Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_250.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

From ota Sat Jun 11 03:06:53 1988
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14411; Sat, 11 Jun 88 03:06:37 PDT
    id AA14411; Sat, 11 Jun 88 03:06:37 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 88 03:06:37 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #250

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 250

Today's Topics:
      Re: Non-sexist language (was:Space Station Names)
                   Re: Mars
           Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks
            Astronaut Requirements
                  Robertson
     clearing martian landing sites with nuclear devices
              Re: Shuttle External Tanks
            Re: Naming the space station.
               Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221
         Ariane V23/Intelsat V launch success
          Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST
           Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 May 88 06:33:08 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Non-sexist language (was:Space Station Names)

> ... But I just can't come up with a good
> gender-free word to replace exactly the sense of 'manned'! ...
> Any constructive suggestions?

Name three female astronauts who prefer sitting on the ground in a
"crewed" spacecraft to flying in a "manned" one.  My constructive
suggestion is to spend time and energy on problems which have a higher
priority, like the lack of spaceflight opportunities for both sexes,
and worry about the terminology once the important issues are solved.
Until then, I really think we can make do with "manned" plus an
occasional apology for the limitations of the language.
--
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 May 88 23:10:45 GMT
From: silver![e-mail]  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Mars

| >     Remember that the Viking landers only sampled 2 places on all of Mars,
| > and those weren't even the places where atmospheric pressure and water vapor
| > content are thought to be highest.
|
| It is not the case that the Viking sites were particularly dry compared to
| other parts of the planet. Moreover, the measured partial pressure of water
| was something like 14 precipitable microns, orders of magnitude too low for
| liquid water to exist, even if saturated with salts.

    I didn't say they were particularly dry; however, they are not the
wettest either.  (I don't remember the wettest spots, but I do remember that
at least one of them was considered for a Viking landing site and rejected for
some reason.)  And remember that the liquid water does NOT have to be stable;
transient existence is sufficient for some terrestrial forms of life, and can
be obtained under conditions in which liquid is not the most stable phase of
water.

| >   They also did register some life-like
| > reactions, which, while by no means being proof of life, deserve further
| > investigation before being swept under the rug.
|
| The results were hardly "life-like". They were much more consistent with
| the presence of peroxides, superoxides, and ozonides in the soil. The
| process that generates these compounds (photochemical dissociation of water
| vapor) would operate globally, and dust storms would carry the chemicals
| everywhere. It would be nice to confirm this model by further tests, but
| claims that Viking did not present strong evidence against the existence of
| life are misleading.

    People gave those explanations, but not STRONG evidence.  If I
remember properly, the Vikings' onboard laboratories were not equipped to make
the distinction between life and reactions with oxidizing compounds, radicals,
etc.

| > Also, who is to say that life has to be organic? In _Genetic Takeover and
| > the Origin of Life_ and also in a Scientific American article of a couple
| > of years ago, A. G. Cairns-Smith makes a very respectable case for the
| > hypothesis that the first life on Earth was in fact reproducing crystals
| > capable of storing and transmitting genetic information and catalyzing
| > metabolic reactions beneficial to themselves.
|
| Cairns-Smith's very imaginative proposal is not supported by any evidence.

    NONE of the models of the origin of life are supported by ANY evidence
whatsoever.  ALL of the attempts to reproduce pre-biotic evolution by
simulating "primordial soups" have failed miserably -- while they make a few
percent amino acids and such (total, not any one type), they make >90% tar and
other unuseable garbage.  With the low concentrations of these molecules that
can be obtained under any reasonable conditions (that is, not involving
enormous pressures and extreme concentrations of one compound to the exclusion
of other required compounds), assembly of polymers is highly energetically
unfavorable.  Of course, these facts are not usually emphasized in reports
supporting standard models. . .

    At any rate, when you take into account all the evidence (at least all
that obtained up to 1985), A. G. Cairns-Smith's model is as good as any of the
others.

| Moreover, his model requires the existence of liquid water.
|
| >  Liquid water is not stable on Mars, but since frost (or maybe even
| > snow) can form there and accumulate during the night and then be heated by
| > the Sun when morning comes around, liquid water could exist transiently.
|
| I believe this has been looked into. Frost does not form at night at the
| Viking sites (although *seasonal* frosts do occur, probably by
| precipitation of suspended ice grains), and any frost that did form would
| sublime and not moisten the soil.

