Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_281.TXT

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

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/0Y4ukOy00UkZM6Zk4j>;
          Tue,  7 Mar 89 05:16:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  7 Mar 89 05:16:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #281

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
          Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology
          Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
          Re: For the People of Planet Earth
               Re: "Centrifugal forces"
              Re: External tanks
               RE: the un/manned debate
              Re: External tanks
             ISEECO please call home....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 89 06:11:46 GMT
From: algor2![e-mail]  (Jeffrey Kegler)
Subject: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology

Some years ago, I studied astrology, but never found chart interpretations to
correspond with the people for whom I was doing the charts.  Since then, I
have tried to figure out if there is a way to test the claims of astrology
scientifically.  Of course, the majority of scientists are firmly convinced
that astrology has no validity, but this is different from having proof.

Previous studies have been from one camp or the other.  Pro-astrology forces
have come up with weak statistical evidence, and anti-astrology forces have
torn that evidence to pieces.

I have just completed a study which uses Reichler's "Baseball Encyclopedia",
which presents a well-audited group of statistics in a difficult field of
human endeavor.  These statistics have the advantage that I cannot be accused
of cooking them.  Prior studies have studied "eminent physicists" or whatever,
where the researcher decided who was eminent.  Judicious selection of
borderline cases can seriously bias a sample, especially a small one.  I used
the A's and B's where both a complete date of birth (day, month and year) and a
state or country of birth were available.  Several statistics were examined,
but the best data was for "the single most difficult thing to do in sport"
--get a major league base hit.

I tried many methods of analysis, all of which gave similar results to the one
I am about to present.  Here is a list of aspects for which rank
correlation of orb (closeness of the aspect) with career hits has better
than a .05 (1 in 20) level of significance, using rank correlation.

       Aspect                    D         Prob D       RS       Prob RS

Aries Neptune Opposition     125708640      0.000     -0.175      0.000
Neptune Pluto Square          90512944      0.000      0.154      0.000
Aries Pluto Trine            120891576      0.000     -0.130      0.000
Neptune Pluto Trine           93505600      0.000      0.126      0.000
Uranus Pluto Opposition       93872048      0.000      0.123      0.000
Neptune Pluto Conjunction     94217008      0.000      0.119      0.000
Neptune Pluto Opposition      94217008      0.000      0.119      0.000
Aries Pluto Square            94264088      0.000      0.119      0.000
Aries Neptune Conjunction     94839664      0.001      0.114      0.001
Uranus Neptune Trine         119292816      0.001     -0.115      0.001
Saturn Uranus Opposition      96095072      0.002      0.102      0.003
Uranus Pluto Conjunction     117933960      0.003     -0.102      0.003
Aries Pluto Quintile          96657528      0.004      0.097      0.004
Uranus Neptune Opposition     96710632      0.004      0.096      0.005
Aries Jupiter Quintile       116642920      0.009     -0.090      0.008
Mercury Saturn Opposition     98103312      0.014      0.083      0.014
Venus Jupiter Trine          116082856      0.014     -0.085      0.013
Mars Saturn Quintile         115898664      0.016     -0.083      0.015
Aries Pluto Sextile          115875216      0.016     -0.083      0.015
Aries Uranus Conjunction     115737880      0.018     -0.082      0.016
Moon Mercury Sextile         115412992      0.023     -0.078      0.021
Moon Pluto Square            115278192      0.025     -0.077      0.023
Venus Pluto Trine             98936512      0.025      0.075      0.027
Venus Mars Square             98965280      0.026      0.075      0.027
Aries Neptune Quintile        99040496      0.027      0.074      0.029
Sun Neptune Conjunction       99362264      0.034      0.071      0.036
Aries Pluto Opposition       114742384      0.036     -0.072      0.034
Jupiter Neptune Quintile      99489808      0.037      0.070      0.039
Aries Mercury Quintile       114716576      0.037     -0.072      0.034
Sun Jupiter Square           114508088      0.042     -0.070      0.040
Uranus Neptune Conjunction   114441104      0.044     -0.069      0.041
Neptune Pluto Quintile        99790192      0.045      0.067      0.048
Uranus Pluto Trine            99867696      0.047      0.067      0.050
Jupiter Neptune Trine         99869256      0.047      0.067      0.050
Aries Pluto Conjunction       99908880      0.048      0.066      0.052

I won't explain the statistics involved at any great length. What follows will
assume you have looked it up in a statistics book, already knew it, or don't
really care much.  D is the sum of the squared difference of the ranks, Prob
D is the probability its deviation from the expected value is significant, RS
is the correlation coefficient of the ranks and Prob RS is the probability it
is significant.  Low Prob D or Prob RS indicate that the null hypothesis (that
the aspect given does not predict career hits) may be rejected with only
that much risk of an error.

