Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_367.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/po2.andrew.cmu.edu.335.0.0>;
          Mon, 19 Sep 88 04:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q007/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.2334c011.3d119e>;
          Mon, 19 Sep 88 04:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00405> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Mon, 19 Sep 88 04:06:11 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03235; Mon, 19 Sep 88 01:08:27 PDT
    id AA03235; Mon, 19 Sep 88 01:08:27 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 01:08:27 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #367

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 367

Today's Topics:
              Two space policies
        Re: SETI:  Why don't we hear anything?
          Announcing the Plutonium Waste Trust Fund.
              Re: Naming the new Shuttle
        Re: Overpopulation is not our problem
              Solar System as a Trashcan
          Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
          Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
              Re: Why no aliens
             Re: more TV viewing
              Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm
          Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 10:29:57 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space
Subject: Two space policies

Since Dale Amon is intimately familiar with both the Ron Paul (Libertarian
presidential candidate) and the National Space Society space policies,
I'm sure many of us would appreciate it if Dale would compare and
contrast these two, vastly different, space policies in terms of their
relative merits.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 88 11:14:52 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space
Subject: Re: SETI:  Why don't we hear anything?

I think the answer is obvious -- there is a galactic betting pool
on how long it will take humanity to go belly-up.  Anyone caught
communicating with Earth in any way automatically loses their wager.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 2 Sep 88 08:33:40 GMT
From: apple!well![e-mail]  (Jef Poskanzer)
Subject: Announcing the Plutonium Waste Trust Fund.

All you folks who want to launch the world's supply of Plutonium are
hereby invited to put your money where your (extremely active) mouths
are.  In the tradition of such conservation groups as the Nature
Conservancy and the Trust for Public Lands, I am starting a trust fund
whose purpose is to waste all our Plutonium.  We will purchase it at
the market price and launch it into interstellar space.  Current
estimates are that the launch cost will be around $20 billion and the
purchase cost will be around $100 billion.  Purchases will start as
soon as we have received enough donations to launch the first load.
The suggested donation is equal to your monthly electricity bill, in
return for which you get an attractive pin identifying you as a
Plutonium Waster.  Send your checks to:

    Plutonium Waste Trust Fund
    c/o John J. Poskanzer
    1212 Kains
    Berkeley, CA 94706

Don't delay!  The longer we wait, the more Plutonium there is!
---
Jef

             Jef Poskanzer   [e-mail]   ...well!pokey
          If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 21:23:14 GMT
From: tektronix!percival![e-mail]  (Gary Wells)
Subject: Re: Naming the new Shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("DURDA") writes:
>thinking about it - PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix!

That's a good name, and appropreate, but...

Don't you think it is time we realized that the Shuttle program is a zombie
(ie: something basically dead, but still animated)?

Let's go for a whole new program, which shall be seen to rise from the ashes
of Challeanger and the shuttle program.  We'll call _that_ Phoenix!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still working on _natural_ intelligence.

gary@percival   (...!tektronix!percival!gary)

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 17:54:40 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd![e-mail]  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation is not our problem


(The Math Hacker) writes:
>> csustan!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!watson proclaims:
>>THERE'S TOO MANY PEOPLE!
>>OVERPOPULATION IS THE PROBLEM!
>>HAVE FEWER BABIES!
>>Actually, I don't think all our current environmental problems are caused
>>by overpopulation ... just a big hunk.
>You're talking to the wrong people.  The U.S. is NOT currently overpopulated.
>It just seems that way because of overcrowded cities.

You bet - the U.S. has a population distribution problem, not an
overpopulation problem. Ever driven from Iowa through South Dakota,
Montana, Idaho south through Nevada and or Utah into Arizona and much
of California? You could count the people on the fingers of one hand.

The gene pool stuff you mention, though, is probably off - we have
plenty of people to keep our genetics going well - especially since we
tend to move around so much, marry outside of our "group" so often
nowadays, and allow so much immigration (legal and illegal).

