Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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 ; Sat, 7 Oct 89 03:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 7 Oct 89 03:24:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #118 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 118 Today's Topics: The End of Galileo Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? Re: Human contamination? Re: First group of prospective astronau Re: Magellan summary? Re: The End of Galileo Astronaut Selection October 4, 1989 Re: What's Wrong With HR2674 Contamination of Jupiter (philosophy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Tue, 3 Oct 89 18:02 CST From: CHRISTOPHER%GACVAX1.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU Subject: The End of Galileo I have read and heard about the Galileo spacecraft's 22 month mission at Jupiter, which will end about October 1997. Does anyone know what will happen then? Will the spacecraft be shut down? Does it plunge into Jupiter (because of the 10 satellite-gravity assists)? Is this how long its RTG's are supposed to last? Does someone have some information on this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Just click your heels together Christopher Kane three times and say, 'There's CHRISTOP@GACVAX1.BITNET no place like home. There's Gustavus Adolphus College no place like home.'" St. Peter, MN 56082 -- Glinda, the Good Witch U.S.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 89 19:31:00 GMT From: ima!mirror!frog!john@decvax.dec.com (John Woods) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <8909272147.AA01656@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: > cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!wayne@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: > > So if there's "bugs" on Jupiter, > >they're certainly deserving at least as much evolutionary "respect" as > >anything on Earth, probably having evolved to a large degree as much as we > >have. > Well, you don't get anywhere without taking risks, or the fish would never > have crawled out of the ocean (credit: Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy). Yeah, and LOOK what a MESS those damned fish made of that NICE, PRISTINE land surface! [Paid for by The Committee To Return Earth To Its Pristine Original State -- A Sphere Of Molten Slag] Considering that evolution is all about adapting to new environments, with said adaptation generally taking quite a long time, I'd bet long odds that if there IS any life on Jupiter, it will make short work of any terrestrial microbes that do make it. Jupiter will represent a thoroughly novel environment for the Earth bugs, placing them at a severe (and most likely fatal) disadvantage. Or do you somehow think that Earth life is so obviously superior to anything Jupiter can crank out that Jovian life can't possibly measure up? -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA 508-626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 89 18:26:01 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!radio.astro!helios.physics!utpsych!michael@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Gemar) Subject: Re: Human contamination? In article <1989Oct2.104052.5915@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> golchowy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Gerald Olchowy) writes: > >Perhaps we are genetically programmed to contaminate the universe. >The earth, as we all know, has a finite lifetime. In order for >the DNA-based life on this planet to survive, it must ultimately >leave for space. Perhaps this is why self-conscious intelligent >creatures evolved on this planet. The dinosaurs roamed this >planet for a lot longer than man, but they vulnerable to an >ecological catastrophe...an encounter with a massive meteor (perhaps!). >Perhaps intelligence became favored in evolution, because it is >it is evolution's current attempt to insure survival of DNA-based >life, by contaminating the universe with it. > [other comments deleted] >Department of Chemistry >University of Toronto And space advocates complain of the lack of a basic understanding of science! The above argument implies some sort of *purpose* for evolution, some *goal*, not directly determined by the current environment, towards which all life is headed. While popular prior to the twentieth century, in large part due to this view's compatibility with religious beliefs of the times, this is definitely *not* the position of *any* (respectible) geneticist or evolutionary biologist. As those scientists will tell you, there is no *WHY* to evolution, beyond the proximal effects of the environment. There is no *reason* for evolution, no *purpose*. To say otherwise is pure hokum (rather reminiscent of some New Age "thinking"), and dangerous hokum at that, as it implies that domination of the universe (and a concommitent disregard for all other life-forms) is somehow our genetic "destiny," and therefore OK. I apologize for the tirade, but while I expect such fuzzy thinking from non-scientists, to find it in this forum is very disturbing. Of course, unless the original post was meant as a joke without smileys, in which case disregard all of the above :-) - michael ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 89 06:44:26 GMT From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!noe@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: First group of prospective astronau hine@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (Butler Hine) writes: > In article <1989Sep27.014956.2450@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >... NASA openly admits to a select-from-within bias. > > This is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since the bias is well > known, almost everyone who is serious about becoming a NASA astronaut > goes to work for NASA. Some of us would have done it anyway, though. > > Butler Hine > NASA Ames Research Center > hine@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov Congratulations on your selection as one of the 100 or so finalists for this year's group of