Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_124.TXT

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

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=lBSm00VcJAHoE5A>;
          Sun,  8 Oct 89 05:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <IZ=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  8 Oct 89 05:28:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #124

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
         Re: Dan Quayle, news media, toxicity
               Re: Astronaut Selection
   Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature) or Trump Station
               Re: Human contamination
                Re: "The Plan"
             HAM ballon launch - Oct 7th?
      Happy Birthday, Robert Goddard and Konstantin Tsilkovsky.
     The Sad Tale of Galileo, Centaur, and the Invincible 'Nauts
               Re: Astronaut Selection
            Re: RTGs, shuttle launch risks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 10:37:46 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle, news media, toxicity

Kenneth Ng <[e-mail]> writes:

>After trying many times, I am thoroughly convinced that for the most
>part news organizations are more interested in selling papers than
>the truth.

Of course they are.  Why do you think newspapers set the advertisements
first, then fit the news into the space that's left?

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 17:32:02 GMT
From: usc!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Astronaut Selection

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Does NASA have any official policy on using eye surgery to meet vision
>requirements?

Not that I'm aware of.  But that doesn't really matter.  There are thousands
of would-be astronauts who meet the official specifications -- far more than
NASA could ever use.  So a lot of less-formal criteria come into play.

For that matter, clearly one does not need perfect eyesight to be an astronaut.
John Young wore glasses to make the first shuttle landing.  (He'd been an
astronaut for a long time, long enough for his eyes to deteriorate.)

>>      For that matter, avoid any other significant medical unknowns.)
>Or not :-).  Seems like a matter of individual choice to me.

The point is, all it takes is one question mark to wash you out -- you are
competing against lots of people, some of whom won't have that question
mark.  The lineup is long, and NASA can afford to be very picky.  It is
not enough to be good -- you have to be THE BEST.
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 03:18:44 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (nick szabo)
Subject: Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature) or Trump Station

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Wisner) writes:
>
>As I've mentioned before, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation
>can block any US launch they feel like blocking, and they don't have to
>give reasons.  If Trump does something after his first launch that the
>government doesn't like, he won't get to do it again.
>--

The good news is, Donald Trump is very good at convincing governments
to do things his way.  He got his billions in Atlantic City because the
inspectors granted licenses to his casinos and denied them to his competitors
for various silly reasons.

The bad news is, nobody has figured out a way to build a LEO Casino, even
for Donald Trump prices.  You can't fit very many slot machines into the
$30 billion "Freedom".  :-(

BTW, I recommend the book "Trump", written by the man himself, as must
reading for budding space entrepreneurs.  We're gonna be dealing with
government officials for a long time to come, and this guy knows how
to do it.



"Never get too attached to one deal or one approach.  Most deals
 fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."
            Donald Trump


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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 15:22:32 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Human contamination


>From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix![e-mail]  (Ta06)
>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.  ...
>This is a misunderstanding of evolution.  Things don't evolve "for" some
>future purpose which has not come into effect yet.
Agreeing that the causality could stand to be rephrased, I think that Gerald
may still have an interesting point.

>The only way evolution could directly produce organisms evolved to conquer
>space, would be if in the past there were some organisms more capable of
>conquering space than others, thus causing these organisms to be selected for
>in preference to other organisms not capable of conquering space.
The term "space" should be expanded to include space on the earth. There is
a tremendous evolutionary advantage in having a tendency to spread out into
new territory. (Besides the potential for greater total population, it
provides greater security against natural disasters, etc.) As an example,
among snapping turtles and seals, an individual will occasionally leave the
body of water which it inhabits, and travel for miles over land in search of
another body of water. The motivations of the individual creatures may be
obscure, but the net result is that the populations tend to spread out into
all habitable locations within reach.

