Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_176.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/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/YZH24Gq00VcJ4HIE4I>;
          Mon, 30 Oct 89 05:23:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 89 05:22:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #176

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
            biotechnology in space
                 Re: finally!
            Re: The true value of Galileo
              Evolution and space travel
         NASA Headline News for 10/23/89 (Forwarded)
             Re: TDRS vs military
               Radar astronomy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 89 15:22 -0600
From: bradley thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: biotechnology in space

I have been reading some of the comments on pharmaceuticals in space with
some interest. Having been in this particular game [some say scam] for
longer than I care to remember, I thought I would post a few thoughts.

There "seems" to be potential for some sort of use of reduced gravity
environments as sites of activity in biotechnology. Hence past
interests in CFES and current intersts by people like Genentech.
The areas of potential [deliberately use this word alot] include
several:

1- human disease research- in particular low gravity induces degenerative
effects similar to a number of diseases. Dgenerative muscle, bone, immune
system, reproductive system, and body fluid control diseases all have analogue
symptoms in low gravity.

2- large protein crystal formation- as pointed out in the net, it appears
as if we can grow larger, better protein crystals in low gravity that
can be used on the ground for diffraction studies. LOTS of drug company
interest here.

3- complex tissue regeneration- a new one. In studies on complex plant
structures [embryos, my work] and complex organ tissue from animals
[intestine] it appears as if extremely low shear environments allow
single cell suspension cultures to regenerate into differentiated tissue
like the cell source. In plain language functional intestinal tissue or
whatever from single cells. Transplants. Work is going on at several
places on this.

4- some other bits that are less medical. Examples that I am
familiar with include biosensor production, biologically mediated
fine metal powder formation, biologically mediated catalyst formation,
and biochip production. I am flying stuff on the first three on STS 37.

5- basic research in production and purification processes- CFES in
particular.

The key in all of this is to remember that almost all of it won't
work or will work and cost too much. We need large sample numbers,
lots of attempts, and quick turn around times. When I was out in
Siberia earlier this year, the group I was visiting showed me the
first 6!!!!! versions of their equipment that they had flown. I
should be so lucky.

Brad Thompson

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

Date: 23 Oct 89 18:54:08 GMT
From: crdgw1!crdos1![e-mail]  (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: finally!

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Clews) writes:

|  Thanks for the information, Henry, but, uh, haven't you slipped into the
|  "I must be the first person in the world to announce this" trap? I'm
|  sure most of us heard about the launch etc.  on TV and radio before
|  your posting got around.

  I'm just as happy to get the info before I get out of work.
--
bill davidsen    ([e-mail] -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon

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

Date: 23 Oct 89 19:55:02 GMT
From: microsoft![e-mail]  (David Levine)
Subject: Re: The true value of Galileo

The questions was "what else could Galileo have been launched on besides
the shuttle".

The Ruskies offered to launch Galileo.  Their heavy lift vehicles would have
had no problem with its mass.

I understand the reason we declined was not technical, although there might
well have been important reasons why their vehicle was not suitable.  They
even offered to allow US personal to be present at all times to ensure
they did not peek inside (although the technology on Galileo is surely not
so advanced that this would be a problem).

Instead, the reason given was purely political!  "Of course we won't let
them launch it, it's our baby and those commies are not going to steal the
show!" was the gist of the objection.

I'm not trying to start a controversy, but it might have been possible for
Galileo to fly years earlier on a higher boost orbit and arrive six or seven
years earlier at Jupiter.

David Levine

=============================================
This is me, not my company talking here.
=============================================

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

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 18:33:36 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Evolution and space travel


>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] (John Roberts) writes:

>>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. [...]

>*SIGH*  Not to attack John, or anyone else personally, but I am rather
>dismayed at the level of understanding of evolution displayed in this
>newsgroup.  In response to the above point, evolution in the vast,
>overwhelming number of cases documented, occurs at the level of the
>*individual*, and *not* the species.  This is because the mechanism of
>evolution works through increased "fitness" or reproductive success of
>individuals - *not* through the (rather abstract entities called) species.
>To argue otherwise is to invoke a rather outdated, although still popular,
>in non-biology circles, notion of evolutionary change.  (Granted, there
>are some models of evolutionary mechanisms which use "group selection,"
>rather than individual variation, as the driving force, but such models
>are rare, and the types of cases of change they cover are not like that
>mentioned above.)