We'll also take a fast pass over the astrology.  I call 0 degrees Aries,
the (relatively) fixed point at the start of the zodiac, and the Moon planets,
even though they are not.  A conjunction is an angle of 0 degrees between two
planets.  An opposition is an angle of 180 degrees, a trine one of 120 degrees,
and a square one of 90 degrees.  Rarely used are the sextile, taken here as an
angle which is any multiple of 60 degrees, and never used by the ancients was
the quintile, an angle involving a multiple of 72 degrees.

The 10 highest correlations involve planets unknown to the inventors of
astrology.  The 14 highest involve two "slow" planets.  Here the gradual
tendency of batting averages to decline is probably what is showing up.  The
indirect correlation with the gradual trend over time swamps any effects which
are more strictly astrological.  The 15th highest correlation is the Aries
Jupiter Quintile, a relatively slow variant of an obscure aspect.  The 16th
highest correlation is the Mercury Saturn Opposition.  An opposition is
traditionally a "difficult aspect" and we would expect to see a similar effect
from the other "difficult aspect" of Mercury Saturn--the square.  The levels
of significance there are .149 and .141--and the direction of the correlation
is the opposite!

Even the Mercury Saturn Opposition has a .014 level of significance.  That is,
if we decide it does affect career hits, we have a 1.4% chance of being
wrong.  Since we have taken a brute force approach--testing 540 different
aspects all at once, a spurious correlation at this level is hardly
surprising.  What is surprising is the that the 120 aspects among the slow
planets (0 degrees Aries, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) constitute the
top 14 aspects in the correlations.  The odds against that occurring by chance
are well over one in 6 billion.

It is in the nature of statistical evidence that it is hard to make an
absolutely final case, but this study would have to be a disappointment to
anyone seeking evidence for astrology.
--

Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists,
[e-mail] or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090

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

Date: 1 Mar 89 14:53:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax![e-mail]
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation


Just out of curiousity, how does a commercial firm get EXCLUSIVE rights to
a technology developed for the U.S. Air Force?  ( I'm assuming that E'Prime
didn't develop this technology with its own money, more likely you and I
paid for it with our generous contributions to Uncle Sam each paycheck ).

Please don't take this as a criticism of the company, a private competitor
to the vicious Arianne monopololy on commercial spaceflight is welcome ...
( Many, many smiley faces intended )

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

Date: 2 Mar 89 00:34:23 GMT
From: att!ihlpa![e-mail]
Subject: Re: For the People of Planet Earth

Z


In article (Friends of Earth) writes:
> =====================================================================
>
>                      .\:|/,
>                      -- o --
> PEOPLE OF PLANET EARTH '|\`
>
> Your planet is nearing the period in its evolution when it shall pass
> from the third dimension (that which you experience as your
> surroundings now) into the fourth dimension of existence.  This shall
> be a great change in the physical, mental and emotional nature of
> human beings as well as a dramatic change in the nature of your planet.


What I want to know, is, what about the Vogons???  You know, those guys
up in those huge yellow, slab-like spaceships??  That float in the air
much in the same way that bricks don't?   Yeah!  Those guys!!   B^)

Just puttin on my peril-sensitive sunglasses now...

--                                        --
rj pietkivitch                            att!ihlpa!rjp1

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

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 20:16:48 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: "Centrifugal forces"


>From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
>Ah yes.  I believe the story (which appeared in the now defunct
>Galaxy) was called "Jogging Up Main Street".
>...Jogging would
>cause the colony to spin up very slightly as long as the runner kept
>moving, but as soon as he stopped, the extra spin would disappear
>(considering the mass of a runner vs. the colony, the effect would be
>unnoticable).

Ah, but if the joggers never stopped (dedicated jogging teams running
in shifts) the increased acceleration would remain. If the number of
joggers or their average speed were to increase, the total acceleration
would also increase. (OK, maybe the overall *magnitude* of the effect
would not be all that significant, but the *principle* remains valid :-)

Similarly, in a nonrotating colony, joggers could control the attitude
of the craft. Skylab used flywheels for this purpose. The joggers (see
A&S Museum film loop) were merely recreational.

