Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_249.TXT

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
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/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sXzwZOy00UkZ84LU5Z>;
          Mon, 20 Feb 89 03:16:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 89 03:16:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #249

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 249

Today's Topics:
              Re: 1992 moon base
             Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
             Re: State SPACEPAC rankings
        Re . Black Holes and approaching C  .
            More personal dreams .
              Re: 1992 moon base
             Re: Space Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 89 23:58:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (daniel mocsny) writes:
>...To the extent the Antarctic winter is similar to life on the moon, the
>experiences of the staffs provide valuable information on the prospects
>for sustaining communities there.

There is one obvious dissimilarity:  the winter staff in Antarctica know
that they're in "maintenance mode", with all the real activity waiting
for the summer.  This will affect motivation.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Feb 89 23:09:58 GMT
From: sm.unisys.com!aero!venera.isi.edu![e-mail]  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>>The ranking was:
>>Alaska          91    [#1]
>
>but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
>What are they doing up there to get that kind of support???!!?
>
>Peter Scott ([e-mail])

To get completely off the topic of space, maybe only adventurous people
move to Alaska in the first place?

Anyway, my two cents' worth:

1) Return to the Moon
2) unmanned probes to the outer solar system
3) return to the Moon
4) mission to Planet Earth
5) return to the Moon
6) build a space station
7) return to the Moon

It's the middle of February, guys and gals. End of June is the cutoff
date to get your applications in for the astronaut training program,
selection process to be completed in December, candidates to report
to Houston next July, for one year of training and final approval
as an astronaut, with the cycle to begin again in June of 1991.

Get your applications in!

            --Rod

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

Date: 15 Feb 89 00:31:32 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!aero!venera.isi.edu![e-mail]  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: State SPACEPAC rankings

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>>The ranking was:
>>Alaska          91    [#1]
>
>Excuse me???  I mean, I can understand figures like
>
>
>although I was surprised somewhat by the poor standing of
>
>>California      66.5  [#20]
>
>but why in God's name is Alaska *first*, significantly beyond the pack??
>What are they doing up there to get that kind of support???!!?
>
>Peter Scott ([e-mail])

The answer is in how statistics work.  Alaska, with one
representative, can get a very high rating because that one
congressman likes space, if he hated it, Alaska could be last.
California, with 45 representatives, gets a greater mix.  Some of the
California representatives are very pro-space and others are not.

    Craig
--
====================================================================
ARPA:     [e-mail]
PHONE:    [phone] ext. 111
USPS:    USC Information Sciences Institute
    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
    Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Slogan:    "nemo me impune lacessit"
====================================================================

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

Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 89 02:38:21 EST
From: Jon Kjoll <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re . Black Holes and approaching C  .


More physics.
A responce on :
>Subject: Black holes (was Re: Comparing c and speed of sound)
>Subject: Re: approaching "C"


Mike Van Pelt writes in a responce ( to Roberts ?? ) :
> Subject: Black holes (was Re: Comparing c and speed of sound)
>>My own area of skepticism: I'm not convinced that it's possible for a
>>lack hole to come into existence in a finite period of time, from the
>>viewpoint of an outside observer.
>I'm convinced you're right.
>Since time slows down, asymptotically approaching 'stopped' at the
>event horizon, the closest there can be is a "black hole in progress".

Let's say the gravitational mass is a soccer ball , now let this
mass shell fall in its own gravitational field and collapse
indefenitely. At a certain point in time the gravitational pull is so
strong that space becomes bent into a ball at some distance Rh ,
the radii of the event horizon . What your statement implies is that
at this point the gravitating mass that *causes* the black hole is
outside or on the event horizon . It can impossibly be outside .
It could be on the horizon , but why should one trust one's domestic
intuition in the dynamics of the 4D gravitational theory ??
The black hole is a static solution of these equations , its formation
highly nontrivial .
( This problem is solved , and I recall that space and time changes
roles on the horizon: Hoeye, Olaussen, Sollie and ??, around 1984-1985 )
To send something into an existing black hole is something else .


