Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_3/V11_330.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/gaCbpWy00VcJA4xk4h>;
          Sun, 29 Apr 90 01:36:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 01:35:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #330

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 330

Today's Topics:
             Re: Other Big Bangs
                  Re: [HELP]
           Re: Space Station Distribution Frequency
          Re: Radar (was Re: Drake Equation
               Re: voyager images on cd
              Re: Fermi paradox
                  Re: [HELP]
                Birds in space
        Re: Sailing Race to Mars - is it True?
                Re: Our galaxy
               Current status of GP-B ?
         UFO research organizations addresses wanted
              Re: Fermi paradox
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 90 17:45:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matt Crawford)
Subject: Re: Other Big Bangs

Christopher Neufeld:
)    As a thought experiment, then, if I were to visit other galaxies
) until I found a cluster of galaxies for which the average of this
) doppler shift was zero, wouldn't that imply that they were stationary
) with respect to the centre of mass reference frame of the big bang?

We believe that any supercluster of galaxies (for appropriate definition
of "super") is, on average, at rest relative to the 3K background.  But
whether this is true or not, finding an individual galaxy or cluster
which is at rest relative to the background does not define a special
point in the universe, just a special velocity.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford                 [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Apr 90 22:17:26 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!murdu!ucsvc!ltu![e-mail]  (Mark Kosten - Computer Centre, La Trobe Uni.)
Subject: Re: [HELP]

>>/* Written  1:55 pm  Apr 19, 1990 by elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!john in bucc2:sci.space */
>>/* ---------- "[HELP]" ---------- */
>>Well, this was posted on one of the newsgroups.. I consider this a high
>>insult to us JPL/Caltech.. Your help is needed... Please email to me..
>>Sorry, but I am not an astronomy major.. I only know computer...
>>
>>>1. Name the inner planets and outer planets.
>     Not all that hard: Inner: Mercury, Venus, & Earth. Outer:Mars,
>         Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto, and Neptune.
>>>2. List the planets in the order of distance from the Sun
>     Again, not all that tough. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars,
>         Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto, & Neptune. (At least until
>         ~1999)

Sorry to be picky, but I thought Mars was an inner planet, as
the distance from Mars to Jupiter is about the distance from the Sun
to Mars (especially since the asteroid belt in between the two).

Or am I wrong and Australian science education is lacking as well?

Mark Kosten,          phone: [phone]
Computer Centre,      ACSnet/UUCP/Bitnet: [e-mail]
La Trobe University,  X25: 234730008 ([e-mail])
Bundoora,
Victoria 3083
Australia

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

Date: 28 Apr 90 04:04:35 GMT
From: fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Paul L Schauble)
Subject: Re: Space Station Distribution Frequency

I seem to recall that DC is a greater shock hazard than any frequency of AC
because it causes the muscles to lock, preventing you from letting go of the
wire. AC has a tendancy to cause a reaction that pulls you away from the
wire.

Am I remembering correctly? Was this an issue for the space station?

  ++PLS

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

Date: 28 Apr 90 07:00:26 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mrloog![e-mail]  (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: Radar (was Re: Drake Equation

[e-mail] (Badger BA 64810) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes:
>>
>>Remember, radar operates under an inverse 4th power function.
>>
>That's because radar goes out (r^2) and back (r^2)!  But we're talking
>radar detectors here, so only a r^2 law should apply, *nicht wahr*?

Nicht.  We were talking how much power a radar emits.  However, someone
else claimed that reflection off corners of the target reflected changed
the entire power function as inverse square.  I'm not sure what causes
this unless he meant an inside corner, i.e. corner reflector.

---
Dan Tilque    --    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 17:43:25 cdt
From: [e-mail] (Thanistha Phrasavath)
Apparently-To: [e-mail]

add me to the SPACE DIGEST list. Ni~\\\\\

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

Date: 28 Apr 90 06:12:57 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: Re: voyager images on cd

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (UUCP) writes:
o the images are available on CD and the IMDISP software works with VGA,
o unfortunately it does not support super-vga or extended modes. I have
...

THe question I have is how many pixels by how many pixels by how many planes
are these images ultimately?  I don't care about the display software, just
what the data looks like.

