Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_118.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/cZ=OH1m00VcJ0F:04k>;
          Sat,  7 Oct 89 03:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <EZ=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  7 Oct 89 03:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #118

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
              The End of Galileo
     Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???
               Re: Human contamination?
           Re: First group of prospective astronau
            Re: Magellan summary?
            Re: The End of Galileo
             Astronaut Selection
               October 4, 1989
             Re: What's Wrong With HR2674
        Contamination of Jupiter (philosophy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 89 18:02 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The End of Galileo


I have read and heard about the Galileo spacecraft's 22 month mission
at Jupiter, which will end about October 1997.  Does anyone know what
will happen then?  Will the spacecraft be shut down?  Does it plunge
into Jupiter (because of the 10 satellite-gravity assists)?  Is this
how long its RTG's are supposed to last?

Does someone have some information on this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     "Just click your heels together             Christopher Kane
       three times and say, 'There's             [e-mail]
        no place like home.  There's             Gustavus Adolphus College
         no place like home.'"                   St. Peter, MN  56082
                -- Glinda, the Good Witch        U.S.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 19:31:00 GMT
From: ima!mirror!frog![e-mail]  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
> cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (Wayne Hayes) writes:
> > So if there's "bugs" on Jupiter,
> >they're certainly deserving at least as much evolutionary "respect" as
> >anything on Earth, probably having evolved to a large degree as much as we
> >have.
> Well, you don't get anywhere without taking risks, or the fish would never
> have crawled out of the ocean (credit: Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy).

Yeah, and LOOK what a MESS those damned fish made of that NICE, PRISTINE
land surface!  [Paid for by The Committee To Return Earth To Its Pristine
Original State -- A Sphere Of Molten Slag]

Considering that evolution is all about adapting to new environments, with
said adaptation generally taking quite a long time, I'd bet long odds that
if there IS any life on Jupiter, it will make short work of any terrestrial
microbes that do make it.  Jupiter will represent a thoroughly novel
environment for the Earth bugs, placing them at a severe (and most likely
fatal) disadvantage.  Or do you somehow think that Earth life is so obviously
superior to anything Jupiter can crank out that Jovian life can't possibly
measure up?
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA 508-626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, [e-mail], ...!mit-eddie!jfw, [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Oct 89 18:26:01 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!radio.astro!helios.physics!utpsych![e-mail]  (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Human contamination?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Perhaps we are genetically programmed to contaminate the universe.
>The earth, as we all know, has a finite lifetime.  In order for
>the DNA-based life on this planet to survive, it must ultimately
>leave for space.  Perhaps this is why self-conscious intelligent
>creatures evolved on this planet.  The dinosaurs roamed this
>planet for a lot longer than man, but they vulnerable to an
>ecological catastrophe...an encounter with a massive meteor (perhaps!).
>Perhaps intelligence became favored in evolution, because it is
>it is evolution's current attempt to insure survival of DNA-based
>life, by contaminating the universe with it.
>  [other comments deleted]
>Department of Chemistry
>University of Toronto

And space advocates complain of the lack of a basic understanding of science!

The above argument implies some sort of *purpose* for evolution, some
*goal*, not directly determined by the current environment, towards which
all life is headed.  While popular prior to the twentieth century, in large
part due to this view's compatibility with religious beliefs of the times,
this is definitely *not* the position of *any* (respectible) geneticist or
evolutionary biologist.   As those scientists will tell you, there is no
*WHY* to evolution, beyond the proximal effects of the environment.  There
is no *reason* for evolution, no *purpose*.  To say otherwise
is pure hokum (rather reminiscent of some New Age "thinking"),
and dangerous hokum at that, as it implies that domination of the universe
(and a concommitent disregard for all other life-forms) is somehow our
genetic "destiny," and therefore OK.

I apologize for the tirade, but while I expect such fuzzy thinking from
non-scientists, to find it in this forum is very disturbing.

Of course, unless the original post was meant as a joke without smileys, in
which case disregard all of the above :-)

- michael

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

Date: 4 Oct 89 06:44:26 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: First group of prospective astronau


[e-mail] (Butler Hine) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >...  NASA openly admits to a select-from-within bias.
>
> This is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Since the bias is well
> known, almost everyone who is serious about becoming a NASA astronaut
> goes to work for NASA.  Some of us would have done it anyway, though.
>
>             Butler Hine
>             NASA Ames Research Center
>             [e-mail]

Congratulations on your selection as one of the 100 or so finalists for
this year's group of ASCANs, Butler P. Hine III, Ph.D. of Cupertino, CA.

