Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_073.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 20KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/YZ7SvXK00VcJ856E53>;
          Mon, 25 Sep 89 05:24:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <UZ7Sv=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 05:24:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #73

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
           Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced
             Re: Mars Mission ship design
               ISECCo Update #8
              Re: RTGs for use on earth
           Re: Fearmongering about Gallileo (Long)
         Re: What's Wrong With HR2674. (long)
               Re: Private launch costs
          Re: does this proposal make sense
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 89 20:30:59 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy![e-mail]  (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Hunter) writes:
>[e-mail] (Jangling Neck Nipper) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Johnson) writes:
>>
>>    2.  The authors pulled in facts from all over to justify, amplify and
>>    expand the significance they see.  Any theorist knows that, given enough
>>    parameters, any observation can be explained.
>
>> Could you perhaps point out the bits of the said article that are
>> wrong, and could you say why they are wrong?  Are the `facts from all
>> over' incorrect ones?  Is there anything inherently wrong with doing
>> such a thing?

Jeff, before I go any further, I must tell you that any definitive
statements one way or another concerning the "Face" and other anomalies
would be quite premature either way.  The anomalies come from photos
taken with a camera that did not provide great resolution.  Nonetheless,
the people who have been examining the photographs have found more than
one anomaly, and they are continuing to study the many photos taken
during the Mars missions.  To find such anomalies to be true artificial
artifacts would fly in the face of current wisdom, much like a round
world flew in the face of those convinced that the world was flat.

By the same token to jump up and make the statement that the anomalies
are genuine artificial artifacts of some civilization of some distant
eon past is unwarranted.  IMHO, it smacks of tabloid journalism.  The
evidence is mounting that something unusual appears on the Martian
surface.  But I'd want more conclusive evidence that it is of an
artificial source and not the happenstance of natural geologic activity.

>
>    I read an article Hoagland wrote for Analog several years ago.
>He started with the picture of the face. It's pretty crude and
>doesn't contain enough detail to draw many conclusions.

Unfortunately, that particular photo was used far too often.  I have
gotten better copies that have gone through the computer enhancement
systems.  These photos do make you pause and wonder a bit.

One thing you should be, and probably are, aware of is that when the
"Face" was first discovered by the folks at JPL, they said that it was
the result of light and shadows and would be unlikely to appear again.
Yet photos taken of the same area in the morning sun gave the same
results--a face.  Using various imaging techniques and computer
enhancement programs, researchers were able to use both photos to
produce a three-dimensional rendering of the "Face."  It was those
photos that got me to look at the whole business.  I also contacted the
Mars Project for additional copies of the photos and information on the
research under way and the people involved.  If you would like to
contact them yourself, send me email and I'll get the address off to
you.

>
>    So he started in on nearby objects. There's a hill (to the north?)
>that is roughly like a five-sided pyramid. The faces are all about the same
>length, and fairly flat. Hoagland pointed out the resemblance in proportion
>to Da Vinci's famous sketch of man in a circle. He concluded that the
>hill was a reinforcement of the face directing a message to mankind.
>    I think it looks more like a giant Pontiac commercial.

Guess it could make a good TV commericial, hadn't really considered
that.  Wonder what Iacoca would think of your proposal?  Chrysler
products are out of this world!  Naw--stretches my imagination too far.
I'm a Chevy man myself. 8-) 8-)

>
>    He then started in on a nearby ridge saying it was "obviously
>artificial". There's a notch in the ridge, and if you line it up with
>the eye of the "face" (or the main street of the "city", I forget) you
>get a completely useless direction.
>    But wait! If you calculate back in time as Mars' poles precess
>the notch will eventually line up with some star or other on the
>vernal equinox, or the summer solstice. Hoagland picks one of these
>matches and thereby "proves" that the whole complex was created at some
>ancient date.
>
>    This goes on, but the pattern is the same. At the time I was
>vividly reminded of the fact that you can reach *any* conclusion from
>any data as long as you are allowed to use completely 'ad hoc' rules.
>
>    It's too bad, because until then I had thought Hoagland was
>an informed, if unconventional, commentator. After reading that article
>I concluded that the Pauling effect had set in.

Personally, I'd recommend that you read "The Monuments of Mars" before
dumping on Richard.  Granted he is unconventional to say the least, but
he isn't a Von Daniken.  In the book, he goes into great detail over his
thought process from the very beginning of his study and research into
the objects.  Having read the book, I'm impressed with his work, but not
totally convinced that the anomalies are anything more than that.  I did
come to the conclusion after reading the book and getting the photos to
look at myself that there was adequate reason to do some study and
research of the anomalies.  They are unusual, but then so is a lot of
what we've been discovering about our Solar system over the past couple
of years due to the fly-bys.

IMHO, if the anomalies on Mars turn out to artificial, I think there
will be a lot of rethinking going on.  But again, I reiterate that I'm
not convinced that they are artificial in origin.  But they sure are a
bit strange.  I'd like to hear from some geologists out there who have
looked at the photos as to what they think would be plausible
explanations.

