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 ; Sun, 8 Oct 89 05:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 8 Oct 89 05:28:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #124 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: Re: Dan Quayle, news media, toxicity Re: Astronaut Selection Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature) or Trump Station Re: Human contamination Re: "The Plan" HAM ballon launch - Oct 7th? Happy Birthday, Robert Goddard and Konstantin Tsilkovsky. The Sad Tale of Galileo, Centaur, and the Invincible 'Nauts Re: Astronaut Selection Re: RTGs, shuttle launch risks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 10:37:46 PDT From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Dan Quayle, news media, toxicity Kenneth Ng writes: >After trying many times, I am thoroughly convinced that for the most >part news organizations are more interested in selling papers than >the truth. Of course they are. Why do you think newspapers set the advertisements first, then fit the news into the space that's left? Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 17:32:02 GMT From: usc!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Astronaut Selection In article <1989Oct5.054849.19370@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >Does NASA have any official policy on using eye surgery to meet vision >requirements? Not that I'm aware of. But that doesn't really matter. There are thousands of would-be astronauts who meet the official specifications -- far more than NASA could ever use. So a lot of less-formal criteria come into play. For that matter, clearly one does not need perfect eyesight to be an astronaut. John Young wore glasses to make the first shuttle landing. (He'd been an astronaut for a long time, long enough for his eyes to deteriorate.) >> For that matter, avoid any other significant medical unknowns.) >Or not :-). Seems like a matter of individual choice to me. The point is, all it takes is one question mark to wash you out -- you are competing against lots of people, some of whom won't have that question mark. The lineup is long, and NASA can afford to be very picky. It is not enough to be good -- you have to be THE BEST. -- 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: 5 Oct 89 03:18:44 GMT From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net (nick szabo) Subject: Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature) or Trump Station In article <1989Oct3.034924.22317@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <31657@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: > >As I've mentioned before, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation >can block any US launch they feel like blocking, and they don't have to >give reasons. If Trump does something after his first launch that the >government doesn't like, he won't get to do it again. >-- The good news is, Donald Trump is very good at convincing governments to do things his way. He got his billions in Atlantic City because the inspectors granted licenses to his casinos and denied them to his competitors for various silly reasons. The bad news is, nobody has figured out a way to build a LEO Casino, even for Donald Trump prices. You can't fit very many slot machines into the $30 billion "Freedom". :-( BTW, I recommend the book "Trump", written by the man himself, as must reading for budding space entrepreneurs. We're gonna be dealing with government officials for a long time to come, and this guy knows how to do it. "Never get too attached to one deal or one approach. Most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first." Donald Trump -- -------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 15:22:32 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Human contamination >From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix!c05_ta06@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ta06) >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. ... >This is a misunderstanding of evolution. Things don't evolve "for" some >future purpose which has not come into effect yet. Agreeing that the causality could stand to be rephrased, I think that Gerald may still have an interesting point. >The only way evolution could directly produce organisms evolved to conquer >space, would be if in the past there were some organisms more capable of >conquering space than others, thus causing these organisms to be selected for >in preference to other organisms not capable of conquering space. The term "space" should be expanded to include space on the earth. There is a tremendous evolutionary advantage in having a tendency to spread out into new territory. (Besides the potential for greater total population, it provides greater security against natural disasters, etc.) As an example, among snapping turtles and seals, an individual will occasionally leave the body of water which it inhabits, and travel for miles over land in search of another body of water. The motivations of the individual creatures may be obscure, but the net result is that the populations tend to spread out into all habitable locations within reach. Similarly, while not contesting the concept of free will, humans are known to have a tremendous amount of physical and emotional "programming", presumably inherited from their ancestors. Many of these traits can still be seen in the behavior of individuals and societies. Among these traits is a tendency to expand territory. Humans as a whole have consistently expanded their range to include every place in which they can live with a reasonable effort. Thus the fact that we humans who have spread over the earth are now thinking about moving into space can perhaps be attributed largely to an evolutionary trend that made us the way we are. Note that as in the past, only a small percentage of the total population would like to actively participate in such a move. >The capability of conquering space was exactly zero for all organisms in the >past (discounting bacteria and the like, since we're talking about human >beings), so no organism could be selected for as being "better" at conquering >space, since being "better" would give no immediate benefit to the organism. An evolutionary change does not have to benefit the individual organism, as long as it benefits the species as a whole. If it turns out that spores are capable of crossing interplanetary or interstellar distances and seeding new planets (several mechanisms for this have been proposed), then such an ability in microorganisms (which could later evolve into more complex organisms) would indeed be important. It would be interesting to discover life in a nearby star system and find out by biochemical analysis that we have a distant common ancestor. -- >Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm; > INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 18:17:38 GMT From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uafcveg!uafhcx!jws3@uunet.uu.net (6079 Smith J) Subject: Re: "The Plan" In article <2441@ibmpa.UUCP>, szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (nick szabo) writes: > BTW, there is nothing on the Moon that justifies spending even $15 billion, > much less $150 billion. What Apollo found in the lunar soil can be > found in any typical backyard on Earth, and I can find oodles of things in > my backyard that you can't find on the Moon. What are we doing piddling around the Florida swampland? Nick should start a company to lease launching rights from his backyard. Think of the reduction in fuel consumption! :-) What we need from the Moon is a bunch of raw materials in a gravity well a lot shallower than Earth's. One mass driver and an orbital solar furnace can make a lot of insulation for a space station. A refinery for metals would be helpful too. Asteroids would be better, sure, but we haven't got any lying around so conveniently. I say we colonize the moon as soon as we can figure out what's there. Map the joint thoroughly, pick the best spots for locations, and *build* it already! 