THanks,

-charles
--
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Apr 90 17:38:20 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!bridge2!3comvax!tymix!hobbes![e-mail]  (Phil Nelson)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox


  Line eater, eat this;
 Messages from this account are the responsibility of the sender only, and do
 not represent the opinion or policy of BT Tymnet, except by coincidence, or
 when explicitly so stated.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Rehrauer) writes:
>>Again I ask: Why does everyone seem to assume that life inevitably
>>leads to a technological society?
>
>It's simply a matter of probability. There are a really large number of
>planets in the Galaxy. Other areas of the Galaxy have same elements and
>physical laws as ours, so you are going to have life. There's lots of

 The probability of life of any kind occuring on any other planet is unknown.
That life has occured anywhere 'by accident' is an unproven assumption. The
number and type of planets around other stars is not known. It is not yet
proven even that planets exist around other stars (hopefully that will change
soon, when the Hubble telescope gets some pictures of nearby stars and maybe
planets).

With only one observable example of a planet with life on it, probability
is not a useful tool for answering this question. We need more information.


>John L. McKernan.                                                  [e-mail]
>Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's

Phil Nelson . uunet!pyramid!oliveb!tymix!hobbes!pnelson . Voice:408-922-7508

    He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets,
 but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing hidden.    -Proverbs 11:13

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

Date: 28 Apr 90 21:16:38 GMT
From: unhd![e-mail]  (Paul A. Sand)
Subject: Re: [HELP]

Just a brief note. There's a vote for a new USENET group called
misc.education going on right now. One of the primary arguments for the
group (as pointed out by a fine chap named Ian Hawthorn) was that
discussions like this one were being carried out in dozens of
barely-appropriate groups. Like this one.

So: I urge participants in this discussion, and interested readers to
send mail to [e-mail]. Use the subject line:  "Yes on
misc.education". It's an important topic, and deserves to be discussed
somewhere appropriate.
--
-- Paul A. Sand
-- University of New Hampshire
-- uunet!unhd!pas -or- [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 17:15:40 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Keith F. Lynch)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Birds in space
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]

> One Soviet biological experiment ended when six young Japanese
> Quails, hatched from eggs, but failed to adapt to space, refused
> to eat and had to be put to sleep.

Isn't this because all birds, unlike mammals, need gravity to swallow
food and water?
                                ...Keith

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

Date: 28 Apr 90 23:40:34 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sailing Race to Mars - is it True?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dick Jackson) writes:
>This is great if true.  Reading between the lines it seems perhaps only
>a half baked project.  Does anyone know the scoop?

It's a real project.  The Columbus Quincentennial Commission is sponsoring
it.  The original plan was to have one entry from each of Europe (where
C.C. started from), Asia (where he thought he was going), and the Americas
(where he actually ended up).  That attractive scheme sort of went down in
flames when Europe submitted more proposals than Asia and the Americas put
together (indeed, the response from both Asia and the Americas was very
disappointing), and I don't know just how it was resolved.

I know a little bit about this because one of the Americas proposals is from
a team at the Canadian Space Society who are friends of mine.  (NB, I am
not seriously involved, and do not speak for the team.)

>Especially -- who is going to launch the sailing craft...

Last I heard, this was still somewhat vague.  Ideal would be a dedicated
donated launch, which could put all the entrants into a high orbit outside
the worst of the Van Allen belts.  Starting from a low orbit is out, there
is too much trouble with air drag.  Starting from GTO is not ideal, because
the sails would make many passes through the Van Allen belts before they
worked their perigees up high enough to avoid them.  Unfortunately, most
opportunities to piggyback on existing non-low-orbit launches involve
comsat launches which end up in GTO.

There have been offers of piggybacking for free, and of dedicated launches
for money, but not the right combination yet. :-)  The C.Q.C. has money
for the race, but not an unlimited supply, and it's mostly earmarked to
support sail development.  They'd prefer not to have to buy a launch.

There is also a possibility of "extra" entries, because the Italian team,
for one, has its government and its aerospace industries solidly behind
it, and is going ahead independently regardless of what the C.Q.C. does.
They're planning to piggyback on an Ariane launch of an Italian comsat.
--
If OSI is the answer, what is |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the question?? -Rolf Nordhagen| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Apr 90 02:54:40 GMT
From: paperboy!penge![e-mail]  (David Brooks)
Subject: Re: Our galaxy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:
>In a related topic, is there any "better" name for our galaxy than "the
>Milky Way"? Something that sounds more like a proper name and is more
>dignified? I would think there is some astronomic term, perhaps a
>designation like "number 1 in the local group" or the like?