--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp   [e-mail]   GEnie: J.PANTONE

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

Date: 2 Sep 88 08:14:33 GMT
From: rebel!didsgn![e-mail]  (didsgn)
Subject: Solar System as a Trashcan


IN RESPONSE TO MY INQUIRY STEVE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO REPLY. I POST HIS EMAIL
LETTER HERE, BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS COGENT AND TO THE POINT.

From: Steve Hosgood <rebel!gatech!cs.utexas.edu!uunet.UU.NET!mcvax!pyr.swan.ac.uk!iiit-sh>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 18:10:33-0000
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: utexas.edu!uunet.UU.NET!didsgn!till@cs
Subject: Re: SOlar System trashcans (Was:The Sun as a trashcan)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Institute for Industrial Information Technology
Status: R

Well, I'd oppose the idea of chucking radioactive stuff onto the moon for
2 reasons.

1) The launchers aren't reliable enough.
2) In the future, someone's bound to want to use the moon's real-estate for
    something useful (like living space). Your grandchildren and mine
    are really going to respect you for using it as a radioactive dump!
    They're going to have to clean it all up.

Once apon a time, Bikini Atoll looked like a good place to test H-bombs. Now,
30 years later, people are having to clean the mess up. Anthrax was tested on
a remote Scottish island in WW2, the place is still a total no-go area - you
aren't even allowed to overfly it within several nautical miles. What about
Love Canal? I'm sure the list goes on for ever....

Jupiter or the sun, maybe, the moon - I say no!
Please post a summary if many others cast their votes too.

-----------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Steve Hosgood BSc,                             | Phone [phone]
Image Processing and Systems Engineer,         | Fax [phone]
Institute for Industrial Information Techology,| Telex 48149
Innovation Centre, University of Wales, +------+ JANET: [e-mail]
Swansea SA2 8PP                         | UUCP: ..!ukc!cybaswan.UUCP!iiit-sh
----------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            My views are not necessarily those of my employers!


P.S. by Till:
I agree with Steve's opinion, but would like to add that even Jupiter is
not necessarily an acceptable target for disposal.
If we absolutely need a planet to dump then, given orbital mechanics and
energy expenditure etc maybe Mercury seems more appropriate.

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

Date: 2 Sep 88 15:17:06 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>  The compound they were originally playing with,
>erythropoietin, is now being made by genetically engineered microbes
>and should be on the market in a few years.

I realized after writing this that some may have the misimpression
that the work with CFES somehow led to a ground-based approach.
It didn't -- the isolation and cloning of the gene for EPO was in
no way helped by microgravity research, and was done by other
companies (Amgen and Genetics Institute, I think).

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

    Space is where to go,
    'cause NASA tells me so.

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

Date: 2 Sep 88 12:46:46 GMT
From: haven!uflorida!novavax!proxftl![e-mail]  (Gregory N. Hullender)
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST

1) What exactly did these "successful" spaceleb missions discover?  I
   think they were just more "space junkets."

2) No one had to be up in space to see ocean currents; satellite pictures
   would have done as well.

3) What, exactly, is 3M launching on?  Can't be the shuttle right now,
   and it can't be too important if they've tabled it for almost 3 years.

4) My understanding of the Solar Max mission was that it cost a lot more
   than it would have to simply launch a new one.

5) Hubble has so far returned zero data.  There is nothing about a space
   telescope that intrinsically requires human servicing.

Even though some of the items you mention have some merit, the shuttle has
been at best irrelevant to them, at worst (and this is the usual case)
inimical.

I was being generous in giving it a zero.
--
        Greg Hullender  uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg
        3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308

        My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.

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

Date: 1 Sep 88 12:18:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why no aliens



>simply that it is too dangerous. ... They would
>be stupid to contact us because it would be so easy for us to
>annihilate the planet with nukes.

I think we are overestimating ourselves a little here.  It would take
us lots of years to get together an overwhelming nuclear attack force
that we could get to Mars.  We would have to find out what "annihilate"
means - if all their buildings were hardened and underground, and the
Martians routinely wore radiation proof clothing and were built like
brick s***houses, then we would have to send a hell of a lot of explosive.
Enough, say, to plough up the top mile or so of the whole planet?
I don't think we can put together that sort of firepower, and we are
never going to get that much into space on a shuttle.

