Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_160.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cZEtqRC00VcJQARU4m>;
          Mon, 23 Oct 89 19:24:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 19:23:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #160

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
        Re: WANT ACTION IN WASHINGTON?  WRITE A LETTER
            Re: More whining about Galileo
        Re: More whining about Galileo (nope)
           Re: Try thinking before stinking
            Re: More whining about Galileo
Re: Geyser-like plume discovered on Neptune's moon Triton (Forwarded)
              Re: Enterprise Utilization
           Re: What would we do WITHOUT 'Freedom'?
        Re: Amroc Helium Pressurization system
Re: Geyser-like plume discovered on Neptune's moon Triton (Forwarded)
Re: Geyser-like plume discovered on Neptune's moon Triton (Forwarded)
           Re: $2 billion for new 70m dish
               sterilization of Galileo
       Plutonium (was: South Florida Environmental Reader #12)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 89 21:08:25 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: WANT ACTION IN WASHINGTON?  WRITE A LETTER

[e-mail] (Paul S. R. Chisholm) says (quoting an article
in Business Week):

> Finally, there's your letter, on real stationary, preferably with your
> business letterhead.  Handwritten is best, most experts now suggest.
> "Writing on personal stationary distinguishes you from the mass mail,"
> says Ira Chaleff of the nonprofit Congressional Management Foundation.
> And the aide is more likely to give it special attention.
>
> Keep to one subject, and keep it short.  If you throw in all your
> peeves and concerns, it's likely to go to three of four different
> aides, each handling a different area.
>
> It's also a good idea to remind the representative or senator of a time
> you might have met.  If you get a form letter back from the
> congressional office, don't just accept it, says George Gould of the
> National Association of Letter Writers.  Write another one saying, "You
> sent me a form letter, and you haven't answered my question, or
> addressed my concern."  Chances are, you'll get a personal response next
> time around.  --Douglas Harbrecht

Very good advice.  Hmm.... how difficult would it be to create computer-
generated letters that look hand-written?  I once heard that flatbed
plotters don't produce good hand-written text because the ink sprays out
when the pen whips through a tight corner.  On the other hand, congressional
aides probably aren't even aware that pen plotters exist.

On the other hand, it's not difficult to hire people to write letters for
you.  Lots of senior citizens and children would love to earn a little
pocket change for re-writing a typed letter in longhand.  The difficulty would
be to find one such person in each congressional district.  That would be
powerful:  every time you got pissed about something, send one hand-written
letter to each member of Congress (the words could all be the same in each
letter, assuming the aides for different elected officials don't compare
letters with each other).

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

Date: 15 Oct 89 19:15:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (David B Wilson)
Subject: Re: More whining about Galileo


> ...
> If you want American consumers to support your expensive hobby, you gotta
> give them a consumer reason for it.  You gotta let'em know that Galileo
> will provide the same improvement in astrological prediction that weather
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> satellites provided to weather prediction.  Educastion is the solution!
You said it.

Concerning the microbes on Galileo, as I understand it, people think they
might survive on the parachute.

A couple of questions for people:
1) What did the Moon treaty say?
2) How does a planet capture an asteroid?  Sling shot effect in reverse
   with a moon or two to help out?


Q: How many members of the Christic Institute does it take to screw in a
   light bulb?

A: 21.  1 to screw it in and 20 to perform the environmental impact study.

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

Date: 15 Oct 89 23:37:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Christopher John Rapier)
Subject: Re: More whining about Galileo (nope)

Actually, The Christic Institute is more than an environmental impact
group. They are actually a liberal law frim doing what they consider
good work on a pro-gratis basis. They are a lot like, from what I
understand, the ACLU. They are voicing a valid concern. 40 pounds of
plutonium ain't just a chest X-Ray. A couple mics will give your brain
them funky tumors. I personally don't agree with them on this BUT I do
support them in their investigations into the actions of the CIA and the
government in Nicaragua and the Palenca bombings (Supposedly an
unidentified man (suspected terrorist working on behalf of the CIA)
bombed the shit out of a press confrence to be given by the ARDN leader
who the Regan Reactionaries wouldn't support). They have also done a lot
of other good work trying to expose fraud, corruption and
unconstitutional activity in the government.
vida loca
christos del sinep

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 04:23:02 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix![e-mail]  (Ta06)
Subject: Re: Try thinking before stinking

>Now from what I've been reading they have some valid questions that you
>really haven't been answering. Admittedly the plutonium (which is the
>most poisonous substance known to man, makes dioxin look like lemonade)

The title was "Try thinking before stinking."  This applies to both sides.
Plutonium is not the most poisonous substance known to man.  It's not even
close.  If the Christic Institute thinks this is a "valid question", I don't
see why anyone else should bother with their other "valid" questions.

