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, 21 Apr 89 03:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 03:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #385 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 385 Today's Topics: take Platygaeanism elsewhere Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...) Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties Multi-colored, artificial cloud to be visible along East Coast (Forwarded) Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Apr 89 12:52:02 GMT From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Jim Meritt) Subject: take Platygaeanism elsewhere In article <845@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> troly@math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes: }>answer this: what is the actual shape of the earth? } } It would certainly be nice to know the answer to this! The problem }is that although we can see (as I have shown earlier) that the conventional }round-earth theories must be rejected on a number of grounds, there are still }too many flat possibilities. The LA Platygaean Society welcomes attempts }to refute these theories, so that we can arrive at the truth through a }process of elimination. You cannot find out something through elimination unless you have a complete set to work from. You are a couple of cans short of a six-pack. }PS Please don't lump platygaeanism in with creationism, it makes much }more sense. Thanx. It makes almost as much sense, true. However, since this is talk.origins: talk.origins Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!). And you have said you are not creationism and clearly are not evolution will you take this sh*t elsewhere?!?!? suggestions: talk.bizarre The unusual, bizarre, curious, and often stupid. This sounds like an excellent location for flat earthers misc.misc Various discussions not fitting in any other group. It reallt DOESN'T fit any rational place. alt.flame Alternative, literate, pithy, succinct screaming. need I say more? sci.space Space, space programs, space related research, etc. you seem to try to bring in the shape of space (to compensate for your misviews of the shape of the earth). This would have some severe cosmological implications sci.astro Astronomy discussions and information. ibid. alt.weemba Talk & flames about the one & only Weemba. nothing else there seems to pertain... news.groups Discussions and lists of newsgroups. why don't you make one up? rec.arts.sf-lovers Science fiction lovers' newsgroup. "flat earth" is definitely a science fiction idea at best. rec.humor Jokes and the like. May be somewhat offensive. at least it is an offensive joke sci.misc Short-lived discussions on subjects in the sciences. you seem to try to pretend it is a science, and it does not clearly fit in any other science group. We can hope for short-lived. sci.physics Physical laws, properties, etc. You will need something to account for the apparent discrepancy between physical laws (gravity, light travel paths,...) and your absurd theories. talk.philosophy.misc Philosophical musings on all topics. sounds sort of right... Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!!!" - D. Duck ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 89 15:54:10 GMT From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!gvg@hplabs.hp.com (Greg Goebel) Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...) > The "Buffalo News" ran a story about the Stirling a couple of days > ago; of course, the object wasn't to explain the Stirling, but to defame it > and then use it to beat Sen. Alfonse D'amato over the head with (he > initiated substantial funding for Stirling R&D). The whole premise of the > story was the uselessness of the Stirling and what a waste of taxpayer money > it is. > > Anyone have any comments? Would someone explain the operating > principle(s)? > > ------------- > John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo > Bitnet : v131q5cg@ubvmsc > Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu > ---------- * Hm, that question really put a sparkle in my eyes -- I've been tinkering (on paper, at least) with stirlings off-and-on for a long time. * The Stirling is an external combustion engine -- one applies heat to one cylinder that contains a piston; the heated gas expands and drives the piston for the power stroke; in the compression stroke, the heated gas is passed through a heat-storage system (or "regenerator") to a second cylinder that contains a second piston (or "displacer"). In this second cylinder, the heated gas is cooled and then compressed again by the displacer -- and transferred back (with reheating from the regenerator) into the power piston for the next cycle. There are various architectures for stirlings -- in some of them, the two cylinders are ingeniously "folded" into one cylinder. (The Stirling engine that NASA has been working with, I recall, actually has twin opposed stirling engines in a single module.) Stirlings are somewhat mechanically complicated (whether they are inerently more complicated than a normal reciprocating internal-combustion engine I cannot say) and they have so far shown inferior power-to-weight ratios (though that may be true only because they have had less development than other engines). Their absolute beauty is that they are, as I said, _external_ combustion engines -- you can run 'em off anything: gasoline, jet fuel, wood, coal, solar power, cowflops, you name it. Their most practical application right now is as a motive source for underveloped areas where their ability to operate off of rice hulls and the like is valuable. They are conceptually elegant. Their future potential is an open question. * I wrote all this off the top of my head; I have notes at home, and I've been wanting to assemble them into something more coherent for a long time. If anyone's interest, let me know, I'll cook it up and post it. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Greg Goebel | | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 | | (503) 752-7717 | | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd | | HP DESK: CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Wednesday, 19 April 1989 08:47:37 AM PDT ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 89 04:50:16 GMT From: att!kitty!larry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Larry Lippman) Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties In article <1796@mas1.mas.UUCP>, condor@mas1.UUCP (Rick Kawala) writes: > > I have received requests for the citation which covers the > > illegal aspects of man-ET encounters. I am quoting here from the > > enigmatic KRILL document previously posted here. > > > > "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of > > citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14, > > Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted > > 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing). The Code > > specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine. The NASA > > authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET > > exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be > > broken, even by court order." > > I called a friend of mine who's a paralegal and asked him to look > this thing up. He told me that it citation was incomplete, that > one has to say "Code of Federal Regulations", , Title 14, > Section 1211, where can be replaced with things like > "Coast Guard Regulations" or something. Otherwise, you're faced > with too many books to look through. Your paralegal friend should go back to school; the citation is quite complete. "14 CFR Part 1211" does IN FACT pertain to "extraterrestrial exposure" (the CFR term used). 14 CFR 1211 derives its authority from U. S. Code Title 18, Section 799, "Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and Space Administration", which states: "Whoever willfully shall violate, attempt to violate, or conspire to violate any regulation or order promulgated by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the protection or security of any laboratory, station, base or other facility, or part thereof, or any aircraft, missile, spacecraft, or similar vehicle, or part thereof, or other property or equipment in custody of the Administration, or any real or personal property or equipment in the custody of any contractor under any contract with the Administration or any subcontrator of any such contractor, shall be fined not more than $ 5,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." While my organization library has the full text of the U. S. Code, we have comparatively few CFR sections (the full CFR is hundreds of volumes), so I do not have the explicit text of 14 CFR 1211. However, I do have the CFR index which clearly states that the above section does in fact pertain to "extraterrestrial exposure". I find it somewhat difficult to believe, however, that the cited CFR section "can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be broken, even by court order." Any law is subject to judicial review, and it is clearly unconstitutional to create a law which could not be subject to judicial review or otherwise mitigated by "court order". In general, any detention pursuant to law of a living person (under the circumstances I have to add this "qualifier") can be subject to judicial review through a special proceeding of habeas corpus (or possibly mandamus, depending upon the circumstances). I suspect, however, that this CFR section has yet to be tested through judicial review. :-) My curiosity is now piqued, so if I have a chance in the next few days, I may swing by the SUNY at Buffalo Law Library and look up the actual section. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231, 716/773-1700 {att|hplabs|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635, 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?" ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 89 18:23:43 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Multi-colored, artificial cloud to be visible along East Coast (Forwarded) Paula Cleggett-Haleim Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Joyce B. Milliner GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va. RELEASE: 89-55 MULTI-COLORED, ARTIFICIAL CLOUD TO BE VISIBLE ALONG EAST COAST A rocketborne scientific experiment, programmed to create an artificial cloud at high altitudes, is scheduled for launch Sunday evening, April 23, from NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore. A three-stage suborbital rocket, the Black-Brant X will carry two canisters of barium to be ejected 90 seconds apart at an altitude of about 300 statute miles. The barium will create an artificial greenish-purple cloud which can be visible for approximately 20 minutes to residents, using binoculars, along the U.S. East Coast from Canada to Florida and as far west as Ohio. The objective of this launch is to investigate Nobel prize