Date: Fri, 21 May 93 06:23:34 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #607 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 21 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 607 Today's Topics: ** Animations ASTRO wanted ** Early Bacteria & Cometary Origin of Life Impediments to NASA productivity Russia's space policy Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games Space Marketing -- Boycott (2 msgs) Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 12:54:12 GMT From: Titch Subject: ** Animations ASTRO wanted ** Newsgroups: sci.space rousself@cicb.fr ( Frank ROUSSEL ) writes: > Can someone tell me where i can get astronomic animations ? > (especially in .FLI or .ANIM format) i I know of two, both NASA: JPL (128.149.6.2) /data/pubinfo/images Ames (128.102.18.3) /pub/SPACE/ANIMATION Hope this helps. -R. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rich Browning (rjb12@bton.unix) * ASTRO SCOOP! ASTRONUT TO LAND ON SUN! Department of Computer Science * "I've got it all worked out," says Jim University of Brighton * Biggles, "I'm landing at night!". =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 07:12:17 GMT From: Rodney Heyd Subject: Early Bacteria & Cometary Origin of Life Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,sci.bio szabo@techbook.techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: : : This "new discovery" of primitive bacteria was indeed overhyped. It's : been known for a long time that bacteria, probably as complex as those : that exist today (eg some could do photosynthesis) date back to the very : end of the period of intense bombardment -- ie no more than 200 million : years from the end of the bombardment, vs. over 3,500 million years since : then, and most of the complexity of life, the highly improbable : structure of 1000's of proteins, metabolic pathways, etc. already : existed at that time. : : This doesn't tell us much about the probability of life : appearing. It does tell us one of two things: : : (1) the first 200 million years of evolution, much of which may have : involved freefloating autocatalytic sets rather than centralized : genetic reproduction, must have been orders of magnitude more rapid : than the succeeding genetic evolution of the next 3,500+ million : years, or : : (2) Life originated in comets, which are now starting to look : like very freindly environments for autocatalytic "primordial : soups" -- start with highly complex interstellar and radiation-created : organics, mix in periodic solar warming events, and the : complex organics form chemical cycles that catalyze the transformation : of more primitive molecules into their own more complex forms -- : freestanding metabolisms, or "autocatalytic sets". By this theory : genes appeared later, providing a dense, stable coding for efficient : metabolisms which outcompeted the freestanding autocatalytic sets. : : According to recent calculation, substantial chunks of a large comets : that struck Earth during the heavy bombardment period could have survived : reentry, so that RN, DNA, and perhaps even chunks of "frozen : soup" could have survived to seed the earth with early forms of : life (which might still exist today in comet(s), but more likely : were extinguished since the lifetime of comets is small). : : If life only appeared once on one comet, what is the probability : that the comet calved off pieces that hit both Mars and Earth? : I note that calving itself is a common occurence among : comets, but either Earth and Mars would have had to line up : fortuitously along the comet's orbit, or the calved pieces would : have had to have been long-lived. During the period of heavy : bombardment, comets might have been extremely large, so that : calving into thousands of long-lived, Halley-sized pieces is : not out of the question. : : More importantly for the evolution of early life, a heavy : density of calving comets may have provided many opportunities : for autocatalytic sets on one comet to seed another comet, so : that the evolution of life on comets could span the lifetime : of many individual comets. Comet lifetimes are often very short : once they enter the inner solar system and become active, usually : less than 1 million years. Larger comets would last longer, : but higher solar radiation flux, eg during the period which : "dried out" the inner asteroid belt, might offset that. : : Nick Szabo szabo@techbook.com : -- : Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com I'm a little confused about (2) above. Are you saying that molecules as complex as DNA can be formed in comets?? This is something I am very skeptical of. The problem I see here is that a fairly high density of organic material is needed to form such complex molecules. Some work is currently being done on the possibility of polymer formation in comets however this is just getting started. At this point, I have a hard time believing that very complex molecules can form. Rod Heyd ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 93 23:47 PDT From: tom@igc.apc.org Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity Newsgroups: sci.space are you the ken jenks presently employed by rockwell? tom ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 93 00:13:39 +0400 From: "Ivan M. Moiseyev" Subject: Russia's space policy Newsgroups: sci.space April 27, 1993 Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation accept significant documents in field of Space Policy: 1. Statement of the