Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Fri, 10 Mar 89 05:17:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 10 Mar 89 05:16:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #285 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 285 Today's Topics: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again) Re: arf! Black hole trolling Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again) Re: arf! (Paul Dietz barking... :-)) Re: Babies born in space. NASA Bulletins request Solar Eclipses -- any effect on Satellites? Re: Photo identification? Re: arguments ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Mar 89 22:26:04 GMT From: asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah@noao.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) Subject: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again) minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) writes: > >Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes >over manned missions. > The subject line says it all. A good poll is at best a poor random sample taken by a group usually advocating or opposing the subject of the poll. A good PR man can write a poll which has leading questions which make the result inevitably what he/she wants it to be. Psychology in action. You could probably commission a poll and have the results come out in favor of banning all forms of civilization and crawling back into the trees! All it takes is the right pollster. So I repeat an earlier call. What is the source of this poll? Unless I see the poll, and the questions put forth, I remain skeptical. (Of course, I'm skeptical about most things :-) :-) :-) :-) ). ********************************************************************** Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah standard disclaimer implied Useful criticism always appreciated. Senseless flames always discarded. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 89 13:49:11 GMT From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: arf! In article <253@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >This [experiments in fetal development in zero gee] is one of the many >things that can't be done with robot probes. The only way we are ever >going to find out is to put up a permanent space station, raise some >animals in it (you don't want to try this with humans first!), and see what >happens. Why is it not possible to launch pregnant rats (for example) in an unmanned returnable capsule? >Of course, the robots-can-do-everything people don't seem to think >there's a bit of value in this kind of research. After all, I can hear >them say, living in zero-g is utterly pointless; we should wait until >we've got gravity generators. (arf!) Or, nobody in the entire future >history of the human race is ever going to want to live in space, so >it's an irrelevant question. (arf! arf!) One need not believe that "robots can do everything" to think that sending men into space now is a waste of money. Nor is anyone, as far as I know, proposing building "gravity generators", unless Mike means spinning structures. The parodic statement that no one in the history of the human race is ever going to want to live in space is especially interesting. Mike, are you proposing that if research is going to be useful anytime in the future, no matter how distant the application, then we must spend as much as possible *right now* on that research? I'll suppose you'll next be pushing for NASA to start a crash research program on FTL starships (arf!). Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1989 13:39-EST From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Black hole trolling What would happen if someone dropped a sensor on a tether through the event horizon of a black hole while in orbit just above the event horizon? Would the tensile strength be guaranteed to be exceeded for an arbitrarily small distance across the membrane? Would reeling it in require "infinite energy"? My intuition says it won't work, but won't tell me why... ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 89 06:30:27 GMT From: ube.CS.ORST.EDU!willitd@cs.orst.edu (Don Willits) Subject: Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation At the last Lunar Base & Space Activities symposium in Houston (April 88), there was some discussion about teleoperation. One gentlemen (I don't remember his name) described an experiment in which a TV camera and remote driving set-up was installed on a Go-Kart. A five second time delay was then created between the camera's transmission and the video display where the driver was seated. The driver then had to negotiate an obstacle course of moderate difficulty. And in every case, nobody was able to successfully negotiate the course. This is strictly second hand - it might be interesting for someone out there with more electronic equipment than I (and a go-kart - or something equally useful) to experiment with this - and give a little bit better results than my memory. Don Willits willitd@urania.cs.orst.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 89 03:05:31 GMT From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org (Jonathan Leech) Subject: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again) In article <67@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: > minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) writes: >>Polls show that the public prefers unmanned planetary probes >>over manned missions. >The subject line says it all. A good poll is at best a poor random sample >taken by a group usually advocating or opposing the subject of the poll. Furthermore, the answers may seem to say what you want until examined carefully. An example that comes to mind is a poll I saw in the NY Times a few years ago asking whether people thought more money should be spent on various types of gov't activities. NASA got ~65% in favor. Wonderful, right? More than half the population wants an expanded space program. - - - Well, no. NASA was next to *bottom* of the list. The usual social programs were at the top. Guess who wins in a time of massive deficits, if only this poll were considered. Simply put, the public doesn't give a damn about space compared to day-to-day quality of life issues, and neither do the politicians. The poll Nick quotes may be honest and perfectly correct, and also be meaningless. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Those what cannot remedy the past can pretend to repeal it." - Attributed to Santa Ana by Owl ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 89 03:07:56 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: arf! (Paul Dietz barking... :-)) In article <1989Mar6.084911.4781@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >Why is it not possible to launch pregnant rats (for example) in an >unmanned returnable capsule? If all you're interested in is birth and the period immediately before and after, this should work. I don't think anybody's built an automatic life-support system that can keep rats alive and healthy for long periods in space, which is what you'd really like. (To judge by the Spacelab experience, we don't know how to keep *anything* alive and healthy up there if it isn't smart enough to use the Shuttle toilet...) -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 89 00:02:38 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpscdc!chris@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Chris Schiller) Subject: Re: Babies born in space. >/ hpscdc:sci.space / henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) / 5:11 pm Mar 4, 1989 >In article <8Y42Wly00XokQ3qUUv@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes: >>What would be the reactions of an child conceived in space, >>who spend its featal time in space, is born in space, live a few >>years in space ? > >Nobody knows. For a guess, development before birth would probably be >nearly normal, since the fetus is pretty much weightless (floating in >fluid). Details might differ, perhaps important ones. Afterwards, it's >impossible to say. I think I once heard that cell differentiation may be in part affected by gravity. I'm a little suprised that noone has performed any of these experiments... Chris Schiller hplabs!hpscdc!hpsctcd!chris chris%hpsctcd@hplabs.hp.