More C :
>From: silver![e-mail]
>Subject: Re: approaching "C"
>>Second, FTL in any form either provides time travel or violates
>>conventional causality. I'm not sure how strong this second point is.
>>Physicists are very attached to causality, and so assume FTL impossible
>>But there are known effects that call conventional causality into
>>question.
Yes ??????? and conventional ??
>Like the entire discipline of Quantum Mechanics, for example,
>some followers
>of which would tell you that we can never know everything about an
>electron, not just because our instruments interfere with it, but
>because the electron ITSELF doesn't even know precisely where it is
>or where it is going.  How the electron knows what the hell to do next
>is an unresolved question.

Sorry . Dirac solved that problem. The relativistic QM equation for
the electron describes the behaviour nicely and has done so the last 50
years. It even predicted antimatter . The electron is no longer *a*
electron but a mathematically expressed probability distribution .
Nature probably had no choise . My question is , how can the electron
withstand its own electric repulsion ??

I feel inclined to shake your concept of time . What makes
you think that time is something absolute ??
What if time *stems* from local uncertainty and short range correlations
i.e is a consequence of a deeper laying mechanism preventing all
points in space-time of being simultaneously in contact (preventing FTL
communicating ) ??


>The complaint about breaking the speed of light barrier is usually that
>it would violate our notion of causality, that it would require
>overthrowing modern-day physics.
>I would propose that our notion of causality is  a
>fuzzy one at best, and for physicists to chain themselves to the word
>"causality" while embracing Heisenberg's view of QM is the pinnacle of
>Orwell's double-think, intentional or not.
Causality and the Copenhagen view ( Heisenbergs uncertainty ) poses no
problem to me . Why is this double think ?? It might be the cause of
human thoughs .


>This does not mean I think breaking C is possible, or even probable.
>I do believe, however, that if we are unable to break the speed of
>light barrier, then we are forever confined to this solar system.

Heyheyhey . At the speed of c already, all matter in the entire
universe (as we know it today ) will be  *seen* as a 2 dimensional
pancake with you in the centre . There is no problem travelling
*anywhere* in 0 *local* time . Your twin will long be gone when you
return of course , but you couldn't interact with him anyway .
In frames where communication is possible , time is just a concept
to order events . Looking at your twin , s/he moved with tremendous
speed and accomplished a life in a few of "your" seconds.



       Jon Kjoll
       [e-mail]

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

Date:         Thu, 16 Feb 89 01:09:28 EST
From: Jon Kjoll <[e-mail]>
Subject:      More personal dreams .


Why is it that the SPACE discussion forum is a hotbed for unfounded
personal dreams , the essence of them all being that I want to have
my own permanent, selfsupported, highly profitable and tachion-like
space habitat tomorrow ??.
What is so great with 40 trillion people in the astroid belt or
putting 36 years old in a 90 minute orbit so they can end their lifes ??
I for one , am not willing to put tax money in the hands of souls
not capable of rational thoughts , or an elementry understanding of
ethics. With rational thoughts I mean a clear and bright insight into
what is possible and when , and with ethics I mean concerns beyond
narcissistic personal dream motivs. There is no return without
investment . What kind of investment is a dream submittet to SPACE ??

I'm convinced that humans will increase their presence in space, slowly.
Despite all dreams and good faith in the US economy , Nature is
determined to let all variables fluctuate and so also the size of
the Federal Reserve . This might be independent on factors
like lack of interest or a 90 degree change in Space politics .
One may opt for more realistic timescales than "a dream-a-day" when
it comes to space development .

I am not for or against NASA , I just make the observation that
progress is made . Progress is made because there is quite a few
people out there with insight and energy working to realize realistic
goals . The speed at which progress is made is to me
a meaningless consept . I'm only interested in the knowledge .
A fast space program is as meaningfull to me as a fast academic
research program meant to "invent something new" . NASA could of
course yeild more output, but that argument applies to all of us and
efficiency fluctuations are to be expected .
I fail to see that non-academic space development has to progress faster
than the services requested at every instant . Now , the responce to this
might be that there is a lack of services , but what is a 10 year
delay in this game ?? Dreamy looses his chance ?? 10 years is what
it took Detroit to realize the benefits of the airbag .
I smile when I see references to mountain climbing and Columbi
travel . These feats are within the reach of ONE determined
human being . They do not require wasting a lot of scarcy resources .