20 years, folks! | James W. Smith, University of Arkansas | uafhcx!jws3@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu | | Our domain name is finally valid! New: | jws3@uafhcx.uark.edu | | I'm so depressed. If I didn't have so much to do, I'd be a nihilist. | ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 22:01:54 GMT From: att!cbnewsc!tedk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (ted.g.kekatos) Subject: HAM ballon launch - Oct 7th? Ballon Launch scheduled for Oct 7th. 9 a.m. (central) Launch from somewhere at Champaign/Urbana, Illinois control/info NET 7.155 MHz 9 a.m. VHF beacon 144.34 MHZ FM (40 mw transmitter) UHF ATV w/telemetry 439.25 MHz VIDEO Should get something from chicagoland area. ??????? ------ I have no only other information. If there is anyone with additional information, please post for all to see. Ted G. Kekatos N9IXE (formerly KB9DCQ) UUCP: ..!att!ihuxv!tedk (312) 979-0804 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Indian Hill South, IX-1F-460 Naperville & Wheaton Roads - Naperville, Illinois. 60566 USA ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 16:02:48 GMT From: wrksys.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283 05-Oct-1989 1158) Subject: Happy Birthday, Robert Goddard and Konstantin Tsilkovsky. On this date in 1882, Robert Goddard, the American founder of modern rocketry, was born. On October 4, 1857, Konstantin Tsilkovsky, the Soviet founder of modern rocketry, was born exactly one hundred years to the day when SPUTNIK 1 was launched. Larry Klaes klaes@wrksys.dec.com or - ...!decwrl!wrksys.dec.com!klaes or - klaes%wrksys.dec@decwrl.dec.com or - klaes@wrksys.enet.dec.com EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic N = R*fgfpneflfifaL ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 03:54:14 GMT From: ibmpa!szabonj@uunet.uu.net (nick szabo) Subject: The Sad Tale of Galileo, Centaur, and the Invincible 'Nauts In article <3486@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG> al@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG (Al Viall) writes: >Another question. Looking through the press release for Galileo, to which >I thank Peter Yee for sending through the net, I had read that the craft >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. This story cannot be repeated enough times. Originally Galileo was supposed to launch on the Shuttle in early 1986 with a Centaur upper stage powerful enough to go straight to Jupiter. First the Shuttle shutdown delayed the launch 3 1/2 years. Then NASA decided that the liquid-fueled Centaur, which was not involved in the Challenger explosion, was just too risky for a manned spacecraft. So, to save the hides of our intrepid 'nauts, Galileo will now launch with the solid-fueled IUS. This stage is far too weak to go directly to Jupiter, so it will get Gravity Assists from Venus, Earth, and Earth again (thus VEEGA). What a convoluted way to get around the solar system. Sigh. I sure hope we learn our lesson. "Reliability sells." Donald Trump -- -------------------------------------------- Nick Szabo uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 18:34:04 GMT From: mfci!rodman@CS.YALE.EDU (Paul Rodman) Subject: Re: Astronaut Selection In article <1989Oct5.054849.19370@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > >The following information is second-hand, but I've heard that there is >a new process called laser ablatement cornea sculpting which has >acheived much better results than radial keritonomy. It's currently >in the evaluation stage, but should be commercially available in >around five years. And evidently, it results in flawless corrections >to nearsightedness, farsightedness, and some astigmatisms. I happen to get a chance to ask the head of Mass Eye & Ear what he thought about the laser stuff. EXCEPT for those with uncorrectably bad problems, he was of the opinion that there is NO EXCUSE for scarring the eye, with a knife OR a laser beam. The long term effects of such scarring are not known. The effect of impact stress on a scarred eye is not known. pkr ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 89 17:50:35 GMT From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!pico!akenning@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Alan Kennington) Subject: Re: RTGs, shuttle launch risks In article <3200007@iuvax> hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu writes: >Regarding operation of a 1000 MWe coal plant that was poorly >sited without advanced scrubbers, I believe that the estimates >for deaths from stack emissions ALONE were in the neighborhood >of 100 per year. [...] I've been telling people this kind of thing for years, and I expect that it will take decades for the concept to sink in to the general public. In the forties and fifties, atomic scientists warned about the dangers of nuclear weapons and power plants. In the sixties, I read about the dangers of nuclear plants - among which was the danger of uranium running out before we could develop economical solar energy. Back in the seventies, I remember reading about atmospheric pollution problems and the resource exhaustion problem ("Limits to growth"). In all the above cases, the warnings were given decades before the general public caught on. And generally the problems have changed by that time. In the case of nuclear power plants, it will probably take another decade or so for the general public to catch onto the idea that they're the cleanest thing around for keeping cities warm and well-lit at night. The dangers of coal-fired plants include the early deaths to miners too! But I'd like to see the hard facts. If you've got some numbers (which are much more effective politically than facts), please broadcast them. Perhaps this is not the right group for this kind of thing. But then, what I really want to ask is this: What happened to all the discussion of moon-bases a few months back? There used to be a lot on that. Is it possible that some political decision has been made which makes the argument no longer relevant? I thought the idea of getting 8 or so people to live in a self-contained module on Earth for a few months was to check out the feasibility of a moon-base. Have any serious studies been done on the requirements of such a base, and how those requirements would be met using moon resources? If there is an easily accessible source of such info, I'd like to know about it. I would guess that the main question (as is well known) is whether the rocks on the moon have the right sort of elements in them. Required are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, some sort of oxygen-diluter (inert gases don't form compounds very easily, but maybe there's a rock with nitrogen in it), compounds which can react to give intense heat (for melting rocks to get other things out of them). Where do you get this sort of basic information? - Especially the set of types of rocks on the moon, and their chemical composition. If the rocks turn out okay, then it should only be a question of which latitude to live at, which I assume would be about 89 degrees, facing the Earth. Thanks for any info. ak. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #124 *******************