ASCANs, Butler P. Hine III, Ph.D. of Cupertino, CA. Yes, the bias is well known. But it is clearly not true that "almost everyone who is serious about becoming a NASA astronaut goes to work for NASA". The Astronaut Selection Office can confirm this. The entire point is that a disproportionate number of applicants from the U.S. military branches and from within NASA are actually selected as astronaut candidates. NASA admittedly gives extra points to these applicants, discriminating against civilians. Why doesn't NASA make it a requirement that applicants first work for the U.S. government? It might violate federal laws. The other question is whether it's a good idea for NASA to practice this, as opposed to giving equal consideration to civilian applicants. Several congressmen have argued that the civilian astronaut corps is in danger of disappearing because of this acknowledged selection criteria. By the way, with the second group of prospects announced, the totals now stand at 7 NASA employees, 21 military officers, and 12 others being considered. However, with Butler Hine identified as a NASA employee (he was one of the "others" in the second group), that at least changes the numbers to 8, 21, and 11, respectively. I wonder how many other NASA employees were not explicitly identified in those press releases. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 89 03:59:04 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Magellan summary? In article <3486@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG> al@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG (Al Viall) writes: >[Galileo] would make a double earth flyby(i.e. the VEEGA track). >Why was this track chosen, considering that it would be more fruitfull to >just get the craft to Jupiter in one piece. Everyone would prefer to get it to Jupiter directly. For one thing, it would shorten the mission and reduce the chances of problems developing before the Jupiter part. But it *can't get there* directly. The upper stage that could have sent it there -- Centaur G-prime -- was cancelled due to shuttle safety hysteria in the wake of Challenger. So Galileo has to make do with the lousy old IUS, and that means playing gravitational ping-pong in the inner solar system for a while to build up more velocity. -- Nature is blind; Man is merely | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology shortsighted (and improving). | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 89 04:03:34 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: The End of Galileo In article CHRISTOPHER@GACVAX1.BITNET writes: >I have read and heard about the Galileo spacecraft's 22 month mission >at Jupiter, which will end about October 1997. Does anyone know what >will happen then? ... It runs out of maneuvering fuel. (In fact, with the precautions being taken to avoid problems with the slightly-buggy thruster design, it may end up having to sacrifice one of the asteroid encounters or one or two of the Jupiter-satellite encounters; the new maneuvering sequences are less fuel-efficient.) No fuel, no attitude control, no antenna pointing for communication, finis. The Voyagers had it easy; Galileo gets to do a *lot* of maneuvering, even with careful use of satellite gravity assists. -- Nature is blind; Man is merely | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology shortsighted (and improving). | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 18:45 EDT From: NUTSY FAGEN Subject: Astronaut Selection I'd like to know how one goes about becoming an astronaut. (Doesn't everyone, right?) I'm currently a 3rd year Engineering student at RIT. When I graduate in 2 1/2 years, I'll have a minimum 4 year commitment to the Navy (ROTC). In the meantime, I'll have 1 year's worth of co-op employment to find. Are there any 'preferred' positions in either the civilian or Navy worlds which would be a help in the astronaut applications process? And, how soon is 'normal' to apply, be accepted, etc. If this has been covered in detail recently, please steer me to the proper archive. Thanks ______________ Mike Bunnell | ________ | MJB8949@RITVAX | | ___ | | This is the best footer | | |___| | | you're gonna get :) | |_______ |__________ ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 89 19:58:49 GMT From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!wats@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bruce Watson) Subject: October 4, 1989 This the th32nd anniversary of the start of satellite space science and there has been no mention of it on the video news media. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 89 20:25:27 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What's Wrong With HR2674 In article <8910040157.AA01461@trout.nosc.mil> jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: >> .... I think it is high time we started blowing up >>a few experimental rockets again. Progress requires setbacks... >Blowing up experimental rockets is fine, as long as the risk is shared >fairly among the parties involved... A government >launch facility getting blown up by a private company is every citizen's >business... That's right. It is traditionally the government's business to do, or at least assist, high-risk R&D. It is every citizen's business to insist that some launch facilities get blown up now and then, as a sign that the government is doing its job properly. NASA, in particular, should be damaging launch facilities occasionally, in the same way that the aeronautics side of NASA crashes aircraft occasionally. If there are no setbacks, it is probably because no progress is being made. (There aren't, and none is.) >As a taxpayer, I would insist on some safety regulation in >that situation. Range safety, particularly in an environment of limited >liability and "hands off" regulation of the novel technical aspects of >the launcher by the government, must be regulated in all cases... Please note that I never said anything to the contrary. Obviously, experimental aircraft work does not deliberately set out to produce crashes, either maliciously or through