I'm not sure I really understand the nature of your objection, since you
didn't really specify it, but I will try to reply, insofar as evolution
may be related to the ability (if any) of life to propagate across
interplanetary or interstellar space. Both this posting and the previous
one probably contain terminology that would be considered "loose" or "sloppy"
by a purist, though I will try to make my point clear. After all, a
mathematician might refer to "the limit of f as x approaches infinity" rather
than the more proper "the limit of f as x increases without bound", and still
expect his colleagues to understand his point.

I was referring to two phenomena: the physiological ability of an organism
to expand its "range", and any behavioral trait of a motile organism that
might tend to expand the geographic range of that type of organism. Since
any species has a maximum stable population density for a given habitat, we
often judge the "success" of a particular species on its geographic range as
well as its population density. For success of this type, any species which
tends to "spread out" while maintaining a stable population in its original
range has a clear advantage. For one thing, this allows the total "stable"
population of the species to increase. For another, if various regions
within the habitat should periodically become uninhabitable, the larger,
more mobile population can adapt more quickly and is less susceptible to
extinction. Thus, at any given time, the kinds (if "species" makes you
uncomfortable) of creatures that you are likely to find the greatest numbers of
within a given ecological niche are the ones which occasionally move about
and increase their territory, and these are therefore the ones which are
likely to have the greatest number of offspring. I believe that this could
be considered an "evolutionary advantage". In fact it could be such a strong
advantage that all or nearly all current species possess this trait, and it
is not noted in biological studies as being anything of great interest.

In the previous posting, I referred to several water-dwelling animal species
among which an occasional individual will (for no immediately obvious reason)
undertake a hazardous journey over land, and will sometimes locate another
body of water to inhabit. The motives of such individuals may not be clear
(crowding, search for better food, neighbors kicked them out, etc.), but the
net effect is that these species tend to spread out into all available habitat.
The specific wording of your posting *seems* to imply that such a trait is
of no advantage unless the prospects of success are better for every individual
than if it had remained in its original location. I submit that this is *not*
necessary. It could well be that nine out of ten of such wanderers will
perish on the way, and yet the fact that a few *do* make it is of overall
benefit to the group as a whole. A similar argument could be made for the
European colonies in North America. A high percentage of the original
colonists died, but the descendants of the survivors were able to spread
out into a large area and build up a large population.

My hypothesis was that the fact that many humans would like to move into
space is due in part to inherited human behavioral traits that have been
reinforced by natural selection for billions of years. You may feel that
this is a trivial conclusion, but I think that it establishes a link between
evolution and the potential for the expansion of the range of earth life
beyond the boundaries of the earth.

As far as microorganisms are concerned, assume for the sake of argument that
there is a fairly heavy distribution throughout a galaxy of planets with
suitable conditions for simple organisms. Further assume that some micro-
organisms are able to survive a trip from one planet to another by the
mechanisms described. Now suppose that the chance of life spontaneously
arising on any given planet is much lower than we had supposed - perhaps
once per hundred billion planet-years. If one were to look at this galaxy
after billions of years had passed, one might find life on most of the
aforementioned planets, and discover that in most cases, the planets had
originally been colonized by "traveling" life forms from other planets.
In other words, while only a small percentage of the life forms to come into
existence may have been types that could "travel", these types and their
descendants would eventually become the predominant life forms throughout
the galaxy. A discovery that microorganisms from earth can indeed survive
long trips through space raises the estimated probability that life on earth
originally came from somewhere else.

If you have any more detailed objections to this revised posting, I would be
happy to see them, though perhaps Email would be most appropriate.
                                  John Roberts
                                  [e-mail]  (Internet)

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

Date: 23 Oct 89 17:09:23 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 10/23/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, Oct. 23, 1989                        Audio:  202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Monday, October 23rd......

The crew of the space shuttle Atlantis this morning is making
plans for a landing at Edwards Air Force Base, California...now
scheduled this afternoon for 12:32 P.M., Eastern time.

Forecasts of head winds gusting up to 35 miles an hour this
afternoon at the landing site, have forced flight controlers to
trim the five-day mission by two orbits, to bring the shuttle in
during the morning hours in California.

There has been fog over the desert lake bed this morning, but
forecasters believe it will burn off before the scheduled
landing.

Yesterday, during a live interview with the Cable News Network,
Atlantis Commander Don Williams said the predicted high winds at
the landing site do not concern him, "Because we know it's been
done before and it's been done safely."


Officials at the Kennedy Space Center are investigating the
circumstances surrounding an incident early Saturday morning
which resulted in damage to one of KSC's two payload canisters.

A mobile crane being used to remove a 20-ton concrete
weight--used to simulate a payload's cargo--apparently failed,
causing the weight to fall...striking a door a glancing blow as
it fell to the floor of the canister.  There were no injuries and
an inspection of the canister to determine the extent of the
damage is underway.