>p.p.s. I just wonder if any of this will actually get make you think.

For some reason it seems to be popular for people to say falsehoods and then,
when the falsehood exposed, give the rationalization "it was only to get you to
think, after all."  This is 1) wrong (since discovering a factual error requires
using reference material and not usually large amounts of deduction) and 2) ad-
hominem (since you are implying that the reason many people disagree with you in
the first place is that they failed to think).  (Admittedly people don't do it
too much on the net.  The magazine Analog seems to do it a lot though.)

>p.p.p.s. Interesting replies are welcome and will be answered. Flames
>will be dealt with as harshly as I am able.

Your move.
--
"The workers ceased to be afraid of the bosses.  It's as if they suddenly
 threw off their chains." -- a Soviet journalist, about the Donruss coal strike

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail])

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 16:33:24 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More whining about Galileo

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B Wilson) writes:
>Concerning the microbes on Galileo, as I understand it, people think they
>might survive on the parachute.
>
>1) What did the Moon treaty say?

Nothing relevant.  It was more concerned with keeping capitalists in their
place (as humble servants to their glorious governments) than with keeping
microbes in their place.

>2) How does a planet capture an asteroid?  Sling shot effect in reverse
>   with a moon or two to help out?

It's a three-body problem, not a two-body problem -- you cannot ignore the
presence of the Sun.  A single body can't make captures unless there is
some complicating effect (atmosphere, tidal drag, etc.), but with two
bodies it's possible.  The orbits get awfully messy and I haven't seen
an intuitive explanation of it.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 20:21:59 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh![e-mail]  (lawrence.m.geary)
Subject: Re: Geyser-like plume discovered on Neptune's moon Triton (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Pioneers, etc.  Both Voyagers, two of the Pioneers, and ICE all require the
>use of our largest and rarest (70m) antennae.  Building a new 70m dish
>would cost and estimated $2 billion: the price of a new space shuttle.

WHERE did you get a number like THAT? The replacement for the 91m dish that
collapsed last year is well under $100 milllion. You are off by at least
an order of magnitude.

--Larry
--

     [e-mail]    Think globally ... Post locally    att!hoqax!lmg

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

Date: 14 Oct 89 20:10:12 GMT
From: watmath!looking![e-mail]  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Enterprise Utilization

A whole shuttle for a lifeboat?  Hardly.  All you need is a shell
with an ablative coating, a retro-pack and a parachute.   Something
like a mercury orbiter where you stack 'em in like sardines.

Who cares if you have to pick 'em up in the ocean in an emergency?  We
had this sort of technology in 1961, and for a liferaft, you don't need
anything more.

(You want the retro-pack so you can time your re-entry.  Otherwise an
explosive leap from the station might be enough to dump your velocity)

Alternately, instead of a retro pack you could have something with enough
air to keep the crew alive for a month until a shuttle can come get 'em.
I would rather have the retro-rockets and the supplies, myself.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

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

Date: 14 Oct 89 00:38:37 GMT
From: ibmpa!slo![e-mail]  (James Salter)
Subject: Re: What would we do WITHOUT 'Freedom'?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:
>>NASA has basically promised Europe and Japan a free ride on our Station.
>>We spend the $30 billion, and they do the research.  Blah to that!
>
>I've got news for you, Nick:  they're spending their own billions on it,
>and the US gets quite a bit of use of the facilities they're supplying.

Yep.  And the thing that they're really scared about is that the US is going
to screw them over by not launching the thing in the first place due to
beauracratic red tape and lack of political support.

Any ideas where they'd go then?  They're not going to just give up their
billions of dollars, unlike us.  I'll give you 1 guess where they'd go, and
they probably won't say "nyet."

jim/jsalter   IBM AWD   T465/[phone]   VNET: JSALTER at PALOALTO
UUCP: ..!uunet!ibmsupt!jsalter               Disc: Any opinions are mine.
IP: ibmsupt![e-mail]    "PS/2 it, or DIE!" -- me

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 23:42:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Amroc Helium Pressurization system

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (douglas.h.price,45261,ih,6x203,312 979 3664) writes:
>Actually, using hybrids buys AMROC quite a bit...
>... The AMROC motors are loaded on a normal,
>conventional flatbed truck and delivered to the test stand in the desert
>with no special permits required, etc.  On the test stand, you can walk
>right up to the motor and lay hands on it, right up to minutes before
>firing without the usual range safety issues...

The same is, of course, true of any liquid-fuel rocket.  I assumed we were
talking about sensibly-designed rockets, not roman candles.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 13:01:53 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!radio.astro![e-mail]  (Brian Glendenning)
Subject: Re: Geyser-like plume discovered on Neptune's moon Triton (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:

   [...]  Building a new 70m dish
   would cost and estimated $2 billion: the price of a new space shuttle.