    Like I said, the Viking sites are not the wettest on Mars.  And it
will probably be impossible to say that no liquid water forms on the surface
of Mars until some roving probe with the proper instruments samples a large
number of sites.

| > Terrestrial microorganisms that use oxygen have enzymes to deal with
| > oxidizing radicals and other nasty stuff. Considering that some
| > cyanobacteria and archaebacteria are capable of growing in boiling sulfuric
| > acid (which is a pretty strong oxidizer), and that other organisms have
| > been shown to be able to grow in conditions which simulate Martian
| > conditions, I would not be surprised if something found Martian conditions
| > to be similar enough to its terrestrial niche to be able to adapt.
|
| Those enzymes cannot operate if the organism has been lyophilized.  I view
| with incredulity your claim that organisms have been found to grow in
| conditions that simulate Martian conditions.  Perhaps you are refering
| to very old experiments that were performed before it was realized how
| cold and dry Mars really is?  Please give a reference.

    I don't remember a specific reference, but these might have used
outdated conditions.  They were performed no later than the early 1970's
(before either Viking).

    -- Lucius Chiaraviglio
       [e-mail]
       [e-mail]    (in case the first one doesn't work)
Better to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool than to leave people
hanging in suspense.

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

Date: 19 May 88 01:41:39 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks

>>I've forgotten... why didn't the Soviets salvage Skylab?

Salvaging SkyLab would have been extremely difficult, if possible, for
the Soviet's to do.  The would have had to dock with it - meaning they
would need a compatible docking adapter - and have enough fuel left
over for a reboost.

Without detailed documentation on the SkyLab docking port, building a docking
adapter for Soyuz would be impossible.  Even with all the documentation, the US
had problems docking with the much smaller Solar Max satellite.

Once docking was complete the Soyuz would need substantial fuel for a
reboost, and then more for the decent burn.  I don't have the numbers
but somehow I doubt that Soyuz could do this.  I could be wrong though.

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

Date: 18 May 88 22:04:31 GMT
From: ncspm![e-mail]  (Jay C. Smith)
Subject: Astronaut Requirements


Regarding the recent postings of the requirements for becoming an
astronaut, I don't remember normal color vision being one.

Did I just miss it?  Or did others leave it out?  Or is it really
not a requirement?

Please, go ahead and depress me (reds and greens give me problems
on those circles-in-a-circle tests they give, but never with stoplights
or other everyday situations).  I could take it, if only I just
once saw a list of job requirements that said "Must be able to hear
frequencies up to 20 kHz."

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay C. Smith                    uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain:    [e-mail]      internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 19 May 88 15:05:01 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Robertson

Pat Robertson finally answered my question about his views
on Space. It's a little too late but I'll post them here
anyway:

"Americans for Robertson

"Dear

"Thank you for your correspondence. We are pleased to have
the opportunity of becoming further acquainted with the
goals and issues of greatest significance to you and the
community.

"Pat Robertson shares your concern for America's space
policy, and believes it is in desperate need of
revitalization. He considers President Reagan's space
program a step in the right direction toward restoring U. S.
leadership in space, and would like to see even greater
emphasis placed on privatization of ventures.

"At the same time, a thorough reorganization of NASA must
continue---from top management on down---so that its
operations are made cost effective, while maintaining the
highest standards of quality and safety.

"Your interest in our candidate, M. G. "Pat" Robertson is
appreciated.

"Sincerely, Barbara Gattullo, Director of Communications,
Americans for Robertson, BG:glp"

    --- Danny

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

Date: 19 May 88 11:18:00 CDT
From: "ASUIPF::MC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: clearing martian landing sites with nuclear devices
To: "space" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "ASUIPF::MC" <[e-mail]>

Get your facts straight about resolution from orbit first.  The Mars
Observer Camera narrow-angle has a resolution of between 1 and 1.4
meters.  We have proposed things like 30-cm resolution optics that
wouldn't be much more expensive.  If you think you're ever going
to be able to launch a tactical nuke to Mars you're completely
nuts.  It's hard enough to get a tank of hydrazine launched these
days, especially on the shuttle.  On the shuttle, it's hard to get
a nine-volt battery launched (I speak only of safety issues,
not the flight status of the shuttle.)

The person who proposed "steerable parachutes and smart robots" hasn't
been following the development of SCI autonomous vehicles and their
utter lack of success.  Now balloons are another story...

