if his socks match? (sorry, Henry; I'm feelin' my wierds today.) ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 16:15:11 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question) >From article <3606@okstate.UUCP>, by richard@a.cs.okstate.edu (Richard Brown): > Is my memory playing tricks on me? I had always thought the actual > _landing_ took place on 19 July (Oklahoma time). The EVA was > postponed until the crew had rested, &c. The "...giant leap for > mankind" occurred after midnight. Yes, your memory is a day out - the landing was on 20 July at 2017:45 UT which is 20 July at 1517:45 Oklahoma time (I think?); the EVA was something like 0200-0300 UT on 21 July, or late evening 20 July US time. Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Mon, 30 May 88 12:49:08 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Anonymous quotes and NASA corruption I have, on several occasions, quoted or paraphrased individuals in the aerospace industry without providing their exact positions or other identifying information on a variety of issues. This is necessary because NASA has demonstrated repeatedly that it does not hesitate to engage in corrupt practices to suppress dissent. Since I am totally independent of aerospace funding, I can act as a mouthpiece for some of these people. The Justice Department is not interested in pursuing these issues and neither is the FBI. Agents in both organizations express regret at being unauthorized to pursue anonymous complaints and I cannot divulge the names of the individuals involved due to their sensitive positions. I've seen some of the best and brightest of this country broken by NASA corruption and am powerless to do anything about it. Maybe this bitterness has come through in my messages more than it should if I were a perfect statesman, but I'm not. I'm a citizen concerned at the tens of thousands of lives being wasted by malfeasance and corruption in NASA. If you had a wife and kids and mortgage to protect, you might understand the hesitance to come forth publically and risk everything for an ideal. If you want identification of my sources, you'll have to earn my and their trust. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: pnet01!jim@trout.nosc.mil Date: Mon, 30 May 88 13:20:57 PDT From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: NASA apologist rantings There has been a lot of disinformation thrown around about my statements and positions in an attempt to make it appear that I am engaging in slander, libel, idiocy and attacks on the general public or something. This is a tactic I've run into before -- if you want a group of naive people to go after someone who you don't like, make the group think the person you don't like is a danger to them all. Unfortunately, there is a high correlation between being naive and liking NASA so this is a particularly effective tactic on computer networks and in space enthusiast groups when you want the naive among them to go after someone critical of NASA or your position as a NASA apologist. Just for the record here are a few things I am NOT saying: I am NOT saying Scott Pace or any other NSS board member is breaking the law (violating the Hatch Act or anything else). I AM saying that some individuals in positions of influence over POLITICAL ACTION in NSS are too closely tied to aerospace funding to be considered ethical and that this ethical violation is also a violation of the INTENT of the Hatch Act. I am NOT saying that we should terminate or even reduce government spending on space or that by so doing we would end up with lots of companies automatically rushing into space businesses. I AM saying that we can create a space MARKETPLACE (as opposed to just a spoon- fed aerospace industry) by associating full funding directly with each space objective independently so that those pursuing these objectives can purchase launch services and facility use from any source they choose. This is exactly the intent of Reagan's space policy wherein he supports launch vouchers for space scientists to let them launch on any service they like. As in any other marketplace, if foreign competition is government subsidized, appropriate tariffs and other actions are necessary. Since all systems developments have supposedly been in service of space research objectives, and since development is more appropriately pursued by the private sector, I've concentrated on space research objectives. I am NOT saying that research programs are partisan -- I am saying that large development programs are partisan (due to porkbarrel) and that civil servants who lobby for such ARE violating the Hatch Act (not just the INTENT). There has been a lot more disinformation spread around but these are the main, and most damaging, items. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 May 88 14:43:54 CST From: Kamal Mehta Subject: NSS... To: "SPACE Digest..." I'm pretty new to this list, and also a lot of other space related activiies. Recently i saw a posting about the name change for National Space Society. I would appreciate if someone could enlighten me on what it is and what it does. Thanks... Kamal Mehta Bitnet: EAKMM@TTUVM1 Texas Tech University ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 21:41:20 GMT From: dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) Subject: Re: More on anti-matter In article <8805181623.AA01822@galileo.s1.gov> you write: >Paul Dietz writes the following on anti-matter: > >>Antimatter might be effective in a beam weapon. > >In a word, HAH! Such a beam weapon would not work in the atmosphere, as >an interaction with matter will cause a minimum 1900 MeV explosion per >anti-proton annihilated (about 1 MeV if positrons are used instead). >Such a huge amount of isotropic energy added to the beam will disperse >it real quick, setting off more explosions. This will all occur in or >just outside the nozzle! If one attempts