Yes, the bias is well known.  But it is clearly not true that "almost
everyone who is serious about becoming a NASA astronaut goes to work
for NASA".  The Astronaut Selection Office can confirm this.  The entire
point is that a disproportionate number of applicants from the U.S.
military branches and from within NASA are actually selected as astronaut
candidates.  NASA admittedly gives extra points to these applicants,
discriminating against civilians.  Why doesn't NASA make it a requirement
that applicants first work for the U.S. government?  It might violate
federal laws.  The other question is whether it's a good idea for NASA
to practice this, as opposed to giving equal consideration to civilian
applicants.  Several congressmen have argued that the civilian astronaut
corps is in danger of disappearing because of this acknowledged selection
criteria.

By the way, with the second group of prospects announced, the totals now
stand at 7 NASA employees, 21 military officers, and 12 others being
considered.  However, with Butler Hine identified as a NASA employee
(he was one of the "others" in the second group), that at least changes
the numbers to 8, 21, and 11, respectively.  I wonder how many other
NASA employees were not explicitly identified in those press releases.

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

Date: 4 Oct 89 03:59:04 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Magellan summary?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Al Viall) writes:
>[Galileo] would make a double earth flyby(i.e. the VEEGA track).
>Why was this track chosen, considering that it would be more fruitfull to
>just get the craft to Jupiter in one piece.

Everyone would prefer to get it to Jupiter directly.  For one thing, it would
shorten the mission and reduce the chances of problems developing before the
Jupiter part.  But it *can't get there* directly.  The upper stage that could
have sent it there -- Centaur G-prime -- was cancelled due to shuttle safety
hysteria in the wake of Challenger.  So Galileo has to make do with the lousy
old IUS, and that means playing gravitational ping-pong in the inner solar
system for a while to build up more velocity.
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Oct 89 04:03:34 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The End of Galileo

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I have read and heard about the Galileo spacecraft's 22 month mission
>at Jupiter, which will end about October 1997.  Does anyone know what
>will happen then?  ...

It runs out of maneuvering fuel.  (In fact, with the precautions being
taken to avoid problems with the slightly-buggy thruster design, it may
end up having to sacrifice one of the asteroid encounters or one or two
of the Jupiter-satellite encounters; the new maneuvering sequences are
less fuel-efficient.)  No fuel, no attitude control, no antenna pointing
for communication, finis.  The Voyagers had it easy; Galileo gets to do
a *lot* of maneuvering, even with careful use of satellite gravity assists.
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 18:45 EDT
From: NUTSY FAGEN <[e-mail]>
Subject: Astronaut Selection


        I'd like to know how one goes about becoming an astronaut.  (Doesn't
everyone, right?)  I'm currently a 3rd year Engineering student at RIT.  When I
graduate in 2 1/2 years, I'll have a minimum 4 year commitment to the Navy
(ROTC).  In the meantime, I'll have 1 year's worth of co-op employment to find.
        Are there any 'preferred' positions in either the civilian or Navy
worlds which would be a help in the astronaut applications process?  And, how
soon is 'normal' to apply, be accepted, etc.
        If this has been covered in detail recently, please steer me to the
proper archive.
        Thanks
                                 ______________
Mike Bunnell                    |   ________   |
MJB8949@RITVAX                  |  |   ___  |  |
This is the best footer         |  |  |___| |  |
you're gonna get  :)            |  |_______
                                |__________

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

Date: 4 Oct 89 19:58:49 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!pikes!udenva!isis!scicom![e-mail]  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: October 4, 1989


This the th32nd anniversary of the start of satellite space science
and there has been no mention of it on the video news media.

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

Date: 4 Oct 89 20:25:27 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What's Wrong With HR2674

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>                      .... I think it is high time we started blowing up
>>a few experimental rockets again.  Progress requires setbacks...
>Blowing up experimental rockets is fine, as long as the risk is shared
>fairly among the parties involved...  A government
>launch facility getting blown up by a private company is every citizen's
>business...

That's right.  It is traditionally the government's business to do, or at
least assist, high-risk R&D.  It is every citizen's business to insist that
some launch facilities get blown up now and then, as a sign that the
government is doing its job properly.  NASA, in particular, should be
damaging launch facilities occasionally, in the same way that the aeronautics
side of NASA crashes aircraft occasionally.  If there are no setbacks, it
is probably because no progress is being made.  (There aren't, and none is.)

>As a taxpayer, I would insist on some safety regulation in
>that situation.  Range safety, particularly in an environment of limited
>liability and "hands off" regulation of the novel technical aspects of
>the launcher by the government, must be regulated in all cases...

Please note that I never said anything to the contrary.  Obviously,
experimental aircraft work does not deliberately set out to produce
crashes, either maliciously or through carelessness.  (Clearly we are
not talking about the occasional deliberate crash done to examine things
like crashworthiness.)  Indeed, efforts are made to avoid crashes.
But they are nevertheless an accepted part of the activity, and everyone
realizes that they can't be avoided if technical progress is desired.
Experimental aircraft are tested cautiously and gradually, but you can't
insist that they be mil-spec and proven safe before you let them onto
the runway.