    Mike Caplinger, ASU/Caltech Mars Observer Camera Project
    [e-mail]
------

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

Date: 19 May 88 20:54:09 GMT
From: pioneer![e-mail]  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks

No not again!
Actually Will Martin brought up a few points and when our noted space
attorney gets back from vacation next week, I will drop this on his
desk.  Al Globius made a few technical points.  He also left out a few orbital
characteristics.  The principal thing which no one has mentioned is the
Skylab and these tanks are regarded as US Territory.  Salvage law with
standing (we had an interesting lesson on this topic while sailing the
other day).  Anyway. I'll bring with up with the lawyer over lunch,
sure he will get a kick, "There are these guys out there and they want to
know...."

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
The Rock of Ages Home has moved buildings and phone extension......
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

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

Date: 20 May 88 00:01:34 GMT
From: beta![e-mail]  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Naming the space station.

How about 'Ricercar' (pronounced reach-er-car).  It is the English
word for the musical form now called a fugue (a Latin word- through
Italian).  The roots of the word are the same as for 'research', in
fact one of the meanings of the word used to be 'to seek'.

This seems to capture the flavor that the space program should work
for - both artistic and scientific.

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

Date: 18 May 88 15:47:55 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221

> it sure is hard to beat a launch site with water in every direction
> that's only 12 degress off the equator and in a friendly country to
                                                  ^^^^^^^^
> boot!

Has Hawaii declared independence?  Last I heard it was still part of the
US... :-)

Being attacked by government bureaucrats waving regulations and lawyers
waving liability suits may be a bit less nerve-wracking than being
attacked by guerillas waving guns, but it's every bit as destructive to
privately-funded spaceflight.  Cape York is a better bet.
--
NASA is to spaceflight as            |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the Post Office is to mail.          | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 May 88 00:26:23 GMT
From: thumper![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Ariane V23/Intelsat V launch success

The Ariane V23 launcher (the Ariane 2 version) carrying an Intelsat V
spacecraft was launched successfully this evening, shortly before 0000
UTC. The launch was a complete success.

This clears the way for the next launch, Ariane V22 carrying, among
other things, the AMSAT Phase 3C amateur radio satellite. That launch is
scheduled for June 8 and will be the first flight of the new Ariane 4
version.

The V23 launch was carried live on Spacenet 1 (120 deg W) on transponder
23 (horizontal polarization).

Phil

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

Date: 18 May 88 17:56:36 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf![e-mail]  (ModemUserGroupChairman)
Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Wong) writes:
>
>    (A bunch of comments re. safety of ejection seats)
>
>Tom Wolfe relates some incidents in his book, "The Right Stuff."
>Apparently, if you were in a bad situation it was 50/50 whether
>to eject or to try and ride the plane down.
>--

    Admittedly, ejection seats can not be considered to be perfectly safe.
In a space shuttle, however, you do not have the option of 'riding the plane
down'. Even if an ejection seat is only 10% effective, this is preferable to
the 0% chance of surviving without one. If a more better escape system is
developed, it should be used, but an ejection seat system is better than
nothing.



                                    -A. Craig West

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

Date: 18 May 88 18:12:55 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax![e-mail]  (John Gregor)
Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
>Suppose NASA had actually done what we wished, and there HAD been a dozen
>or more tanks in orbit, and then the Challenger disaster and the
>subsequent multi-year hiatus in US manned spaceflight had happened as it
>did.

Probably, if it were important enough, the program wouldn't have had
the multi-year hiatus it did.  But that would have implied a plan,
a multi mission project, and some sort of organization to it all.
And we know that isn't there.

>If the Soviets really wanted to look at the innards of any
>of our satellites, they could just grab the worn-out or inert ones
>while they are over Soviet territory and out of our scanning range
>and leave something in their orbital places to continue to show up on
>radar tracks! Maybe they've already done this -- how would we know?)

Reason 1: Booby traps (chemical, biological, radioactive, explosive, etc)
    I wouldn't go near a US military (or Soviet) satellite without the
    FULL documentation of what they were armed with.  Oh, they have
    the documentation... never mind.
Reason 2: Probably the last operation many of these satellites do is
    self-destruct (at least the 'sensitive' parts).
Reason 3: Any launch that planned to rendezvous with a satellite would
    be obvious from the orbit it entered.
Reason 4: The Soviets don't own the whole hemisphere, we have stations
    everywhere.

>Anyway, if we HAD left tanks in orbit, and we then discovered that we
>wouldn't have been able to use them or "freshen-up" their orbits before
>they were lost, I would hope that we would have had the sense to offer
>them to the Soviets as gifts.

Too bad they couldn't have salvaged skylab.  I would have like to have
it get some real use.

--
pqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpqpq
bdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbdbd

John Gregor                                     [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #250
*******************