Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 05:02:23 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #236 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 23 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 236 Today's Topics: Ethics Hubble is looking at pluto again followup Ion drive pollution LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO (2 msgs) PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH Sayonara, Mariner Mark II what use is Freedom? what use is Freedom? (Free flyer comment) 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: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 17:37:13 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Ethics Newsgroups: sci.space In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes some stuff about terraforming Mars. So to get this straight, you believe that every valid ethical system includes the following two values: - Human life is more valuable than anything else; any single human life is worth more than that of any other species, ecosystem, or inanimate object or set of objects (assuming for the sake of argument that that other system will not contribute to human life). - The more humans exist, the better. Do you believe this? Can you give me a short answer? [because your argument seems to rest on these two propositions, and I do not agree with them, nor do I think my ethical system is invalid because of my disagreement. Hence your argument cannot possibly convince me unless you can first convince me of these (and vice versa I cannot convince you), and sci.space is _certainly_ not the place to discuss this kind of proposition] Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 14:48:35 -0500 From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Hubble is looking at pluto again followup \The Hubble Space Telesope took some more images of Pluto and Charon /yesterday using its Wide Field/Planetary Camera. The pair is about 25 \arseconds from a nearby star. The images were received and are /currently being analyzed. Well? What did they see? -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560 "NOAH!" "Yes Lord?" - Bill Cosby "HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 11:43:16 -0500 From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Ion drive pollution \Is there a chance that the ion drive might pollute the environment that some /scientific instrument on the probe is trying to measure? Like an instrument \measuring concentrations of natural ions in the area around some planet's /magnetic field? Sure, turn it off before you measure, but how long does it \take for the pollution to clear? Good question. Of course, you could use an uncommon sort of material for your reaction mass, which would let you screen out a lot of interference. I think the ion contamination (they tend to become neutral fairly quickly, and in fact the exhaust needs to be neutralized quickly or the ion drive stops working) is secondary to how having the electric and magnetic fields around the spacecraft disturbed is going to affect fields-and-particles experiments.. -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560 "NOAH!" "Yes Lord?" - Bill Cosby "HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 15:44 CST From: NAME "Robert E. McElwaine" Subject: LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics LARSONIAN "Reciprocal System" Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single set of laws or equations. But they have been systematically IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years! The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of space and time: (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME." (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN." From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational- rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL DATUM"). At each step in the development, Larson was able to MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY BURSTS). And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom, Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter- atomic distances in crystals and molecules. All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy complex mathematics, in his books. BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson The following is a complete list of the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe. Some of the early books are out of print now, but still available through inter-library loan. "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959) "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963) "Beyond Newton" (1964) "New Light on Space and Time" (1965) "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971) "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979) [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super Collider".] "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982) "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984) [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical mysteries.] "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988) [Available from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS) 1680 E. Atkin Ave. Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 ] Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer (Chemical or Electrical). He was about 91 years old when he died a couple of years ago. He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State University. He developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE chemical properties based only on the elements used. Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is NOT A VALID REASON. Sometimes it takes a relative outsider to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES. At the same time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer, well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC.. Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally test his Theory. And it was NOT necessary for him to do so. He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER researchers' experimental and observational data. And in many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER. A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX physicists and astronomers have! They CLAIM to be looking for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been IGNORING one for over 30 years now! "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe so well. Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who agree. And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres", "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG. Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior, was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY". He moved to Minneapolis after retiring. "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE! I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super Collider", in Texas or anywhere else. It would be a GROSS WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific" value. Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.) which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab, Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible with their environment. A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW! Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3 BILLION cost?!! Don't we have much more important uses for this WASTED money?! Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground cables. How much POISONING of the ground and ground water with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of the "Supercollider"?! Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD! If it is built, it should be named after a leading particle PHYSICIST. LARSONIAN Anti-Matter In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of opposite charges of the same types of particles. It has more to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the photons of which they are made, in relation to the vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light, which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum". In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of MATTER, NOT anti-matter. When a positron and electron meet, the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each other. In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our MATERIAL half. LARSONIAN Relativity The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the rate of 574 seconds of arc per century. 