Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_001.TXT

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.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/cYyXX4200UkV8FjU4c>;
          Tue, 29 Aug 89 03:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 89 03:18:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #1

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 10 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
           Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced
             Re: Books about Space Flight
            Re: Selling moon rocks
          Re: does this proposal make sense
          Re: does this proposal make sense
          Re: Mars Investigation Chronology
          Re: does this proposal make sense
         Re: Space telescope - why  only 1200 hours?
        Face the Nation / The Martians must be hiding!
             Re: Neptune on the Boobtube
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 89 17:54:16 GMT
From: ingr![e-mail]  (Ted Johnson)
Subject: Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jangling Neck Nipper) says:
> In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 10 Aug 89 18:12:44 GMT
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Johnson) writes:
>    ... four comments:
  [comments deleted]

>

> Are the `facts from all over' incorrect ones?

Certainly not, at least to my knowledge.  However, they are, in my
opinion, irrelevant.

> Sorry, I won't accept Occam's Razor as an
> axiom to prove its incorrectness, because it obviously makes loads of
> assumptions itself, and tis-tisent arguments tend to get rather
> boring, so a plain old `it's just hazard' won't help.

You've cut off most discussion right there, by denying any place for
Occam's razor.  The only remaining options are either pure deduction or
a white noise of irrelevance.

Circumpection has its place, but there's a lot of filtering that must
take place along the way.  The Mars-ian writers of the original article
apparently use a very wide band-pass filter in their thinking.

A quick story:  Image interpreters and geologists have been fond of
identifying "lineaments" on all types of Earth images.  Then one day
someone photographed various common surfaces illuminated from various
angles, fed the images into the automatic lineament extractor and,
predictably, there were significant lineaments found on sandpaper, etc.
The automatic lineament extractor consistently identified non-existent
lineaments, even when the obvious factors (e.g., illumination angle)
were accounted for.

Other articles, here and elsewhere, have established that humans are
superb at extracting faces from just about anything.  (Just start
looking in your ceiling tile if you doubt it.) Building an entire theory
connecting mathematics, astronomy, biology and I forget what all else to
an ephemeral face we sometimes see on Mars, sometimes not, requires more
chutzpah than I think a reputable scientist ought to have.

Further discussion of this topic on my part will (blessedly!) be
confined to e-mail.

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 13:35:00 GMT
From: cbmvax![e-mail]  (Eric Cotton)
Subject: Re: Books about Space Flight

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Okamoto) writes:
>I went to our local book store and tried looking up some of the books
>listed in this newsgroup.  Here is the result of my search:
>
>My source is "Books in Print", 1988-1989 edition.
>[...]
>Out of Print:
>
>_Carrying the Fire_, Mike Collins

Happily, _Carrying the Fire_ is back in print (paperback).  This book
is a must have for every space enthusiast's library!
--
Eric Cotton
Commodore-Amiga                                               [phone]
1200 Wilson Drive                        {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!eric
West Chester, PA 19380            "I don't find this stuff amusing anymore."

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 15:18:00 GMT
From: eplrx7![e-mail]  (leipold)
Subject: Re: Selling moon rocks

In article <[e-mail]> John Roberts writes:
>> Perhaps not meant very seriously, but the sale of moon rocks to
>> the public to support space exploration is a legitimate area for
>> study. I don't know about other space enthusiasts, but I wouldn't
>> mind paying a few hundred dollars for a certified pebble from the
>> moon for my rock collection...
>> ... Small rocks could be made into yuppie jewelry, and
>> the New Age (gag) enthusiasts would undoubtedly be delighted to
>> get moon rock (they've already driven up the price of quartz
>> crystals).

I seem to recall that, when I worked for Thiokol, one AKM we were
delivering was for a mission with some slack in its weight budget.
To improve morale, we put together a poster with the signatures of
everybody in the plant who worked on that program, photoreduced it,
and stuck it on the side of the motor.  All those signatures are now
in geosynch orbit, which is occasionally a source of pride to me.
There're a probably a bunch of people who'd cough up $50 or so to have
their signatures in orbit.

Another way to collect some money for the space program: add a "space
program" check-off box on the 1040 form -- you know, like the $1 you
can donate to the Presidential campaign, that doesn't affect your tax
amount?.   Of course, it should be a $10 or $50 amount, instead of just
$1.  (As a matter of fact, I think allowing people to vote with their
taxes would be a good idea.  Let Congress and the IRS make up forms so
you can figure how much you owe, but then _you_ decide what percentage
of what you owe goes to what part of government.  But I digress from
sci.space...)

-------------------------------------
"As long as you've lit one candle,
you're allowed to curse the darkness."