Gene

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

Date: 14 Sep 89 16:36:00 GMT
From: hp-sdd!apollo![e-mail]  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Thompson) writes:
>Concerning the idea of placing the gravity modules at the ends of long
>access tubes, I can see that you could have a problem during the thrust
>stages.  If they are extended as far as shown in the diagram, I think it
>would undergo tremendous torque stress during any substantial thrust.
>
>Perhaps using a cylindrical design would work better.  Admittedly, it would
>not provide as great amount of gravity, but it would not suffer from the
>above described stress.

Um, space/mechanical-ignorant software-jock's first thought here: Why
make the connecting tube rigid?  Couldn't you do equally well with a
flexible tube & cables to hold the modules together, such that the
modules could be winched together for periods of thrust?  I missed part
of this thread -- or was the plan to use a continuous-thrust drive,
e.g.: ion?  And the engines run perpendicular to the plane of the
modules+tube, right?

Like I said -- just John Q. Interested-but-Untrained Public's 2 cents'
worth.
--
>>> "Aaiiyeeeee!  Death from above!" <<<  | Steve Rehrauer
    Fone: [phone] x6168             | Apollo Computer, a
    ARPA: [e-mail]          | division of Hewlett-Packard
"Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'.  Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Wed, 13 Sep 89 21:38:07 -0900
Sender: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
From: "ROBERT J HALE"  <[e-mail]>
Subject:  ISECCo Update #8


September 10, 1989
ISECCo PROJECT UPDATE #8:  Summer activities.
     In  spite  of a severe lack of time on the  part  of   local
ISECCo  personal  the  summer of 1989 has bee a  successful  one
for   our group.  Most of our members have been heavily  involved
with  other  projects  and  I have been working  2  jobs,  so  we
consider ourselves lucky to have accomplished anything!
     During  May  we  had  two visitors  up  from  Florida,  Debi
Wilkinson and Richard Kline.  They spent a couple of weeks  doing
volunteer  work for ISECCo and not only got the  tractor  running
again  (which  will be used for digging the biosphere  hole)  but
move a mountain of paperwork from the 'TO DO' pile to the  'DONE'
pile.  Their work is greatly appreciated!  Any of you who plan to
visit Alaska and would like to do a little volunteer work for  us
should get in touch with me at the address below.
     June saw the completion of a grant application to the Alaska
Science  and  Technology Foundation for the construction  of  the
biosphere.  The grant absorbed considerable amounts of time  from
Gene  and  Marilyn Rowley, Robert Hale (THANK  YOU!)  and  myself
before  it was written to our satisfaction.  We will not know  if
it  will beat our 100+ competitors for the grant money, nor  will
we until around the end of the year.  We have asked for  $85,000,
or  slightly less than a third of the gross amount  required  for
biosphere   construction  (the  rest  will  come  from   member's
donations,  use of the TANSTAAFL Inc. tractor,  volunteer  labor,
etc).
     In  July we completed the land lease contract for  the  land
where  the  Biosphere will be built.  This site, which  had  been
cleared in May by ISECCo volunteers, is ready for construction to
begin.   The first step shall begin occur this fall: digging  the
hole  in which the (buried) biosphere will be built.  The  heavy
equipment  (tractor)  will  be available in the  latter  part  of
September, as soon as it is done with a couple of jobs it is  out
on right now.
     August was the month in which the IRS finally began to  move
on our application for nonprofit status.  A little, anyhow: they
sent  us a letter requesting more information and also called  us
once.   It  has is approaching a year and a half since  we  first
applied  so we sincerely hope they move forward  without  delay,
now that they have started!
     Also during August we have a major donation: a PDP-11.  This
minicomputer,  capable  of up to 16 users (though I have  it  on
good  authority  that response time dies with more than  5  or  6
users!),  will  be used to monitor the  biosphere  functions  and
possible  serve as a bulletin board system for ISECCo  and  other
space-oriented  people.  While worth over $75,000 new the  PDP-11
technology  is getting old but by the time you include  the  disk
drives  and  packs  (3  drives and 14  packs),  the  tape  drive,
printer/console, and all the other goodies donated along with the
computer the value of the machine is close to $10,000.  This  is,
of  course,  assuming we can get it running: we  don't  currently
have  anyplace  to put it where we can plug it in and  it  hasn't
been running in two years!  It will be worth the time and  effort
though, for it is well built and should give years of service  in
spite of it's age.  The heavy power requirements may require some
funding though!
     During  the  summer  we also completed our  first  round  of
hydroponics  experiments and are ready to begin a  second  round.
Some  of our ideas worked, and some didn't; the  'ceramic  soil',
suggested  by  Jenine Abarbanel is a great  success.   Hydroponic
drip  solutions into milk jugs didn't work quite as  well.   Some
redesign  is  needed  if  such a system is to  be  used  in  the
biosphere.