carelessness. (Clearly we are not talking about the occasional deliberate crash done to examine things like crashworthiness.) Indeed, efforts are made to avoid crashes. But they are nevertheless an accepted part of the activity, and everyone realizes that they can't be avoided if technical progress is desired. Experimental aircraft are tested cautiously and gradually, but you can't insist that they be mil-spec and proven safe before you let them onto the runway. >>HR2674 seems likely to benefit, primarily, General Dynamics, Martin Marietta, >>and McDonnell Douglas... >This is a very interesting statement and runs counter to the intent >of everyone involved with the writing of the legislation. Could you >explain why it is that HR2674 would end up creating more of an >advantage for the big three over small carriers than they enjoy now? Because they are the established carriers, the ones with demonstrated and well-proven hardware (we'll ignore the fact that they're constantly building new versions, e.g. the "off the shelf" procurement of Navstar launch services that bought a version of Delta that did not exist and had never flown) that was originally mil-spec. It's the same reason why IBM sells so many computers: not because they're good, but because "nobody ever got fired for buying from IBM". In an environment where there is little incentive to reduce costs and much incentive to avoid failures, the traditional contractors are the clear choices. -- Nature is blind; Man is merely | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology shortsighted (and improving). | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 18:19:55 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Contamination of Jupiter (philosophy) >From: cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu!wayne@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Wayne Hayes) >Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? >First think of the same thing happenning here on Earth about 800 million >years ago. >... So if there's "bugs" on Jupiter, >they're certainly deserving at least as much evolutionary "respect" as >anything on Earth... This is the basic "right-to-life" philosophy ("the potential for the existence of an organism is of exactly the same importance and value as an existing organism"), carried to its logical limit. Killing a mouse wipes out a creature which could very plausibly evolve into a sentient being within 100 million years. Stepping on an acorn is as bad as cutting down a whole forest of future oak trees. Spaying your cat should get you arrested for cruelty to its descendants. Any failure on your part to engage in reproductive activity whenever possible robs potential humans of existence :-) >...So 800 million years ago some extra-terrestrials come >mosying by and say of the Earth, "Gee, look, nothing more than sub-insects >here. Let's colonize it." Then there wouldn't be any complaints, because we wouldn't be here to do the complaining. Suppose we were to contact an ancient alien race, and find out that they had visited the earth many millions of years ago, and had wiped out the dinosaurs, making it possible for us to evolve. Should we cuss them out for robbing the dinosaurs of their rightful place? Suppose they had kept some dinosaurs in storage. Should we demand that they kill us off and repopulate the earth with dinosaurs, so things would be the way they were "supposed" to be? >The potential loss of an advanced ecosystem >totally different than any other is, at the very least, a massive >scientific loss in the far future. (Sheesh! Imagine studying the evolution >of life on a non-Earth planet for millions of years!! Right here in our >own back yard!! That would be the ultimate government project. Just sit around and watch primitive life forms evolve for a few hundred million years. Talk about job security! :-) Seriously, you could do it much more cheaply and easily on earth, using isolated groups of earth organisms. >...but I just strongly believe that we have no right "Right" in this context evolved as an anthropomorphic, secular concept regarding conduct toward sentient beings. By extension, there is a moral or ethical interest in the well-being of non-sentient organisms which are thought to be capable of experiencing pain or emotions. Some extremists suggest that nonsentient organisms should enjoy the full rights and privileges of sentient beings, though as a compromise they are usually willing to restrict this policy to "cute, furry animals", with the added provision "not in my living room". A few posters have introduced the additional (perhaps "New Age") concept that humans should be cautious in their treatment of inanimate matter *for the sake of the inanimate matter itself*. Thus humans have no right to colonize the moon, because that would infringe upon the moon's right to sit there and be a lifeless hunk of rock. I happen to disagree with this philosophy. I feel that any such caution should be directed toward a concern for the well-being and aesthetic interests of humans, and the well-being of other life. Thus, I might object to a plan to paint a mountain yellow, not because it might "hurt" the mountain, but because I would consider it offensive in appearance, and because it would harm the local wildlife. >...to go screwing around with an environment we know nothing about. If it really were "nothing", I would agree. However, it is believed that we know enough about conditions on Jupiter to predict with high confidence that there are no locations where the introduction of earth microorganisms would make any difference. Even if there are, there is no guarantee that Galileo would contaminate Jupiter, so a discovery of favorable conditions by the probe would indicate that future probes should use more stringent precautions. As someone has pointed out, it is not practical to take infinite precautions when there is no indication that they will be needed. >Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wayne@csri.toronto.edu CompuServe: 72401,3525 John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #118 *******************