Why is this so expensive? A radio telescope of about the same size
costs about an order of magnitude less?
--
      Brian Glendenning - Radio astronomy, University of Toronto
[e-mail] uunet!utai!radio!brian  [e-mail]
--
      Brian Glendenning - Radio astronomy, University of Toronto
[e-mail] uunet!utai!radio!brian  [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 15:32:12 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]  (Greg S. Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Geyser-like plume discovered on Neptune's moon Triton (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
#Building a new 70m dish
#would cost and estimated $2 billion: the price of a new space shuttle.

This is certainly false. Three blocks over the scientists and
engineers of the National Radio Astronomy Observatories are busily
planning to build a 100 meter telescope, that will receive millimeter
wavelenghts. The whole budget for them is 75 million dollars. I think
you missed a couple of decimal points.


-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: 13 Oct 89 14:47:59 GMT
From: phoenix!puppsr3![e-mail]  (marty ryba)
Subject: Re: $2 billion for new 70m dish

[e-mail] (Jim Barnes) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Both Voyagers, two of the Pioneers, and ICE all require the
>>use of our largest and rarest (70m) antennae.  Building a new 70m dish
>>would cost and estimated $2 billion: the price of a new space shuttle.
>$2 billion??  Can you provide some info why it should cost that much?
>If it really costs that much, maybe we can scratch 4 or 5 B-2 bombers
>and build the 70m dish instead. ;-)

I can't see how it could possibly cost that much.  The new 100m radiotelescope
to be built in Green Bank (to replace the one that collapsed) is budgeted at
$75 million.  Even taking into account NASA overhead, I find $2 billion to be
outrageous.  These tracking stations are essentially identical to a typical
radiotelescope, so the costs should be very similar.


Marty Ryba (slave physics grad student)
They don't care if I exist, let alone what my opinions are!
[e-mail]
Asbestos gloves always on when reading mail

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

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 89 16:40:41 CDT
From: [e-mail] (expert - washed up drip under pressure)
Subject: sterilization of Galileo

Okay, so we have some hypothetical microbes which can withstand (in order to
travel to Jupiter and live there in comfort) vacuum, hard (and I mean hard)
radiation, high temperatures and high pressure.  Pray tell, then, how does one
sterilize the probe?  Magic incantations?

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts
TI/DSEG VAX Systems Support          | probably belong to the company.
[e-mail]              |
[phone]                        | "Space, the final frontier"
                                     | "Da, passport, tovarisch"

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

Date: 13 Oct 89 18:57:33 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs![e-mail]  (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Plutonium (was: South Florida Environmental Reader #12)

<[e-mail] (Michael Gemar)>
<From what I understand..., PU-238 is in fact *NOT* very dangerous at all, and
indeed is more likely to be a *chemical* hazard than a *radiation* hazard.>

Plutonium is a powerful alpha emitter.  Alpha particles -- basically helium
atoms sans electrons -- are easily shielded because they are massive.  Also
because of their mass and energy, they cause a great deal of damage to whatever
they collide with.  This combination makes plutonium a serious problem only
when it is incorporated into living tissue, through ingestion, inhalation,
abrasion, absorption and other means.

Danger from metallic plutonium contained in an inert environment is, therefore,
low.  However, plutonium is a strong oxidant, spontaneously catching fire when
exposed to the atmosphere.  The resulting fine, white plutonium oxide powder is
readily airborne, and can easily be dispersed in cancer-causing doses over a
large area.  Open-air plutonium fires have happened on several occasions at
Rocky Flats, and autopsies of local residents who have died from cancer show
high levels of plutonium.  (I realize this datapoint does not guarantee cause
and effect.)  Re-entry of plutonium fueled spacecraft also disperses finely
divided plutonium oxide, adding to the global burden of a dangerous substance
that didn't exist on Earth until 1941.

I believe the somewhat inaccurate *most dangerous substance* moniker comes from
long-term effects per unit mass.  I think the generally accepted LD50 dose for
inhalation is in the tens of micrograms.  (I was unable to uncover the exact
figure -- anybody help?)  Plutonium oxide apparently forms particles as small
as 280 picograms.  Radiation health-specialist and Professor Emeritus of
Medical Physics at Berkeley Dr. John W. Goffman states that "somewhere between
a few and a few hundred such particles would be enough to double an
individual's chances of developing lung cancer".

Arguing over what is the most dangerous substance, by whatever measure, is
moot.  When treated with the lack of respect demonstrated by past and
continuing experience, plutonium is an extremely dangerous substance indeed.

(references on request)

                               Jan Steinman - N7JDB
                          Electronic Systems Laboratory
                    Box 500, MS 50-370, Beaverton, OR 97077
                        (w)503/627-5881 (h)503/657-7703

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #160
*******************