>>HR2674 seems likely to benefit, primarily, General Dynamics, Martin Marietta,
>>and McDonnell Douglas...
>This is a very interesting statement and runs counter to the intent
>of everyone involved with the writing of the legislation.  Could you
>explain why it is that HR2674 would end up creating more of an
>advantage for the big three over small carriers than they enjoy now?

Because they are the established carriers, the ones with demonstrated
and well-proven hardware (we'll ignore the fact that they're constantly
building new versions, e.g. the "off the shelf" procurement of Navstar
launch services that bought a version of Delta that did not exist and
had never flown) that was originally mil-spec.  It's the same reason
why IBM sells so many computers:  not because they're good, but because
"nobody ever got fired for buying from IBM".  In an environment where
there is little incentive to reduce costs and much incentive to avoid
failures, the traditional contractors are the clear choices.
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 18:19:55 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Contamination of Jupiter (philosophy)


>From: cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!csri.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (Wayne Hayes)
>Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized???

>First think of the same thing happenning here on Earth about 800 million
>years ago.
>... So if there's "bugs" on Jupiter,
>they're certainly deserving at least as much evolutionary "respect" as
>anything on Earth...
This is the basic "right-to-life" philosophy ("the potential for the existence
of an organism is of exactly the same importance and value as an existing
organism"), carried to its logical limit. Killing a mouse wipes out a creature
which could very plausibly evolve into a sentient being within 100 million
years. Stepping on an acorn is as bad as cutting down a whole forest of future
oak trees. Spaying your cat should get you arrested for cruelty to its
descendants. Any failure on your part to engage in reproductive activity
whenever possible robs potential humans of existence :-)

>...So 800 million years ago some extra-terrestrials come
>mosying by and say of the Earth, "Gee, look, nothing more than sub-insects
>here.  Let's colonize it."
Then there wouldn't be any complaints, because we wouldn't be here to do the
complaining. Suppose we were to contact an ancient alien race, and find out
that they had visited the earth many millions of years ago, and had wiped out
the dinosaurs, making it possible for us to evolve. Should we cuss them out
for robbing the dinosaurs of their rightful place? Suppose they had kept
some dinosaurs in storage. Should we demand that they kill us off and
repopulate the earth with dinosaurs, so things would be the way they were
"supposed" to be?

>The potential loss of an advanced ecosystem
>totally different than any other is, at the very least, a massive
>scientific loss in the far future.  (Sheesh!  Imagine studying the evolution
>of life on a non-Earth planet for millions of years!!  Right here in our
>own back yard!!
That would be the ultimate government project. Just sit around and watch
primitive life forms evolve for a few hundred million years. Talk about
job security! :-)

Seriously, you could do it much more cheaply and easily on earth, using
isolated groups of earth organisms.

>...but I just strongly believe that we have no right
"Right" in this context evolved as an anthropomorphic, secular concept
regarding conduct toward sentient beings. By extension, there is a moral or
ethical interest in the well-being of non-sentient organisms which are
thought to be capable of experiencing pain or emotions. Some extremists
suggest that nonsentient organisms should enjoy the full rights and
privileges of sentient beings, though as a compromise they are usually
willing to restrict this policy to "cute, furry animals", with the added
provision "not in my living room". A few posters have introduced the
additional (perhaps "New Age") concept that humans should be cautious in
their treatment of inanimate matter *for the sake of the inanimate matter
itself*. Thus humans have no right to colonize the moon, because that would
infringe upon the moon's right to sit there and be a lifeless hunk of rock.
I happen to disagree with this philosophy. I feel that any such caution
should be directed toward a concern for the well-being and aesthetic
interests of humans, and the well-being of other life. Thus, I might object
to a plan to paint a mountain yellow, not because it might "hurt" the mountain,
but because I would consider it offensive in appearance, and because it would
harm the local wildlife.

>...to go screwing around with an environment we know nothing about.
If it really were "nothing", I would agree. However, it is believed that we
know enough about conditions on Jupiter to predict with high confidence that
there are no locations where the introduction of earth microorganisms would
make any difference. Even if there are, there is no guarantee that Galileo
would contaminate Jupiter, so a discovery of favorable conditions by the
probe would indicate that future probes should use more stringent precautions.
As someone has pointed out, it is not practical to take infinite precautions
when there is no indication that they will be needed.

>Wayne Hayes    INTERNET: [e-mail]    CompuServe: 72401,3525
                             John Roberts
                             [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #118
*******************