Similarly, while not contesting the concept of free will, humans are known to
have a tremendous amount of physical and emotional "programming", presumably
inherited from their ancestors. Many of these traits can still be seen in
the behavior of individuals and societies. Among these traits is a tendency
to expand territory. Humans as a whole have consistently expanded their
range to include every place in which they can live with a reasonable effort.
Thus the fact that we humans who have spread over the earth are now thinking
about moving into space can perhaps be attributed largely to an evolutionary
trend that made us the way we are. Note that as in the past, only a small
percentage of the total population would like to actively participate in
such a move.

>The capability of conquering space was exactly zero for all organisms in the
>past (discounting bacteria and the like, since we're talking about human
>beings), so no organism could be selected for as being "better" at conquering
>space, since being "better" would give no immediate benefit to the organism.
An evolutionary change does not have to benefit the individual organism, as
long as it benefits the species as a whole. If it turns out that spores are
capable of crossing interplanetary or interstellar distances and seeding new
planets (several mechanisms for this have been proposed), then such an ability
in microorganisms (which could later evolve into more complex organisms) would
indeed be important. It would be interesting to discover life in a nearby
star system and find out by biochemical analysis that we have a distant
common ancestor.
--
>Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>     INTERNET: [e-mail])
                               John Roberts
                               [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 18:17:38 GMT
From: deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uafcveg!uafhcx![e-mail]  (6079 Smith J)
Subject: Re: "The Plan"


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:
> BTW, there is nothing on the Moon that justifies spending even $15 billion,
>  much less $150 billion.  What Apollo found in the lunar soil can be
> found in any typical backyard on Earth, and I can find oodles of things in
> my backyard that you can't find on the Moon.

What are we doing piddling around the Florida swampland?  Nick should start
a company to lease launching rights from his backyard.  Think of the reduction
in fuel consumption!  :-)

What we need from the Moon is a bunch of raw materials in a gravity well
a lot shallower than Earth's.  One mass driver and an orbital solar furnace
can make a lot of insulation for a space station.  A refinery for metals
would be helpful too.  Asteroids would be better, sure, but we haven't
got any lying around so conveniently.  I say we colonize the moon as soon as
we can figure out what's there.  Map the joint thoroughly, pick the best spots
for locations, and *build* it already!  20 years, folks!


|  James W. Smith, University of Arkansas  | uafhcx![e-mail] |
|  Our domain name is finally valid!  New: |     [e-mail]        |
|    I'm so depressed.  If I didn't have so much to do, I'd be a nihilist.   |

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 22:01:54 GMT
From: att!cbnewsc![e-mail]  (ted.g.kekatos)
Subject: HAM ballon launch - Oct 7th?

Ballon Launch scheduled for Oct 7th.  9 a.m. (central)

Launch from somewhere at Champaign/Urbana, Illinois

control/info NET   7.155 MHz 9 a.m.

VHF beacon 144.34 MHZ FM (40 mw transmitter)
UHF ATV w/telemetry 439.25 MHz VIDEO

Should get something from chicagoland area.

???????


------
I have no only other information.  If there is anyone with additional
information, please post for all to see.




Ted G. Kekatos    N9IXE  (formerly KB9DCQ)
UUCP: ..!att!ihuxv!tedk                     [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Indian Hill South, IX-1F-460
Naperville & Wheaton Roads - Naperville, Illinois. 60566 USA

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 16:02:48 GMT
From: wrksys.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283 05-Oct-1989 1158)
Subject: Happy Birthday, Robert Goddard and Konstantin Tsilkovsky.


        On this date in 1882, Robert Goddard, the American founder of
    modern rocketry, was born.  On October 4, 1857, Konstantin Tsilkovsky,
    the Soviet founder of modern rocketry, was born exactly one hundred
    years to the day when SPUTNIK 1 was launched.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!wrksys.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic

             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 03:54:14 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (nick szabo)
Subject: The Sad Tale of Galileo, Centaur, and the Invincible 'Nauts

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Al Viall) writes:
>Another question. Looking through the press release for Galileo, to which
>I thank Peter Yee for sending through the net, I had read that the craft
>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.

