Message-ID: <gaLC65O00VcJ418E45@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 25 May 90 03:40:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #450

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 450

Today's Topics:
		      Re: The Vatican Connection
		     Re: Manned mission to Venus
	       Re: Reposting _Jonathan's_Space_Report_
		      Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #444
			 Re: HST wobble fixed
			Re: Vatican vs. Space
		      Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #444
			    Re: Squirrels
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 May 90 13:21:41 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!sce!cognos!garym@ucsd.edu  (Gary Murphy)
Subject: Re: The Vatican Connection

In article <15498@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <7312@ncar.ucar.edu> dlb@hao.hao.ucar.edu (Derek Buzasi) writes:
>>The Vatican has a vested interest in the Mt. Graham site since, I believe,
>>that is where they are going to place the VATT (Vatican Advanced Technology
>>Telescope), a 1.8 meter instrument.
>
>What are they planning to do

If I remember correctly, the only reason Galileo wasn't executed for his
atomic theory was because the Pope was a personal friend of his.  All the
nasty power-mongers aside, there is not much difference between Spiritual
Research (i.e. the technical and theoretic stuff) and Scientific Research.
Both have their Dogma-addicts, but both equally have their shining stars
and both have frequently been friends in the past.

In 'History of Time' Hawking expresses some surprise when, after the Vatican
had embraced the 'Big Bang' as the basis for the Creation metaphor (see
also Guth's "Seven Days" in "Very Early Universe"), they invited Prof Hawking
to speak at a Vatican sponsored conference.  He was most surprised when they
still allowed him to speak, despite his subject: he had by that time 
concluded that a Bang was not required.  I don't speak for the Vatican ;-)
but I rather suspect that their motives are somewhat bound up with the
'boundary conditions' for one of Our Lord's finest Creations (Humanity),
and are less concerned these days with the Conclusion of the Week.


-- 
Gary Murphy                   uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!garym
                              (garym%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net)
(613) 738-1338 x5537          Cognos Inc. P.O. Box 9707 Ottawa K1G 3N3
"There are many things which do not concern the process" - Joan of Arc

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 90 13:59:20 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucsd.edu  (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus


 Mark Solowkowski's goals in space seem to be primarily concerned with
spectacle and immediate gratification [as well as expressing loathing
for any major changes caused by technology. Let's go to Venus, but
God forbid we should actually do anything to improve the chances of
the astronauts *surviving* Cyntherian conditions]. He is looking in the
wrong fields; exploration of space, whether manned or not and whether
it is confined to peering up from Earth's surface or not, requires 
time and effort. Astronomy and related fields are not really for those 
with little patience. Lucas style F/X movies, on the other hand, are.
Perhaps Mr. S. should consider switching his attention to fields where 
human control over apparent reality is total: the movies.
							JDN

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 90 14:20:20 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Reposting _Jonathan's_Space_Report_

From article <430.265879D6@ofa123.fidonet.org>, by Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org (Mark Perew):
> I am interested in re-posting _Jonathan's_Space_Report_ ....


Hi Mark, I got your email but attempts to reply have
bounced. I am happy for my report to be reposted
electronically provided the copyright notice remains
attached. I ask that it not be printed in published form
(hardcopy newsletters etc) as I may wish to publish some
of the material in book form. Hope that clarifies things,
and that your local net enjoys the reports. This week's
is late as I was out of town.

 Jonathan

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 90 19:35:25 GMT
From: dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu  (Dean F. Kling)
Subject: Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #444

>In article <1990May24.133216.6316@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James) writes:
>

>Point 3 should read '>some< squirrels thrive as a result of human 
>presence.' Some species of squirrels do not.

  A reasonable assumption is that the squirrel's low population is the 
result of predation.  My experience is that squirrels generally do better
in the vicinity of humans that predators (based on the relative populations
of squirrels and timber wolves on the UW campus).  Therefore it would follow
that anyone truely interested in the survival of the squirrels would 
DEMAND (and file suit for if needed) the IMMEDIATE construction of the the 
telescopes before the squirrels become extinct.

			Dean

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 19:45:28 EDT
From: John Roberts <roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
	and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: HST wobble fixed


>From: mtndew!friedl@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Friedl)

>> It appears after traveling from darkness to light, the sudden 
>> heating of the solar panels causes them to slightly vibrate.
>> Controllers say it can be easily fixed.

>Does this mean "really fixed" or "compensated for by software" ?

With a computer-controlled robot space probe, what's the difference?
      John Roberts
      roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

------------------------------

From: davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu
Date: Thu, 24 May 90 19:26:06 EST
Subject: Re: Vatican vs. Space
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.