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 03:49:32 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (nick szabo)
Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:
>>Note that from LEO it is very easy to drop a package into
>>any Tropical country, to a precise spot, with no more than 90 minutes
>>response time, and (if it is small) observable only to the chosen
>>recipients.
>
>    Oliver North clones dropping arms to 3rd world anticommunist
>rebels?  Organized crime figures dropping payments to Columbian drug
>lords?
>

Apparently Jonathan just got through watching a TV news documentary.  :-)
I thought of at least 3 positive uses of this capability (on an
unrealistically cheap space station) right off the bat:
        --Express mail
        --Disaster warning & relief
        (eg drops of medical supplies & food to small parties)
        --Police work
        (eg supporting the rescue of hostages, drug *raids*, etc.)

Of course, this is *speculative*, but no more so than microgravity
industries and lunar mines, and far less so than FTL, Mars-pyramids,
UFOs, and other unimaginative nonsense that gets bandied about this
newsgroup regularly.

I will expand on the original point I was making:
--Most long range planning (> 10 years) is useless.  This is
especially true in the case of technology, the capabilities of which
can change quite a bit over the course of 10 years.  (And not always for
the better, rocketry alas being an example).
--Such plans become straightjackets, freezing our thinking as the technology
changes.
--Scenarios and speculation are more fun, and more useful.
--The point of scenarios and speculation is not precision, (keep in mind
the difference between accuracy and precision), but creating productive,
bright futures that make scientific, economic, and historical sense, all
at the same time.
--NASA management, and many space enthusiasts, have straightjacketed their
minds by turning the imaginative speculation of the early 20th century--
space shuttles, space stations, and bases on the Moon and Mars, all manned,
into narrow technological *plans* for the 21st century.  These people are
the most unimaginative folks on this planet.  The repeated delays and cost
overruns in The Plan do not phase them: no Moon Base after Apollo, no Mars
Mission by 1980, Skylab crashing into Australia, the dozens of projects
delayed or cancelled because The Plan said that the shuttle *will*
make space travel cheaper, period, and everybody had better go along with it.
It does not occur to them that *every* space venture that is profitable,
or nearly profitable, in its own right, is unmanned, unmentioned
in The Plan, in fact grossly violates the whole philosophy of The Plan.
Our most successful space explorations, undertaken by Viking and Voyager and
the wonderful scientists and engineers who built them, violate The
Plan.  Yet it does not occur to these folks that The Plan might be WRONG!
Obsolete!  Out of date!  Gone with the wind!
  No, instead it must be not enough money for NASA, or greedy aerospace
companies, or <fill in you favorite excuse here>.  In the face of all this,
these folks simply move up their dates: a Space Station by 1997, a Moon Base
by 2010, a Mars Base by 2020, ad nauseum (and don't forget the Manned
with a capital "M"!).  History, economics, and even science be damned, these
people are going to follow The Plan.
  Listen up, you Planners!  This isn't the 1930's!  The 21st Century is only
a decade away!  Get some new ideas into your brain!

Nick Szabo
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj
These opinions are not related to Big Blue's

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 21:04:04 GMT
From: china.uu.net![e-mail]  (Dan Williams)
Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense

In article  [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article [e-mail] (William Lewis) writes:
> >>>... Note that from LEO it is very easy to drop a package into
> >>>any Tropical country, to a precise spot, with no more than 90 minutes
> >>>response time, and (if it is small) observable only to the chosen
> >>>recipients...
> >... Columbian drug lords dropping rocks on other Columbian drug lords ... ?
> Perfect!  We've found the way to finance the space colony!  *They* can
> afford it!!     :-) :-) :-)
There is more than one way for them to make money on their investment.
How about special delivery of new compounds engineered in zero-g by said
residents of the station.  Direct to your neiborhood.  Just have your
credit card number handy. ;-)
    Another idea! why let Columbian drug lords have all the fun of
dropping rocks on each other.  Lets encourage Bush to adopt the idea as a
way to fulfill his new drug policy and his space inititive promices both at
once.  The coast guard could drop rocks on all the Columbian Drug lords
from orbit.  Think of it as foriegn aid to Columbia.  Since we don't want
this mistaken as military aid we could use large bundles of money insted of
rocks.  ;-) (Lets see how many pounds of pennies I have collected, I'll
donate them all)



--

| Dan Williams (uunet!china!dan) | FRP: It's not just a game,        |
|       MCDONNELL DOUGLAS        |            it's an adventure!     |
|           Denver CO            | "Of course thats just my opinion" |

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 16:10:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bmers58![e-mail]  (Peter Bain)
Subject: Re: Mars Investigation Chronology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerry Zeitlin) writes:
>1979
>
>Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar, imaging engineers under
>contract to NASA'S Goddard Space Flight Center on another project,
>stumble on the Face in the National Space Science Data Center
>archives. Skeptical but intrigued, they independently develop an
                                                       **********
>advanced algorithm for enhancement of the Viking data tapes, and
***********************************
>produce the first "cleaned up" version of frame 35A72, which reveals
                    **********
>the Face as essentially symmetrical, and possessing specific,
>recognizable, detailed facial features qualitatively unlike those of
>typical "great stone faces" and similar illusions.