This story cannot be repeated enough times.  Originally Galileo was supposed
to launch on the Shuttle in early 1986 with a Centaur upper stage
powerful enough to go straight to Jupiter.   First the Shuttle shutdown
delayed the launch 3 1/2 years.  Then NASA decided that the liquid-fueled
Centaur, which was not involved in the Challenger explosion, was just too
risky for a manned spacecraft.  So, to save the hides of our intrepid 'nauts,
Galileo will now launch with the solid-fueled IUS.  This stage is far too
weak to go directly to Jupiter, so it will get Gravity Assists from Venus,
Earth, and Earth again (thus VEEGA).   What a convoluted way to get around
the solar system.

Sigh.  I sure hope we learn our lesson.

"Reliability sells."
    Donald Trump


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

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 18:34:04 GMT
From: mfci![e-mail]  (Paul Rodman)
Subject: Re: Astronaut Selection

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>The following information is second-hand, but I've heard that there is
>a new process called laser ablatement cornea sculpting which has
>acheived much better results than radial keritonomy.  It's currently
>in the evaluation stage, but should be commercially available in
>around five years.  And evidently, it results in flawless corrections
>to nearsightedness, farsightedness, and some astigmatisms.

I happen to get a chance to ask the head of Mass Eye & Ear what he
thought about the laser stuff.

EXCEPT for those with uncorrectably bad problems, he was of the
opinion that there is NO EXCUSE for scarring the eye, with a knife
OR a laser beam. The long term effects of such scarring are not known.
The effect of impact stress on a scarred eye is not known.

pkr

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

Date: 5 Oct 89 17:50:35 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!pico![e-mail]  (Alan Kennington)
Subject: Re: RTGs, shuttle launch risks

In article <3200007@iuvax> [e-mail] writes:
>Regarding operation of a 1000 MWe coal plant that was poorly
>sited without advanced scrubbers, I believe that the estimates
>for deaths from stack emissions ALONE were in the neighborhood
>of 100 per year.  [...]

I've been telling people this kind of thing for years, and I expect that
it will take decades for the concept to sink in to the general public.

In the forties and fifties, atomic scientists warned about the dangers of
nuclear weapons and power plants.
In the sixties, I read about the dangers of nuclear plants - among which
was the danger of uranium running out before we could develop economical
solar energy.
Back in the seventies, I remember reading about atmospheric pollution
problems and the resource exhaustion problem ("Limits to growth").

In all the above cases, the warnings were given decades before the general
public caught on. And generally the problems have changed by that time.
In the case of nuclear power plants, it will probably take another decade or
so for the general public to catch onto the idea that they're the cleanest
thing around for keeping cities warm and well-lit at night.

The dangers of coal-fired plants include the early deaths to miners too!

But I'd like to see the hard facts. If you've got some numbers (which are
much more effective politically than facts), please broadcast them.

Perhaps this is not the right group for this kind of thing.

But then, what I really want to ask is this:

What happened to all the discussion of moon-bases a few months back? There
used to be a lot on that. Is it possible that some political decision has
been made which makes the argument no longer relevant?

I thought the idea of getting 8 or so people to live in a self-contained
module on Earth for a few months was to check out the feasibility of a
moon-base.

Have any serious studies been done on the requirements of such a base, and
how those requirements would be met using moon resources? If there is
an easily accessible source of such info, I'd like to know about it.

I would guess that the main question (as is well known) is whether the rocks
on the moon have the right sort of elements in them. Required are carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, some sort of oxygen-diluter (inert gases don't form
compounds very easily, but maybe there's a rock with nitrogen in it),
compounds which can react to give intense heat (for melting rocks to get
other things out of them).

Where do you get this sort of basic information? - Especially the set of
types of rocks on the moon, and their chemical composition.

If the rocks turn out okay, then it should only be a question of which
latitude to live at, which I assume would be about 89 degrees, facing the
Earth.

Thanks for any info.

ak.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #124
*******************