Disclaimer: maybe I should have waited 30 days (from March 2) to post this.
                                      John Roberts
                                      cmr.icst.nbs.gov

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

Date: 2 Mar 89 18:20:08 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: External tanks

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>...they interviewed some NASA official and asked him why they never put the
>E.T.s into orbit after taking them 99% of the way there, when the cost
>to put that amount of mass in orbit would be $300 million if done any other
>way.  He mumbled that it had never been proven to be cost effective...

He's probably right.  The thing is, what do you use that mass for, and how?
Remember that the cost has to include reduced payload (it is no longer the
case that the shuttle flies a special maneuver just to drop the tank, so
you no longer save anything by avoiding said maneuver) and whatever system
you devise to keep the thing up there after the shuttle leaves (it will
not stay up long by itself, it's too big and too light).  If you're going
to keep it up there very long, you need to either wrap it in something or
remove the insulation, *after* launch, because the insulation will outgas
and "popcorn" and add to the space-debris problem in a nasty way.  If you
want to use it as a pressurized container, you need space-debris protection,
as the tank walls are not very thick and will get punctured soon.  Since
NASA is paranoid about another Skylab, you *must* have an ultra-reliable
de-orbit system to ensure that if worst comes to worst, the thing can be
brought down in a halfway controlled way.  And so forth...  And *then*
you have to use it for something.  Yes, it's a lot of mass, but it's not
in a terribly convenient form.  It really isn't quite as simple as it
looks -- the folks looking at converting one to a gamma-ray telescope have
significant problems to solve.

And of course, in any situation where the answer isn't blindingly obvious,
the only way you can *prove* that something is cost-effective is to try it.
Until then, the nay-sayers can always imagine more problems that might occur.
--
The Earth is our mother;       |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
our nine months are up.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Feb 89 14:00:32 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: RE: the un/manned debate

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
}
}    I just read the march 1989 Scientific American article "U.S. Access
}    to Space".  This is a companion to last month's article on the Soviet
}    space program.  The march article describes the "Shuttle-C" which
}    has not been extensively discussed on the net.
}...
}    At $1.5B it is a relatively cheap project. (Sci.Am p.38)  This is

Maybe cheap by current NASA standards, but it's an awful large sum for
basically sticking together existing components.  In addition, it will NOT be
cheap to launch, as it uses Space Shuttle Main Engines, which are by no means
cheap even when reused instead of launching an expendable.  The proposed
solution to this is to fly the SSME's ten times or so on the shuttle, and then
use them on the Shuttle-C, which of course severely restricts how often S-C
flies.

}    The "proponants maintain that the vehicle could be operational as
}    early as 1994 and estimate that it could lift between 100,000 and
}    150,000 pounds to the space station's orbit" (S.A. P.38).

Tsk, tsk.  After several years of study, it will now take five years to make
an operational system of mostly-existing components.  The Saturn V was
designed and built from scratch in rather less than five years--*without*
years of study.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
            Disclaimer? I claimed something?
    You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

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

Date: 2 Mar 89 15:22:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: External tanks

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>I heard an article on NPR this morning on the way to work about the
>External Tank Corporation...
>...they interviewed some NASA official and asked him why they never put the
>E.T.s into orbit after taking them 99% of the way there, when the cost
>to put that amount of mass in orbit would be $300 million if done any other
>way.  He mumbled that it had never been proven to be cost effective.  I wonder
>what paragon of economic efficiency he was comparing it with.  The shuttle?

That sounds like the wrong answer.  The orbit that an ET would achieve
would be a low one, and the surface-area-to-mass ratio is very high.
This means that a tank will reenter fairly soon if action isn't taken
to keep it up there.  Given the Challenger launch hiatus, *not* storing
tanks in orbit on spec turns out to have been the right decision.
Twenty-four ETs raining down could be called bad publicity...

NASA has introduced their ``ETs for free'' deal, but there are a few
caveats to it.  First, each request must explain how a tank's orbit is
to be controlled.  Second, the organization placing the bid must be
judged to be stable, i.e., unlikely to suddenly fold.  In almost all
other cases, this would be a case of fattening the aerospace oligopoly
at the expense of the young, lean and mean.  In this instance, however,
it's reasonable.  I don't know how much (if any) of an ET would
actually reach the surface if it were allowed to decay from orbit, but
it would be impolitic to bombard the Middle East with American space
junk.
--
John Hogg            [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

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

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1989 14:31-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ISEECO please call home....

ISEECO:

One of our people here at Pittsburgh L5 may have access to some unused
green house space in a year or so. If you are interested contact Frank
Kopriver at 412-466-0990 and tell him I told you to call.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #281
*******************