winner Dr. Hannes Alfven's critical velocity effect theory, which has been used to explain details in the early formation of the solar system. In 1954, Alfven, University of California, San Diego, proposed that if an element in a nearly neutral plasma became ionized when it attained a flow velocity which depended on its ionization potential, then several facets of the structure of the solar system could be explained. This could explain the differing chemical compositions of the planets and whether they were formed during a gaseous or plasma transition. The launch is scheduled about 9:40 p.m. EDT from Wallops Island, Va., during a launch window that opens April 24 and extends through May 6. Since the data will be obtained optically, clear weather conditions are required at the ground observing sites in Virginia, Massachusetts and North Carolina. Delays could occur due to operational constraints or cloud cover at the ground-based camera sites so the launch will be scheduled on a day-to-day basis. The two canisters of barium will be ejected and detonated -- one as the payload ascends and one as it descends -- thus creating two separate jets of gas near the apogee altitude of 300 miles. The explosives will simulate the fast-moving gas during the formation of the solar system. Sensors on-board the payload will record characteristics of the heated plasma in the neutral jet. Researchers from the ground, by using low-light-level television cameras, will determine injection extent, velocity profile and percentage of ionization. Radar will measure ionospheric parameters prior to and during the experiments. Dr. Roy Torbert, principal investigator from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said, "We conducted a similar flight from Wallops in 1986. However, this launch will allow for a higher ambient plasma than occurred during the early morning flight in 1986." Other researchers include Gerhard Haerendel and Arnoldo Valenzuela, Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Munich, West Germany; Gene Wescott and Hans Nielson, University of Alaska-Fairbanks; Jason Providakes and Mike Kelley, Cornell University; John Foster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Kay Baker, Utah State University; Fritz Primdahl, Danish Space Research Institute; and C.G. Falthammar and V. Brenning, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. The NASA Wallops payload manager is Paul Buchanan and project engineer is Debra Frostrom. This scientific mission is part of the overall NASA Sounding Rocket Program managed at Wallops. This program consists of approximately 40 sounding rockets launched each year from various worldwide locations. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 89 09:08:18 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!! In article <1989Apr18.193113.22586@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >In article <23268@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> web@garnet.berkeley.edu (William Baxter) writes: >>full funding of the Space Station and protection of the Space Shuttle >>program from cuts would require elimination of every other increase over >>FY 1988. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >What does "would require" mean -- that Boland isn't willing to increase >funding for the entire space program The committee recommended an increase of $1.7 billion over the FY 1988 NASA budget. Even with this handsome increase, the choices mentioned were necessary. The "cuts" are taken from the proposed funding levels. What do you think Fletcher thinks of the "cuts" the committee mentioned: Dr. FLETCHER. Some of the problems that led to the [Challenger] accident were caused by this continual pressure, downward pressure on the budget over the years. We are trying to make up for some of the testing, for example, in the Space Shuttle that was missing in the early days. ... Mr. BOLAND. Dr. Fletcher, you don't contend that the accident occurred as a result of budget pressure, do you? Did you just say that? Dr. FLETCHER. It did occur because cuts were made, apparently over the years, in testing of some of the components of the Space Shuttle. Part of the problems [sic] that we are facing now were due to lack of testing in the early days of the Space Shuttle program. Mr. BOLAND. I have a feeling the accident happened not because of budget pressures but because somebody along the line was not listening. Mr. GREEN. That is plainly the case. Plenty of people in NASA knew of the problem with the O rings and yet they didn't so much as tell your Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel there was a problem that ought to be looked at. So it is not as much a lack of tests didn't [sic] disclose the problem, the problem was known to a large number of people who didn't tell anyone. Dr. FLETCHER. Before we get too far down this road, Mr. Chairman, I want to way the cuts in NASA budget in those early years were not make by this Committee. They were made by OMB. We signed up to it. So I am not blaming Congress for this. This was done by us, but it was done, I think in retrospect, carelessly. Testing that should have been done was not done. New we are saying yes, we had better do it now if we want to have a viable shuttle program. --------- William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web How would Eastern Airlines do if the federal government took it over? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #385 *******************