     Any  of  you who haven't yet joined and are interested   do
get  in
touch  with us.  Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire
decade.
Anyone who wants  to  join can just send Robert,  FNRJH@ALASKA,
or myself
a  note  on here  (PLEASE include a regular mail address: we have
had  a
number  of responses which we have been  unable to  answer  over
BITNET!)
and we'll send you a letter with the information we'll need.
Alternatively
you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706.

                                              --Ray :: President, ISECCo
 [end]
\done

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 20:10:40 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: RTGs for use on earth

The Mexican incident involved a cobalt source which wound up being used
as scrap metal for making table legs and concrete reinforcing rods (rebar).
It was only discovered when a truck tried to make a delivery of Mexican
rebar to the lab at Los Alamos.  They have radiation detectors at the gate
(mostly to keep radioactive materials from LEAVING) and this truck set them
off.

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

Date: 14 Sep 89 16:08:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (David John Schuetz)
Subject: Re: Fearmongering about Gallileo (Long)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew Diseker) writes:
>    This article appeared in the Washington Post, Sunday 10 September.
>The author is Colman McCarthy.

Oh.  Well, then, we can ignore it.

I assume you're familiar with Mr. McCarthy, if you've read the Post for any
length of time.  I'm not really sure that there are that many people around
here who take him seriously, and, fortunately, I don't believe that his
column is syndicated.

I had a friend who took a class from him here at UMCP once, "Alternatives
to Violence."  While she thought the class was interesting, she also thought
that most of the people in the class were less-than-impressed by his more
radical ideas, and didn't like the fact that though he was morally opposed to
killing animals for food or anything, he wore a leather belt and shoes.

In short, the author, IMHO, has a reputation for going very far out on a limb
in exactly the same manner he did here.  I read his column for the semester
my friend was taking the course, just out of curiosity.  I got very quickly
disgusted with the man and his ideas.  I think this is part of the reason
he's on the Style page so often, rather than Outlook....


>The above opinions are mine.  I speak for myself and not my employers.

And mine are mine.  I speak for noone but myself, and I mean to make no
slander towards Mr. McCarthy, only to say that I don't put much stock in
what he has to say.

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

Date: 14 Sep 89 17:02:45 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With HR2674. (long)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>re Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute ...
>... You obviously don't understand the distinction
>between cost and price...
> ...Clearly, academia has finally done its damage
>and all you can do now is emit funny yammering noises to make
>it sound like you know something...

Despite Kieran's modest lingering connection with U of T, he is employed
full-time by a small, struggling Canadian aerospace company these days.
I can assure you that he understands costs and prices.  I don't agree with
everything he says, but he's neither ignorant nor stupid.

>>                                                       ..probably forming
>> a cartel to keep other companies from springing up,
>Just because NASA has formed a cartel to prevent all progress in space
>for the last 20 years doesn't mean the private companies have the skills,
>authority or inclination to do the same.  If, somehow, rocket technology or
>some critical components could be controlled, the way the supply of oil is
>controlled by petroleum producing nations, then there might be some hope.

Sure there's hope for a launcher cartel:  government regulation.  That is
the standard way of forming a cartel these days -- just convince the
government to regulate the industry, and then a bit of quiet maneuvering
puts the regulators in the industry's pocket.  In this case, the regulatory
agency is already in place with adequate powers.  The Office of Commercial
Space Transportation has the authority to deny permission to launch for any
launch that is not in the best interests of the United States.  (What?  You
thought they could deny launch permission only for safety reasons?  Ho ho.
Did you notice that HR2674's distant ancestor, the Commercial Space
Incentives Act, had a clause in it specifically limiting OCST authority
to safety considerations?  There was a reason for that.)  All that's needed
is a sympathetic Administration -- the Reagan Administration wasn't; the
Bush Administration hasn't made its intentions clear yet -- which thinks
that the well-being of the existing launcher companies is more important
than progress in the industry.  (After all, the government is increasingly
dependent on those existing companies, so we can't let them go broke, even
if they are bloated and inefficient...)  Don't kid yourself; the *really*
private launch industry in the US is very young and small and fragile, and
the government could easily step on it "in the national interest".
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Sep 89 14:37:10 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Private launch costs

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In general, few things about economics are true.

Is that true!

--
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)    Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.        (\    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 01:15:04 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense
To: "tekgen!tekigm2![e-mail]"@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]

> 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 ... :-)

Each year, about a trillion cigarettes are manufactured.  These are
very dangerous to health, but the government doesn't dare discourage
them too much, since tobacco farmers are a major constituency.

The solution is to launch these trillion cigarettes into space.
With built-in oxidizer.  They could then be ignited with ground-based
lasers.  Each one of the trillions of cigarettes would then release
trillions of microscopic smoke particles into independent orbits.
No hostile missiles could possibly get through the thick layer of
poisonous smoke in near-space.

A sure-fire defense scheme!
                                ...Keith

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #73
*******************