The problem with image enhancement is that you can pick your algorithm
(or "develop" your own "advanced algorithm" (you notice how no one
ever develops a "retarded algorithm"? But I digress)) which gives you
the results you want.  How do we know that they didn't "clean up" the
things that didn't support their thesis. (It sounds reasonable: "Gee,
this doesn't fit in with this face. It must be noise, so we'll take it
out.  There, now you can see a face clear as day.")

As a second point, I assume that the Mars Orbiter is dead, so we can't
get it to take a couple more snapshots of Elvis... er.... the face?
   -peter  "these opinions have NOTHING to do with my employer" bain

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

Date: 23 Aug 89 23:26:57 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekigm2![e-mail]  (John Obendorfer)
Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Williams) writes:
>    Another idea! why let Columbian drug lords have all the fun of
>dropping rocks on each other.  Lets encourage Bush to adopt the idea as a
>way to fulfill his new drug policy and his space inititive promices both at
>once.  The coast guard could drop rocks on all the Columbian Drug lords
>from orbit.  Think of it as foriegn aid to Columbia.  Since we don't want
>this mistaken as military aid we could use large bundles of money insted of
>rocks.  ;-) (Lets see how many pounds of pennies I have collected, I'll
>donate them all)

  I am reminded of an old Bloom County strip, where Oliver proposes a
"Star Wars" style "dumb rock" defense scheme, wherein the government
takes five hundred billion one-dollar bills and scatters them in low
earth orbit for ICBMs to collide with ... :-)

  Hmmmm ... anybody got James Abramson's phone number?

  John

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 17:00:46 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Space telescope - why  only 1200 hours?
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

Tom Neff writes:

>Speaking of HST, there was a very interesting squib in this month's
>ASTRONOMY.  Seems a team has taken the Palomar 5-meter scope to the
>*diffraction limit* using optical interferometry (a technique adapted
>from radio astronomy), easily splitting two different double stars with
>separations of a small fraction of an arcsecond.  The performance was
>equivalent to what an *ideal* 5-meter would see.  Translation: what an
>*orbiting* 5-meter would see if you had the bugs out.  Oops!  I goofed.
>I have been muttering about HST for some time, saying that we'd have
>sharper images from right down here in 10 years anyway.  It seemed like
>a safe bet.  Looks like I was too conservative.

Well... come on, resolution isn't everything.  The main attraction is greater
light gathering.  Zero atmospheric attenuation is a big draw.  One of the
reasons telescopes tend to be sited on mountains, to reduce same.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 22 Aug 89 04:52:17 GMT
From: coplex![e-mail]  (Dannie Gregoire)
Subject: Face the Nation / The Martians must be hiding!




    After recent attention given to the martian "FACE" I decided
    to find some copies of the photos taking by Viking.  NO LUCK!
    Searching book, after book (including several Viking specific
    books) I found only one (poor quality) photo of the phenomenon.
    It seems odd that even as something dismissed so quickly as
    natural, was not mentioned or referenced candidly or seriously
    in any publication.

    As for the books mentioned in the "Mars Investigation Chronology"
    I have been unable to find copies of them anywhere, except in a book
    review in a science fiction rag.

    So far the best source of photos and "info" seems to be where
    all inquiring minds go.  Anyone know where to get back issues
    with the martian photos ;-)


   +--------------------------------------------------------------+
   | |\ /\   Prove that you exist, and I'll listen to you!  \   / |
   | | | _                                -o o- |
   | |/.\/.        Dannie Gregoire  (dannie@coplex)  `Roof!'- U      |
   +--------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 01:24:52 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Cliff Joslyn)
Subject: Re: Neptune on the Boobtube


C-SPAN broadcast the complete mission briefing (on cable) live today
from 1 PM to 2:45 PM.  This is easily the best coverage, because it is
complete, uneditted and totally straight, not crapped all over by the
ignorant talking heads.  Good direct video, too.  They will do so
tomorrow and Friday as well.  I think they also plan further coverage,
but I'm not sure.

--
O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large
| Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, [e-mail]
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #1
*******************