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 89 16:45:39 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!charlie@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Charlie Thompson) Subject: NASA Bulletins request This is to TS Kelso: I enjoy the NASA prediction bulletins and use them for NOAA tracking MIR, AO-13, etc. There are however some satellites in your list that I know nothing about. Could you possibly post one or two sentences describing each one? I'm sure most people in rec.ham-radio and sci.space would find it interesting reading. I use QT 3.2 for NOAA tracking. I receive images using an R-7000 and hombrew IBM board along with MF 3.3 for display software. Regards, Charlie Thompson WB4HVD Motorola DSP Operation Austin, TX ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 89 11:54:38 GMT From: shelby!Portia!hanauma.stanford.edu!joe@decwrl.dec.com (Joe Dellinger) Subject: Solar Eclipses -- any effect on Satellites? The eclipse today got me to thinking; does anything special happen when a satellite sails through the umbra of the moon? Is there any special precaution that has to be taken against the "unexpected" heat/cold shock? Has a satellite ever taken a picture of the moon in front of the sun? Etc? \ /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ \ / \ / \ /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___ \/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu decvax!hanauma!joe\/\.-._ ------------------------------ Sender: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM Date: 7 Mar 89 09:33:25 PST (Tuesday) Subject: Re: Photo identification? From: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM Cc: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM It appears that the 1615 is a time (probably GMT) and 26FE79 is the date. Since the times are 30 minutes apart, one has to assume that these were taken by a geosynchronous satellite (low orbit satellites can't see the same place a half hour later), so probably a weather satellite. The interesting thing about the date and time is that at about 1630 GMT on that date, a total eclipse of the sun was passing through the area of Yakima Washington (I was there observing the eclipse). I have seen weather satellite shots taken at this time to show the movement of the moon's shadow passing over the earth during an eclipse, but the shots should be of Washington, not the Sacramento California area, which is where the probable latitude and longitude lie (39N, 121W). If the pictures cover an extremely wide area (like several states), then perhaps this is the famous pair to show the shadow moving. But I must end this message now, as I have to go outside to observe a solar eclipse (only partial though) going on as I write this message. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 89 17:54:12 GMT From: asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks@noao.edu (John Sparks) Subject: Re: arguments To Nick Szabo: I apologize for my rude response the other day. I was feeling irritated and I didn't realize how bad my first letter (the one you quoted) sounded. I got irritated thinking that you irresponsibly cut and pasted my message to suit your own meanings. What I didn't realize was what my message actually sounded like. I am not the most eloquent writer. I was not implying that anyone was completly closed to the view points of the other side. It's just that I see it as each group feels very strongly about their particular viewpoints and it would take an absolute irrefutable arguement to convince either of them to take the side of the other. Now, this is just my opinion. I don't think anyone can come up with an no-holes irrefutable arguement. It's too easy to find some piece of information somewhere that will support the other sides viewpoint and refuting the first sides arguement. But, also, like Paul recently said: >Actually, our positions are not all *that* far apart. Mostly, the >difference is in how fast we expect launch costs to drop. I expect >they will come down slowly. Henry (and many others, I hazard) are >counting on private firms to do orders of magnitude better than NASA, >and to do it soon. My mind would be changed if someone could >demonstrate that launch costs would be (picking numbers out the air) >$200/lb to LEO in fifteen years, from the current $4K/lb or so (would >anything change *your* mind?). Past history is not reassuring. I >don't see costs coming down if NASA continues to spend so little money >on developing new launcher technologies. Ah well, maybe ALS or NASP >will save us (:->). > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu I agree! (wonders upon wonders!) Even though I support manned space flight right now, I think NASA is failing at it miserably. The Shuttle program has become nothing more than a space freight service for satelite launching/repair, a space taxi, and lab for DOD experiments for SDI. That's wrong and a waste of money. NASA should be a scientific organization dedicated to expanding man's knowledge in space. Here is where the manned/unmanned group disagrees: I think that we need both men and machines in space *now*; the unmanned group thinks that men should wait because it's too expensive. I think that if NASA would allow/help private industry to do what they do with the shuttle now, and started working on some other innovative ventures, we would be better off. NASA should put effort into the space plane project, unmanned and manned exploration of the planets, and yes the space station (although I would like to see a lunar base too) And once NASA has the space plane worked out, they could pass that technology down to the private industry also. Scaled down a bit in performance, it would make a terrific sub-orbital passenger plane, eh? NASA should stick to R & D and leave the routine to industry. In my opinion, that would justify the money spent. If NASA spent $XXX billion on developing a space plane, then did with it what they do with the shuttle (ACME Satelite repair) then the money would be wasted. However, If they let private industry take the space plane and use the technology to start our own space satelite repair service, and improve our jet liners, It would be a tremendous return on investment. And NASA would be free to go on and explore/discover new frontiers. -- John Sparks // Amiga | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks \X/ UUCP | >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 << Beware of quantum ducks: Quark, Quark. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #285 *******************