KSC officials say the temporary unavilability of the damaged
canister is not expected to impact space shuttle operations as
the remaining canister can be scheduled to move payloads between
processing and pad facilities.  The canister had been used most
recently to conduct fit checks at complex 39-A, now being being
readied to support launch of Columbia on the STS-32 mission in
December.


Meanwhile KSC technicians in the Vehicle Assembly Building are
preparing the orbiter Discovery for it's rollout to launch pad
39-B...currently scheduled for this Wednesday.  Discovery is to
fly a Defense Department mission later next month.


                         ***********



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select television.  All times are Eastern.

Today, October 23.....

     12:32 P.M.       Atlantis landing at Edwards Air Force Base.
                      a post-landing press conference will be
                      held about an hour-and-a-half later.

Thursday, October 26..

     11:30 A.M.       NASA Update will be transmitted.

All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon,
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

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

Date: 23 Oct 89 21:17:36 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk![e-mail]  (H.A.Shaw)
Subject: Re: TDRS vs military


Who needs Retrograde Orbits?  Just launch a couple of tons of fine sand in a
plastic bag into low earth orbit and fire the hand grenade you left in the
middle.  A couple of hours later nobody don't launch nothing for thousands of
years and all your (and their) spy sats have gone.

To be serious for a moment...
    There are about 20-30 thousand trackable (bigger than 4cm diameter)
objects in low earth orbit at pressent.  A good number are the remains of
1960s and 1970s anti-satelite tests.  (The ones that never happened)
    Each hyper-velocity impact (greater than about 4km/s) of a small particle
(less than 0.1 gramme) on a larger one (such as one of the 20-30 thousand)
causes about 100-400 times the impacting particle's mass to be ejected from the
hole as many small particles.  This then goes into orbit.
    Of the tens of thousands of small particles collected by the NASA U-2
flights very few (about 10 ??) were of space origin.  That was BEFORE the smoke
the Shuttle spews out got up there.  (Yet one more reason for BANNING SOLID
FUEL ROCKETS)

I work in the Space Sciences Group at U.K.C. but everything I say is, of
course, my own opinions.  Even if I knew what my boss thought, I couldn't
spell it.

Email: [e-mail]                         | Howard Allan Shaw.
Phone: [phone] Extn: 3834             | Room 111A, Physics Laboratory,
                                             | The University,
                                             | Canterbury, England.  CT2 7NZ

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

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 19:19:02 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Radar astronomy



As I was reading about advances in "radar astronomy" of the planets and moons
of the solar system, an idea occurred to me, and I would like to know if
anybody is working on it:

A recent article describes radar probes of Saturn's moon Titan. The Goldstone
antenna was used as a transmitter, and the Very Large Array was used as a
receiver. It makes sense to use an array of receivers, so that the exact
direction of the received signal can be determined, identifying it as the
intended target. The article emphasized the extreme weakness of the received
signal, due to the spread of the original beam and the extreme spread of the
reflected signal. Even a transmitter with a large dish puts out a wide beam
at radio frequencies. It seems to me that it would be possible to greatly
increase the intensity of the beam striking the target, thus allowing
observation of much smaller or more distant objects.

You may have noticed arrays of terrestrial transmission towers arranged
in a linear configuration. If the broadcaster sends the same signal through
all of these towers, with a carefully calculated phase relationship for each
tower, it is possible to put out a signal which is much stronger in some
directions than in others. In other words, an array of omnidirectional
transmitters is used to produce a directional signal. Similarly, I understand
that today's fashionable early-warning military radar installation looks
(from a distance) like a flat wall. The wall is covered with small receivers,
which are phase-correlated so that the array is "looking" in a specific
direction at any given time. I'm not sure, but I think that similar control
of the phased array can be used to transmit in a specific direction.

There are at least two astronomical installations (Goldstone and Arecibo)
which can put out transmissions for radar astronomy, and probably others.
If multiple transmitters were pointed at a single target and were to send
out a signal with the proper polarity and phase, it seems to me that the
signal reaching the target would at least be the sum of the separate signals.
Furthermore, since the aggregate signal would be more "directional", there
would be less reflection from nearby non-target areas, possibly resulting
in less computation needed for the received signals, or greater resolution
of the reconstructed image. With dozens or hundreds of transmitters,
considerable signal strength and directionality would be possible. It seems
feasible, but I have not heard of anyone trying it.

Comments, anyone?
                            John Roberts
                            [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #176
*******************