Supreme Soviet on the Priorities of the Space Policy of the Russian Federation 2. Resolution of the Supreme Soviet on Measures to Stabilize the Situation in the Space Science and Industry This documents is analog of US President's Directives. The fact of adoption this documents means creating of new Russia' Space Policy. STATEMENT OF THE SUPREME SOVIET ON THE PRIORITIES OF THE SPACE POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (briefly) 1. In the Russian Federation, space activities shall be conducted for the purposes of ensuring the well-being of the people, developing the Russian Federation, strengthening its security, as well as solving the global problems of humankind. In the context of the Russian space exploration effort it must be ensured that - enterprises, organizations and citizens of the Russian Federation have an equal right to participate in space activities and use their results; - information about space activities be accessible to the public; - monopolism be restricted and private enterprise encouraged; - space projects and programmes be subjected to independent examination; - space activities be safe, and environmental-friendly. 2. Russia's Federal Space Programme shall be shaped in conformity with the requirements and economic potential of society and the state. Commercial space projects shall be aimed at achieving maximum socio-economic effect, concentrating on the development of information, communications, television and ecological monitoring networks and on mineral wealth exploration. In the area of space research the priority should be given to exploratory work that makes it possible to pose and achieve fundamentally new objectives, as well as to applied development projects commissioned by concrete customers. Military space exploration ought to be focussed largely on using spacecraft for operational control, communications, reconnaissance and other types OF SUPPORT to the armed forces. The Statement says about the need to effect structural changes, including conversion of profitable aerospace enterprises to joint-stock companies or their privatisation, which, however, must accord with the specifics of the space industry and space science. As this takes place, the unique test rigs and essential space infrastructure will remain in state ownership and become accessible to interested companies and organizations. The Statement points out that to preserve the intellectual property of companies, organizations and individuals that have participated in the development of spacecraft and space technologies is of paramount importance. Drawing on the world practice, it is necessary to work out a system of crediting, taxation and government guarantees for companies and organizations engaged in space projects. It emphasizes the importance of attracting foreign investments backed by the government's appropriate guarantees and those offered by interested Russian companies and organizations. The Statement proceeds from the assumption that the state policy should be aimed at supporting the efforts of domestic companies and organizations in the world aerospace market, at promoting international cooperation and integration in the area of space exploration on the basis of mutual advantage, and at meeting Russia's commitments under international agreements. RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME SOVIET ON MEASURES TO STABILIZE THE SITUATION IN THE SPACE SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY (briefly) Resolution of the Supreme Soviet, instructs the Government of the Russian Federation to: - authorize the RSA to commission on behalf of the government the manufacture of space systems, complexes, and technology employed in R&D and for commercial purposes, and also, jointly with the Russian Ministry of Defence, the manufacture of space systems, complexes and technology used both for civilian and military purposes; - draw up a procedure for facilitating the implementation of space projects financed by companies, organizations and individual citizens, including by way of giving them government guarantees, favorable credits, tax exemptions, etc.; - work out a programme of structural changes in space science and space industry, including the creation of federal space centers on the basis of the leading design bureaus and research institutes, as well as holding and joint-stock companies entitled to purpose-oriented financing, including from conversion funds; - draw up a plan for the further utilization of the space infrastructure, primarily the Plesetsk spaceport, with account taken of socio-economic development aspects of the relevant regions; - take the necessary steps to preserve the existing scientific and production ties in the space sector of the Commonwealth of Independent States, including holding consultations with the Republic of Kazakhstan in order to specify the status and prospects for a further joint use of the Baikonur spaceport; - draw up and implement a single scientific and economic policy related to international agreements on space exploration and utilization, including commercial space projects. The Resolution provides for the creation of a Russian Space Fund conceived as an independent entity that is to attract funds both from internal and external sources in order to encourage scientific research, to form insurance stocks, to introduce aerospace production methods to other industries, and to support campaigns in favour of using space technology as a means of raising the educational and cultural standards of the public. It is also planned to set up an ad hoc group of deputies composed of members of interested standing commissions and committees under the chambers of the Supreme Soviet, which will help to exercise parliamentary control over space activities. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 93 10:14:17 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games Newsgroups: sci.space dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael) writes: >Scott-- You're ignoring several things that make live 30fps video >realitstic. Those things are the military communications satellite array >that is normally used for transmitting data. The TDRS series, for >instance, provide high data-rate transmission capabilities to both NASA >and the USAF. There's LOT of ways to get 30fps video down in realtime. Yes, but don't forget there are DOZENS of DoD sats up there, all competing for the communications assets... some with astonishingly high data transfer requirements, such as the GEO ELINT birds, two SAR imaging sats, and a long list of others in addition to the Advanced KH-11 birds in question... Another question is whats the NEED for "live video" from space? The primary job for these sats is to produce high resolution images (i.e. stills) of areas for detailed analysis, to build up various maps and datasets, and to be able to compare images of the same region from multiple satellite passes in order to highlight any changes and such. None of these missions would be particularly enhanced by "video"... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 07:26:33 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher In article <1th6ql$eh4@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au> u9263012@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Walker Andrew John) writes: >>> We've destroyed most of the Earth, can't we at least leave something >>>alone?We are supposed to be the most intelligent species, but sometimes >>>you have to wonder. >>We've destroyed the Earth? It was still there last time I looked. I >>think "arrogant" is a trait we can agree on. We've _changed_ the >>Earth, in some places quite radically. But suggest we've even >>come close to destroying it (i.e. made it uninhabitable to all forms >>of life) is probably the most arrogant thing I've heard in a >>long time. > I was not suggesting we've made it uninhabitable to all forms >of life, what I am saying is that if changes aren't made soon >we could some time face big problems.As an example, in some areas of >the world deforestation followed by farming has led to areas of land >being left useless.Also our pollution is leading to many species >becoming extinct... Let's put this into perspective: When photosynthetic life first evolved, wasn't the Earth's climate radically altered (by converting a carbon dioxide atmosphere into a nitrogen/oxygen one)? While mankind may be an evolutionary development that causes mass extenctions, we certainly aren't the first to do so. The planet and the ecosystem have survived none the less. >...and fish stocks in certain areas have been greatly >reduced.By destroying the earth I'm referring to our resources.Sure >we can use them, we just have to be a lot more careful. I think you are refering, therefore, to _self_destruction. At least to my mind, there is a great difference between destroying ourselves and destroying the entire world. Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 06:02:02 GMT From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes: >In article brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes: >>In article Dan Gaubatz writes: >>>For some reasons we humans think that it is our place to control >>>everything. I doubt that space advertising is any worse than any other >>>kind advertising, but it will be a lot harder to escape, and is probably >>>the most blatant example yet of our disregard for the fact that we are >>>not in fact creaters of the universe. Annoying little species, aren't we? >>Particularly annoying are people like yourself who think that anything >>human beings do is pathetic, insulting, and not worth trying. While it is >>true that we didn't create the universe, we CAN change many aspects of it >>and we SHOULD change it in ways that improve our lives. By your logic >>we should just stop trying to make our lives better because we are >>going to die anyway, and because we aren't powerful enough to control >>everything in the universe in some vast and impossible way. There's >>something really sick of that view of man's place in the universe >>and the pursuit of human values. >I love it--one person does an extreme argument, then the next poster has >to take it even further out. Look, Brian, your argument is too full >of holes to detail them all, but basically: you are full of it. Now there's a sound bit of argumentation. >It is ridiculous to say "well, we change our environment some, therefore >we should just change it haphazardly, and no one has the right to >object to any changes we make, cause then they are obviously sick". Perhaps you should read what I wrote, because that's not what I said. >Just because we have changed our enviornment to make it more habitable >is no justification for placing a billboard in space. Of course it isn't, and it isn't the argument I made either. >We DO change our environment to make it better, that is not the point. Yes it is the point since that was the basic position of the original poster. He