     In Space Digest Volume: 11, Number: 442, Mr. Erik Sorgatz writes:

"Go read some major newspapers from the 1955-1979 timeframe."

    What a specific reference. ;-)  If I went to the library and combed
through the microfilm for a few hours and didn't find any references to
the Church's alleged opposition to space exploration could I say that your
claim is false (or true)?  It helps to provide some direction when mentioning
a reference.  Your most recent reference is from 1979; even if your claim
is correct for that time period, things could have changed in the eleven
years since then.  I have said that the Church does support space research
and I have pointed to the proposed scope as a concrete example.

    In regards to the Church's history you wrote: "Just like that? A hand-
waive? ... Reread what I wrote.  We're talking about money, power, and the
ability to control society. [Sounds a lot like Citicorp :-) ] You seem to
ignore this, why?"

     I didn't ignore this.  In your quote you didn't mention my reference
to the fact that Catholics do not make up a dominant percentage of the
population.  In the United States there has only been one Catholic
President, and governments around the world ignore the Church (examples
are Nicaragua, the Soviet Union, etc.) without any consequences.  As for
as money and power are concerned the Church uses it to help the poor (I
mentioned Nobel laureate Mother Theresa in my response to Mr. Velpar's
comment) and for building telescopes.  Simply because an institution has a
lot of money doesn't mean that it is being mispent (NASA not
withstanding :-) ).

     In regards to the experiments conducted in concentration camps:
"None of this is really science.  You are referring to the torture of human
beings by human monsters.  This does not reflect well for any of those
involved, but I would not consider this a mark against anyone but the
Nazi's and those that allowed them to operate.  Torture unto death is one of
the things that the Church used to do quite often...check out the
Inquisition..."

     Then we must not consider this a mark against anyone but the clergy of
the middle ages and those that allowed them to operate.  You shouldn't just
"hand-waive" the Nazi experiments off by simply modifying the definition of
science when convenient.  You originally said that the development of nuclear
weapons was not unethical because it did provide gains to human knowledge.
There has been some debate within the last few months about whether or not
medical researchers should incorporate the results of the Nazi experiments
in their current research.  Obviously some feel that the results might be
useful (many of those who did the experiments were trained doctors), and that
would seem to advance human knowledge.  I am _not_ implying that you condone
the experiments.  My point is that the meer fact that a particular experiment
might be useful does not make it ethical.  Survivors of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would probably call the bomb developers "human monsters," too.

     Also on the subject of nuclear weapons, you wrote:  "Noone
involved in the Manhattan Project wanted the bomb used on human
beings.  They signed a petition to that effect.  The War Dept. and
the Prez ignored it.  Who's fault is this?"

     All of the above.  By building the bomb the scientists had
"allowed them [War Dept. and President] to operate [i.e. use the
bomb]."  As nuclear scientists they should have been well educated
enough to realize that petitions rarely have any effect on major
world powers.  But, I'm digressing again.  Let's just say that debate
exists as to the ethics of the use of the bomb.

     An back on the subject of the telescope, you wrote:  "the past
performance and the current anti-birth control stances of the Vatican
along with the amount of money the Pope controls, make it worth
everyones while that we do not forget the history of this organization
and that we watch what they do very carefully!"

     Astronomers are a large and diverse group; I'm sure that, among
them, there are diverse opinions as to birth-control.  I fail to see
how any of those views affect their performance as astronomers.  People
are scrutinizing the Church and have done so for a long time now.  Noone
has shown that the telescope represents a threat to society; if the
Church were to somehow make invalid scientific claims as a result of
the scope other scientific organizations will quickly refute them as
they would do of any other researcher.  This refutation will come
quickly - there are going to be at least two other scopes on the
mountain (sans squirrels?).

     Perhaps the Church would rather have people forget its past, but
then we all would like to have people forget our mistakes.  One of
the central features of Christianity (not necessarily the same as C
Catholicism) is that we must forgive our enemies.  THe Church seems
to be turning the leaf you mention, by actually helping the poor
(example: Mother Theresa), offering to mediate crises (the Pope did
offer to act as an intermediary in the Lithuanian situation).  As far
as land is concerned, the only land that governments have allowed the
Church to own are the land upon which the churches, rectories,
administration buildings, and summer camps are built.  The days of
the land-holding Church have been over for a long time.  If this
assumption is incorrect I'd be interested in learning about specific
parcels in question.