Right now we have great difficulty getting *anything* to Mars.  We
would need huge launchers to get this sort of force into inter-
planetary space.

I do not believe that mankind is a worthy space fighter yet, and our
delivery mechanisms are so slow and unguidable that our opponents
would have no trouble picking them off even if their technology was
no more advanced than ours.

Maybe in 50 years time??

            ... Bill

************************************************************************
Bill Witts, CS Dept.     *    Nel Mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
UCL, London, Errrp       *    mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
[e-mail](UK) *    che la diritta via era smarrita.
[e-mail](US) ***********************************************

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

Date: 2 Sep 88 15:58:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: more TV viewing

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>[]
>
>Those of you with TVRO systems, circle Sept. 8 on your calenders.
>In the morning, (probably around 7:00 am Eastern), there will be a
                                  ^^^^
Just got the sched, it'll be a 10:00 AM eastern, 7:00 Pacific.

>countdown demonstration test and on pad abort for the STS-26 crew.
>They've been broadcast in the past, so expect video from this one.
>NASA Select TV is on Satcom F2, xpndr 13.


(you
 know
 what
 this
 is
 for)


--
               *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 2 Sep 88 14:31:31 GMT
From: att!ihlpa![e-mail]  (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Orbital Mech Algorithm


There was some mention of using the 1/2*a*t^2 term to gain increased accuracy
in a simple F=ma calculation. This correction is of order delta_t^2 so that it
becomes less and less helpful as the step size is decreased. There is a correction
of order delta_t, which I learned from professor Robert Folk of Lehigh University
when I was a teaching assistant there. This correction is of the calculation of the
applied force at each step. Instead of evaluating F(x) at x=x_n for the nth interval,
use x=x_n+v*delta_t/2 . This gives a value for F more nearly equal to its average
value over the interval.

An easy way to evaluate relative accuracy is to calcuate a closed eliptical
orbit for a one-body central field problem and check for closure. You'll find
that the "midpoint force term evaluation" method gives greatly increased
accuracy.

Lew Mammel, Jr.

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

Date: 2 Sep 88 16:18:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory N. Hullender) writes:
>
>2) No one had to be up in space to see ocean currents; satellite pictures
>   would have done as well.

We've had oceanographic studies via unmanned satillites, but whether you
like it or not, the human eye is vastly more sensitive to some things
than any of the cameras ever launched. John Scully-Power was simply able
to witness very fine structures never detected in the years and years
of earth resource satillite studies.

>3) What, exactly, is 3M launching on?  Can't be the shuttle right now,
>   and it can't be too important if they've tabled it for almost 3 years.

It's called the Shuttle. The first CFES (Continuous Flow Electrophoresis
System) flight was on STS-3, and it has flown on 7 or 8 missions since
then.

>4) My understanding of the Solar Max mission was that it cost a lot more
>   than it would have to simply launch a new one.

NASA didn't happen to have a warehouse full of spare Solar Max satillites,
to launch as needed. They would've had to construct
a whole new one practically from scratch, at a cost of at least $150 million.
Now double that to include the launch costs, and you end up with about
$300 million or more in total costs. Not to mention a minimum of 5 years
in construction. Alot of extra time and money when all that was needed
to be done was to replace a burned out fuse.

>5) Hubble has so far returned zero data.

So has Galileo and Magellen.

>   There is nothing about a space
>   telescope that intrinsically requires human servicing.

Can you say "repair"? If we're going to put up a $billion dollar plus,
instrument in space, we damn well better be able to fix the thing
if struck by a micro-meteroid, or suffers a system failure. Not to mention
refueling it, cleaning the mirror, etc. Also, periodically, scientific packages
will be swapped out for new ones.

>Even though some of the items you mention have some merit, the shuttle has
>been at best irrelevant to them, at worst (and this is the usual case)
>inimical.

Read the above.

>I was being generous in giving it a zero.
             ^^^^^^^^
Nah, too easy. . .

>        Greg Hullender  uflorida!novavax!proxftl!greg
>        3511 NE 22nd Ave / Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
>
>        My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer.


--
               *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people
 some of the time, but you can't fool Mom".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #367
*******************