I'm dissappointed to see all this reference to the Russian "lead".
If Space activites becomes Space race and Space race is the only
reality , then our investments are done in vain . Our commitments have
to be better founded than a steroid biceps .
Paul F. Dietz tries regularily to educate the net about the Russian
economy . We can all speculate about the domestic economy , lets say
20 years forward in time . A ten decade program depends negligibly
on the current resource input situation . And, if the thought of having
a cosmonaut be the first to step on Mars hurts , then maybe you should
dream about something else .


Let dreams be dreams and make creativity, knowledge and dedication
be the tools . Now you can start push ......

               Jon Kjoll

Brown Univ, Providence, RI02912
[e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Feb 89 10:56:24 GMT
From: jumbo![e-mail]  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base

Henry Spencer wrote:
>
>   The winter staff in Antarctica know that they're in
>   "maintenance mode", with all the real activity waiting for the
>   summer.  This will affect motivation.

Which way, I wonder?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ``But--- suppose all these problems can be solved solved, all these
  obstacles  overcome, suppose everything does work out in your favor,
  suppose you do arrive safe and sound on the moon --- then how can
  you get back?''

  ``I won't come back.''

      --Verne, _From the Earth to the Moon_ (1865)

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

Date: 16 Feb 89 16:30:46 GMT
From: cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!thor![e-mail]  (James S. Larson @ St. Olaf College)
Subject: Re: Space Resources

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>
>Then, in article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Chip [e-mail]) writes:
>...
>>Do you have any idea what you are saying? Since we've already pretty much
>>ruined this planet, we should go out and carve up the others?
>...
>>I hate to burst your bubble, but you
>>and I are just a couple of hairless apes with ideas above our station.
>>It is these kinds of attitudes that have ruined and are still ruining
>>the balance of life on this planet.  Now you want to go out and ruin the
>>balance of the solar system for good measure.

Modern ecological mythology is similar to the Medeival concept of man in
the universe:  in the beginning there was God (Nature), and the world was
perfect until evil man came along.  Not all men, of course, but industrial
man.  The older pre-technological civilizations lived in harmony with
nature.

This is not the case.  The only reasons Ancient peoples didn't destroy more
of the environment was that they did not have the capability.  The same
goes for animals.  Predatory species would not impose quotas on game.  They
would (and do)  hunt until lack of prey reduces their numbers.

Animals do not have any magical ability to live in harmony with nature.
The beginning of oxygen-breathing life on earth was due to uncontrolled
emissions from oxygen-producing bacteria.  To the life at the time this
was a terrible ecological disaster.  Mother Nature does not preserve
species:  99% of all species in history are now extinct.

Until recently humanity has just acted like another animal:  using resources
in the environment for our purposes.  But we have the blessing/curse of
intelligence, so we can consume far more than any other species, with
catastrophic results.  But I am convinced that intelligence will save us
too.  We are the only animal to realize the effects of our actions, and
to regulate them accordingly.  Does any other animal have ecological
awareness?  Let's not look at mankind as the enemy of the biosphere, but
as its only friend.

>...  Without access to the resources of the solar
>system, we're headed back to the 14'th century, one way or another.
>Either by uncontrolled collapse, or (scarier...) by being dragged
>back by Ecocrats.

This is only putting it off.  We have lived off the fat of the land (fossil
fuels) for the last few centuries.  We can either start to consume the
whole solar system, or we can realize the inevitable conclusion:
human society must eventually reach a steady state!!
This doesn't mean no progress or development; it means that we can't base
our civilization on non-renewable resources.

If we expand throughout the system, we can put off this lesson for
thousands of years, but we have to live up to the fact that even the
whole solar system is not infinite.

Now to make this relevant to sci.space.  What is the role of space
exploration for a steady-state civilization?

>--
>Mike Van Pelt            Video 7            ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
>There are  no perfect  power sources.   There is no  such thing as
>100% perfect safety.  There is no such thing as zero environmental
>impact  short  of the entire human race committing  mass  suicide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Larson        "What?  You mean behind the rabbit?"
                -Monty Python and the Holy Grail
[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #249
*******************