     Simply because someone calls themself a Catholic does not
necessarily mean he/she is biased in favor of the Church.  Most
people can objectively separate institutional policy from the specific
issues at hand.  A fundamental rule of thumb in statistics is that
association does not imply causation.  (And some students say college
math has no part in the "real world." :-) )  If, for a theoretical
example, Citicorp conducted business in South Africa I could not
infer that you, as its employee, are biased in favor of apartate.
Perhaps you should "Breathe free" and break your stereotypes of
Catholics; we are not all out of touch with the world as the old
guard hierarchy is.

------------------------------

From: AZM@CU.NIH.GOV
Date:     Thu, 24 May 90  07:49:11 EDT
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #444

> From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!ntvaxb!ac08@ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Endangered Squirrels
> I don't know about the rest of you, but if the squirrels on that
> mountain are like the rest of the squirrels I've seen, putting a bunch
> of academics up there might be the best thing to happen...
> I've never seen a university campus where the little buggers weren't
> taking over...
>
> Chad I
> Date: 23 May 90 15:34:51 GMT
> From: uc!nic.MR.NET!hall!gbt@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Greg Titus)
> Subject: Re: Endangered squirrels
> In article <1990May23.002522.414@uoft02.utoledo.edu> fax0112@uoft02.utoledo.edu
>  writes:
> >> [Statement by me that 100 red squirrels on 10,000 acres of
> >>  Mt. Graham is too low a population density to make sense.]
> >...  Your math is correct but on
> >what grounds do you make your breeding claim?  As the squirrels seem
> >to have done ok so far I think your claim is absurd.
> They certainly are still there, which implies that they are
> successful breeders.  But for successful breeding, they've
> got to find each other, which implies overlapping ranges.
> Squirrels have small ranges -- probably less than 5 acres
> per individual.  And thereby hangs our tail ... ;-)  at
> 100 acres per squirrel, they won't see each other often
> enough to successfully reproduce.
>
> I'm prepared to be (very)! surprised to learn that red
> squirrels range farther than any other kind by a factor
> of 100, but Occam's Razor says the more likely cause of
> the above quandry is that one or both of the estimates
> is way off -- either their range is much smaller or
> their population is much larger.
>
> Perhaps red squirrels are even harder to count than
> U.S. citizens???   :-)  :-)
>
> greg
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com)                      Ada Project
> Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
> Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.
>
Everyone on this list who is involved in the "red squirrel affair"
has disregarded several important facts in the matter.

1) The squirrels are there, the observatory is not.

2) This implies that prior to human interference with their precious
   habitat, they were

                   a)able to find each other
                   b)able to procreate properly
                   c)few in number
                   d)HAPPY THAT WAY
                   e)the product of NATURE

3) Squirrels, as the poster above stated, thrive as a result of human
   presence. This is because

4) Squirrels are not simply animals, they are animal PESTS. They eat
   human food, invade and eat human garbage, gnaw their way through
   wire insulation, bite if provoked, sometimes inflicting disease,
   find their way into the walls of human habitations causing noise
   and damage, and contribute ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to human existence.

It is time to set priorities straight.

1) The progress of human science IS IMPORTANT.

2) The artificially (and forcibly) induced welfare of a small number
   of animal pests IS NOT!

Therefore,

3) Get on with building the observatory, and consign the hapless
   squirrel pests to the care of the forces of nature which bred
   them.

4) When, as a result of human presence in their "habitat," their
   numbers rise (as they inevitably will) into the thousands, put
   a bounty on them, and publish "100 Ways to Prepare Red Squirrel."

                                          Derd Valpar
                                   aka    Marc Arlen
                                          AZM@NIHCU

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 90 21:07:11 GMT
From: MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU!lindsay@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Squirrels

In article <9005241149.AA23902@alw.nih.gov> AZM@CU.NIH.GOV writes:
>It is time to set priorities straight.
>1) The progress of human science IS IMPORTANT.
>2) The artificially (and forcibly) induced welfare of a small number
>   of animal pests IS NOT!
>Therefore,
>3) Get on with building the observatory, and consign the hapless
>   squirrel pests to the care of the forces of nature which bred
>   them.
>4) When, as a result of human presence in their "habitat," their
>   numbers rise (as they inevitably will) into the thousands, put
>   a bounty on them, and publish "100 Ways to Prepare Red Squirrel."


This whole thread has been distinguished by an absence of hard fact.

Now it's being distinguished by emotional and unscientific attitudes.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to the poster that the progress of
biological science is important, too, and would be kinda thwarted to
have its subject material become extinct ... something that must be a
possibility if presumably-reputable biologists are concerned about
it.

Not that I know that that would happen. I don't have the facts,
either, but at least I admit it. And in the absence of knowledge,
wisdom is in ***not doing the irrevocable**.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #450
*******************