to vacate a small volume of >space for an anti-matter pulse to travel through, say with a high power >laser, the same problem arises, though with many orders of magnitude >(like about 25) lower integrated cross-section. The same is true for >space based weapons, as the gas density is at least 1/cc and likelier to >be over 1000/cc. Current matter particle beam research is arguably >feasible in that one has only collisions rather than the very high >energy annihilations leading to beam dispersion. Of course I didn't mean a weapon to be used in the atmosphere. Jeez! And I suppose the disruption of antimatter beams by 1 atom/cc gas explains why CERN has not been able to store antiprotons in a storage ring, and therefore why they didn't detect the W and Z bosons. Care to explain how the annihilation of one of the antihydrogen atoms in a beam will "disperse [the beam] real quick"? I would think the annihilation products, which are penetrating, would not deposit any energy at all in something as nebulous as a particle beam. > >>An antimatter explosion would produce radiations not found in a >>conventional nuclear device. > >All that will be produced is a different energy spectrum of photons, >electrons, and neutrinos, as all of the other particles will decay or >annihilate on the order of a millionth of a second. One MAY be able to >produce neutrons, but that would require anti-proton - proton collisions >of very high energy (and luck). Such a branching is of very low >probability. Muons would travel up to a kilometer before decaying. Neutrons would be "produced" by liberating them from nuclei with which the antimatter interacts. I read, for example, that an antiproton annihilating in a uranium nucleus causes the emission of an average of 5+ neutrons. >This bomb will be as fallout-free as any nuclear device is. The fallout >of any nuclear explosion is due to the irradiated matter around the bomb >being blown up into the atmosphere (this includes the containment >mechanism of the bomb itself). It may be small, who knows the state of >current vaccum magnetic bottle experiments (extrapolated to room >temperature particle entrapment rather than solar core temperatures)? Fallout in current weapons is overwhelmingly fission products (condensed onto vaporized soil, etc.) Even in a large thermonuclear bomb, 50% of the energy comes from fission, I believe (mostly fission of U-238 by fusion neutrons). And who mentioned magnetic containment? >The big problem with anti-matter is in the production. As someone >stated earlier (and as was written up in a recent Science review), >anti-matter costs of order $10 million per milligram. The problem is >getting it in a usable form. SLAC, for example, has a 2 mile >accelerator to produce anti-particles. Then one needs another 2 mile >accelerator to slow them down again so that they can be handled and >contained, provided they were travelling in the correct direction to >begin with!. This all has to be done in a perfect vaccuum, otherwise >more 1900 MeV annihilations occur. Fun stuff, this anti-matter! > >Arnold Gill >Queen's University at Kingston >gill @ qucdnast.bitnet The SLC makes, cools and uses positrons, not antiprotons. "Perfect" vacuum is need? If I get just one gas atom anywhere in my system the whole thing blows up? Get serious. I note that if antimatter costs $10 million/millgram (it is currently far more expensive), a tactical radiation weapon containing 10 nanograms of antimatter would contain $100 worth of antimatter. Not much, although it would be lethal only out to maybe ten meters or less. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 05:09:42 GMT From: phri!dasys1!mikej@nyu.edu (Mike Johnston) Subject: Re: Ruskies find Heaven to the left of Pluto After reading this posting I am reminded of a book by the late Clifford D. Simak called "Project Pope" which has a storyline similar to the "Heaven found" thesis.... Interesting book though.... I shouldn't compare it with THIS though..... m.r.j -- Michael R. Johnston / cpmain!mrj Franchise Data Specialist ....cmcl2!phri!dasys1! Career Employment Services Inc. \ mikej ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 88 23:59:50 GMT From: valeria!wales@cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) Subject: Re: Shroud of Turin (Re: Ruskies find Heaven ...) In article <1034@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) writes: In article <1224@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mr Jack Campin) writes: The amazing pictures have been dubbed "the most fantastic Christian find since the Turin shroud." This part of the story may well be true. (Recall that the earliest written reference to the Shroud declares it to be a fake.) In the earliest written reference to the Shroud of Turin (a letter from Pierre d'Arcis, the bishop of the French diocese of Troyes), the bishop said the Shroud had been declared a fake by "the artist who painted it". The 1978 analysis of the Shroud of Turin showed conclusively that, what- ever the Shroud of Turin may be, it is not a painting. Hence, if some artist in the late 1300's claimed to have painted the Shroud, he was presumably lying. Actually, though, some Latin scholars have pointed out that the medieval verb meaning "to paint" (depignere) could also mean "to paint a copy". Additionally, Latin lacks the definite article (a word for "the"). The passage in question, therefore, could be translated either as "the art- ist who painted it" or "an artist who copied it". Ian Wilson discusses the Pierre d'Arcis correspondence at some length in his book, _The Shroud of Turin_. -- Rich Wales // UCLA CS Dept // wales@CS.UCLA.EDU // +1 (213) 825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA ...!(ucbvax,rutgers)!ucla-cs!wales ...!uunet!cs.ucla.edu!wales "Zounds! A Gorkon death station appears! Evasive action!" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #259 *******************