531 seconds of this advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter, etc.). The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity". But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity". In one or more of his books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury. Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another MATHEMATICAL FANTASY. He also REJECTED most of "Special Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than 1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.). In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead of only one. But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured from our material half of the physical universe. The one dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time. At low relative speeds, the values of the othe two dimensions are NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR. [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing about this.] In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near the speed of light. But the formula for acceleration is ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m). Orthodox physicists are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE. In Larson's Theory, mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero. FORCE is actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS. The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL FANTASY). THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon 97213), 456 pages, indexed, hardcover. It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago. It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most all Astrophysical mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma- ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc.. It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with OPEN MINDS! The following is an example of his Theory's success: In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them. They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's comprehensive Theory. And when QUASARS were discovered, he had an immediate related explanation for them also. GAMMA-RAY BURSTS Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS. They were originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the disc of our galaxy. But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of directional coincidence). Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson. According to page 386 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "Cosmic Sector". Because of the relationship between the anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at random. (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do not correspond with known objects, and come from all directions uniformly.) I wonder how close to us in space a source location would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most life on Earth! There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to stop it! Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS! LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the vicinity of the sun are binary or double. But orthodox astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory theory about how they form or why there are so many of them. But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson. I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" and in some of his other books. First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate energy by "fusion". A small fraction comes from slow gravitational collapse. The rest results from the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON). Each element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT. The heavier the element is, the lower is this limit. A star's internal temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and lighter elements. When the internal temperature of the star reaches the destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION! This is because there is SO MUCH iron present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some of his books [better than I can]. When the star explodes, the lighter material on the outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less than the speed of light. The heavier material in the center portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to the speed of light, because of the high temperature. The explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while. Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall back gravitationally. The material that had been blown outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star. The material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a WHITE DWARF star. BOTH stars then start moving back toward the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R Diagram. The chances of the two masses falling back into the exact same location in space, making a single lone star again, are near zero. They will instead form a BINARY system, orbiting each other. According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown outward) in time. This ELIMINATES the need to resort to MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron stars", "black holes", etc.. LARSONIAN Solar System Formation If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected by its heat, etc.). These will become PLANETS! In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all this information, and other principles of his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive his own version of Bode's Law. "Black Hole" FANTASY! I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than the sum of the two original "black holes". Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black holes", etc.! After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES! The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want to "prove" their theory. By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is being given to physicist Stephen Hawking. The physicists and astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical problem somehow makes him "wiser". It does NOT! I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive. Widespread publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of Unified Science). ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed. I found a possible clue about why they might work on pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe. I quote one paragraph: "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally different concept of the nature of electrical resistance. The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment. It was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that, although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are limited. It follows that there is always a large excess of free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the universe, most of which are uncharged. In this uncharged state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, and the relation of space to space is not motion. In open space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently in the same location with respect to the natural reference system, in the manner of a photon. In the context of the stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by the progression of the natural reference system. All material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation. Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later, whereby electrons are returned to the environment. The electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level." Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate). ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light, according to Larson's Theory.) [I might have the "above" and "below" labels mixed up.] Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass- LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of light! If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge is a rotational vibration of a particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the rotation of the particle.) The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to confused meteorologists about how lightning is generated in clouds. SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE". It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan, and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have. Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars. Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals, in the U.S. and elsewhere. And at least the basic principles of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed. UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this partial summary is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 15:45:24 EST From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR Subject: PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO Yaron Sheffer writes (21 Sep 92 18:53:35 GMT): >There's another one that was discovered earlier this year: 1992 AD, >a minor planet (?) that travels between about 9 AU and 32 AU away >from the Sun. It is just now passing through perihelion, and this surely >was a helping factor in its discovery. So this object can be added >before arriving to Pluto... > >Ronny Two planetlike objects, 1992 AD and 1992 QB1, spotted this year between 9 AU and 59 AU... Had there been something like that before ? If not, was it because: 1) 1992 is a lucky year (normal statistical fluctuation) ? 2) people did not really try (in particular, there was no systematical search within the Kuiper belt) ? 3) technique was not good enough ? 4) there was no "well thought out and planned experiment" ? 5) these objects were given another name (comets) ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 09:53:00 GMT From: Dave Tholen Subject: PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO Newsgroups: sci.space John A. Weeks III writes: > We need a new "Grand Tour" flight. The Pluto direct flights should be directed > to fly past Chiron (I think thats the name of the thing discovered in the > neighborhood or Saturn), then Pluto, then past this new planet. Perhaps a > few new objects will be sighted beyond Pluto in the mean time that can be > added to the mission. > > Since you cannot get much of a direction change when flying past small > objects, would a flight like this be possible? Do these objects line > up or are they even in the same plane? Could one get gravity assists > from some of the larger planets in order to fly by these smaller objects? Let's at least wait until we know the orbit of this object before planning spacecraft missions to it! This much is for sure: it's on the opposite side of the sky from Pluto, so they won't be lining up anytime soon. Interesting aside: one of the Pluto mission trajectories did include a rather distant Chiron flyby, and by distant, I mean really distant. It would have taken a super high resolution imaging system to do anything with it. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 92 07:56:45 GMT From: Tom Nugent Subject: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH Newsgroups: sci.space abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes: > The main difference between Venus and Earth lies in their orbits around >the Sun. For one thing, Venus stays around 67 million miles away from the >Sun, whereas Earth stays around 93 million miles away from the Sun. As a >consequence of the corresponding greenhouse effects, Venus' average surface >temperature is around 900 degrees F, whereas Earth's is around 60 degrees F. >Venus, being an extraordinarily hot planet is unsuitable for sustaining life >(as we know it). > However, if we alter Venus' orbit and make it similar to the Earth's >orbit, then the gradual process of generating life sustaining ecology on >Venus will evolve automatically. As a result, a second Earth-like planet >will be created which, in due course, will be readily and easily populated >by the human species. Nope. Distance from the sun is not the only variable which determines surface temp/livability. Venus' atmosphere is something like 90 times more dense than that of Earth; this is what makes it so hot. Mars, on the other hand, has a surface gravity which is too small to hang onto most gaseous chemicals, hence its atmosphere is thin, and doesn't provide enough greenhouse effect. Also, putting Venus into an orbit near Earth would do bad things, like destroy the Earth. (Perturb its orbit very significantly at least, if not just smash) into it. > The present-day tendencies of Space Scientists and Space Technology >consist in keeping Venus or Mars in their existing orbits and trying to install >on them machinery which will produce life-sustaining conditions. This approach >most likely will not yield the desired results. Indeed, creating life- >sustaining ecology on the planets (like Venus or Mars) whose present cosmic >parameters, to begin with do not allow the existence of life on them, seems >improbable and impractical. How exactly do you propose to move an ENTIRE GODDAMN PLANET????? The machinery to terraform a planet is peanuts compared to what you would need to do to move a planet. Machinery is also not the only way to go. Plant certain bacteria, etc. which ingest CO2 and put out O2 will begin the process. Keep it up with more advanced plants as the temperature falls. You would most likely need machinery to help, but not to do the entire thing. --- "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered with failures, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt -- Tom Nugent voice:(217)328-0994 e-mail:tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu "To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 10:04:13 GMT From: Dave Tholen Subject: Sayonara, Mariner Mark II Newsgroups: sci.space Bill Higgins writes: > "Small" only on the scale of planetary science, understand. If > Fermilab had the 400-megabuck budget (I generously neglect launch > costs, as NASA always does in quoting costs) of the Pluto probe, we > could build our new Main Injector and still serve free champagne every > day in the cafeteria. And we are "big science" by Earthly standards! That was the old NASA. In Goldin's NASA, we fully expect the Pluto mission cost to include launch, and the current budget ceiling we're looking at is in the 400 million ballpark, including launch. The spacecraft design is quite a challenge, but Rob Staehle and colleagues haven't shrunk from it. Of course, the Pluto mission isn't funded yet, but we are still optimistic about a 1995 new start. Oh, and the reason why launch costs weren't included in the past is because launch was handled by an entirely different branch of NASA. You don't budget money for your branch if another branch is going to be doing the work. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 10:56 EDT From: USRNAME Subject: what use is Freedom? Sept 18,1992 Space Station Freedom, What use is it? According to a reliable source, at a space station utilization meeting of 1500 people earlier in the year, only 15 of the people in attendance considered themselves to be space station users, as opposed to contractors, NASA engineers, etc. The question comes to mind "What's wrong with this picture?" Who will use the space station when it is ready? The types of science mostly talked about are life science and microgravity. Microgravity is somewhat incompatible with people being on board and jostling the station. Are there plans now to have a module floating free from the main station for that? What I am curious to find out is, who wants to use the space station Freedom and for what? There are probably scientists who want to do basic research, but perhaps there are also people in industry who have thought about using the ssF for applied research. If anyone on the net has thoughts, please post or send to me. I'm putting together a short presentation for a technical society meeting on this subject. I especially want to talk to people in industry who have an interest in using the space station Freedom for applied research. Tally ho, Freedom Bound. --- Gay ps. I'd appreciate it if you would cross post this to other nets if you are able to do so. Thanks. e-mail(Internet): CANOUGH@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU (GEnie) : G.CANOUGH phone/fax= 607 785 6499 voice mail = 800 673 8265 radio call sign: KB2OXA 'Snail Mail: ETM, Inc. PO Box 67 Endicott, NY 13761 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 14:46:44 -0500 From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: what use is Freedom? (Free flyer comment) \about are life science and microgravity. Microgravity is /somewhat incompatible with people being on board and \jostling the station. Are there plans now to have a module /floating free from the main station for that? I've always liked the idea. What was the show-stopper? Anyone here know? BTW, sci.space seems to be the best place for this now. And I can't cross post right now... -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560 "NOAH!" "Yes Lord?" - Bill Cosby "HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?" ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 236 ------------------------------