made no particular arguments against space ads except that they would be made by human beings who "disregard" the fact that they are not the "creators of the universe". My point was not to argue in favor of doing haphazard things, or even to argue in favor of space ads, but to point out the absurdity of the misanthropic ideas used to argue against space ads. >The point, which you avoided, is this: does adding a space billboard >to the night sky make human life any better? It probably would make life better, yes, but whether I'm right on that issue or not SHOULD be the question at issue, not whether humans are an annoying species with an evil self-important view themselves. I would love to debate the issue on the ground of human benefit, but first we need to establish that human benefit (and human rights as a corrolary) IS the issue, not whether human beings are contemptable worms. >I (and lots of others) think not. If not, then don't buy the products advertized and don't look at them. My general take on space ads is that they are a kind of nifty fad, and that they'll probably put up a few and people will get bored with them and they'll stop. Tell me, do you think that blimp advertising is bad? Does it really annoy you? Why so? How is a space ad different from a blimp ad. >The only argument Ive heard in favor of this proposal >is "o, its progress, you eco-freaks just want to stop progress.", >which ignores the crucial point that putting a billboard in space >doesn't make life any better for anyone except those who will be getting >paid for it. It is also doing some good for the folks who are paying for it too, otherwise why would they be shelling out the millions necessary to put them up in space? Personally, I think it would be a pretty nifty thing to see. Do you think fireworks are a worthless expression of human hubris too? Do they not make human life better than it would otherwise be? As for environmentalists wanting to "stop progress", that is an accurate argument against the environmentalists in the sense that if all they say is "Space ads are bad because human beings are all puffed up with themselves and space ads make that even worse." then their arguments don't address the important issue and they are even wrong on THAT issue too. --Brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 07:48:45 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher In article <1993May20.193639.639@head-cfa.harvard.edu> ov@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Olaf Vancura) writes: >>Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big, >>visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less >>(down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying" >>to me... >Look Frank, give it a rest. A) Your ignorance is amazing. Are you trying to end an argument, or start one? >...B) This has nothing to do with investing. Follow-ups directed accordingly. >Optical telescopes were probably 70% about 25 years ago, with most of >the rest radio, but that's because of a lack of technology back >then. The advance of cryogenics, X-ray and UV reflective coatings and shell >mirror assemblies, etc. has advanced IR, X-ray, and UV astronomy. >Of course these new "windows" have advanced greatly, and optical has >taken its place as a subset of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. >It certainly has not died, nor will it ever. It contains information >about 10^4 to 10^5 K gas not obtainable elsewhere. If you care about 10^4 to 10^5 K gases. Some of us don't consider stars the be all and end all of astronomy. Planets, nebulas, molecular clouds, etc... are equally important parts of astronomy, which only occasionally use optical astronomy. While optical astronomy may be a valuable technique, it is no longer the heart and blood of the field. >>That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable. >>But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything >>up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most >>people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are >Again Frank, your ignorance shows. Humans cannot see out to 7 microns. >Try 0.7 microns. You're off by a factor of 10. A reasonable person, reading my post, would correctly assume I had made a typo and left out a decimal point. Someone looking for an excuse for insults might reach a different conclusion. >...The IRAS satellite >(that's Infrared Astronomy Satellite) goes out to 100 microns. They seem >to have it straight. No one in their right mind claims 100 microns is >visible. I was refering to the proposals for new adaptive optics telescopes: They talk about "optical" systems (implying visible light) and then refer to the potential resolving capability as many tens of microns. While they don't directly call 100 microns "visible" they imply that the mid-IR is part of the "optical" spectrum. In effect they are exagerating the abilities of adaptive optics, and making it appear as if these abilities applied to the visible. >>The sign the office door says, "Astrophysical, Planetary and >>Atmospheric Sciences." Although perhaps my degree in astrophysics >>from Berkeley doesn't qualify me either... >I find it hard to believe you have a degree in astrophysics. >My opinion of Berkeley just plummeted. Did your degree come as the >prize in a CrackerJack box?! No, but I'm afraid the degree looks as if Berkeley spent about that much printing it... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 607 ------------------------------