Well, observe that other galactic names are quite heliocentric: the
Andromeda Galaxy is only in Andromeda as seen from the Solar System.
I sugest the properly humble approach would be to assign our galaxy a
new Messier number.  Which is the first free number?

How about "M0"?
--
David Brooks                [e-mail]
Open Software Foundation        uunet!osf.org!dbrooks

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

Date: 28 Apr 90 14:26:55 GMT
From: unmvax!nmtsun![e-mail]  (Daniel Briggs)
Subject: Current status of GP-B ?

Does anyone out there happen to know what the current timeline is for
the Gravity Probe B experiment?  The most current launch information
that I have is from the Jan-89 Payload Flight Assignment.  I'm
interested in any scuttlebutt on how schedules are holding or if any
unexpected snafus in equipment have come up.  As far as the actual
technology of the satellite is concerned, I am current to about 1987
or so, so any interesting information since then would be appreciated.
(This is the experiment where four extremely precise, superconducting
gyroscopes are flown in a drag-free satellite.  The observed
precession on these things will provide the best experimental test of
GR to date, as well as measuring some other facets of GR that have
*never* been tested.)  This experiment is sufficiently complicated
that it will be flown twice.  The guts of it will fly in the shuttle
for a week or so in the fairly near future.  (The '89 manifest said it
will fly on the Atlantis flight of 24-Jun-93.)  After the data from the
flight test has been analyzed, and any needed modifications to the
apparatus made, the whole thing will free fly for a year or two.  It
may or may not be shuttle deployment.

BTW, if anyone is interested in getting the full background on this
experiment, the book I am working from is_Near Zero_, New Frontiers of
Physics.  Ed. J.D.Fairbank et.al., Freeman & Co, New York, 1988.  It
has about 125 pages on the project at a fairly technical level.  (It
is actually the heavily post-edited proceedings of a conference held
at Stanford in 1982.)  If you've got a technical background, it's a
good read.  Clifford Will has a popular science book out on the
subject called _Was Einstein Right?  Putting General Relativity to the
Test_.  I haven't read it, so I don't know how good it is.

-----
This is a shared guest account, please send replies to
[e-mail] (Internet)
Dan Briggs / NRAO / P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM / 87801  (U.S. Snail)

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

Date: 29 Apr 90 01:32:46 GMT
From: amdahl![e-mail]  (Kim DeVaughn)
Subject: UFO research organizations addresses wanted


[ "All sweet things have one thing in common ... a tendency to make you sick." ]
[                                    --Soolin                                  ]


Could someone tell me what "respectible" UFO organizations are currently
active, and their addresses?

I recall of MUFON, CUFOS, a group in AZ (?) that did alot of image enhancement
work, and a group in NY (?) that was heavily involved in obtaining previously
classified government info via the FOIA route.

Those recollections are from some years back, and I have no idea if any of them
are still in existence, and if so, their addresses.

Are there any others?

Same question for technical publications not associated with a research group?



Note that followups have been directed to sci.skeptic, though email would be
just fine too!


Thanks!

/kim

--
UUCP:  [e-mail]
  or:  {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim
DDD:   408-746-8462
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 249,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
BIX:   kdevaughn     GEnie:   K.DEVAUGHN     CIS:   76535,25

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

Date: 28 Apr 90 19:41:38 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!physics.utoronto.ca![e-mail]  (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Nelson) writes:
>
>With only one observable example of a planet with life on it, probability
>is not a useful tool for answering this question. We need more information.
>
   No, I think you can say that the probability that there is exactly
one life-bearing planet in the universe is no more than 1/e.
   Assume that the probability that a given star will harbour one
life-bearing planet is some value r where r << 1.
   Now, what is the probability that out of N stars, exactly one will be
life-bearing? It's:   P(1) = choose(N,1) * r * (1 -  r)^(N-1).
   Apply the familiar calculus techniques to find the maximum value of
this function for 0 <= r <= 1. It turns out that the critical value
which maximizes P(1) is r = 1/N. For this value of r, P(1) = 1/e,
assuming that N is very large. For any other value of r, P(1) < 1/e.
Hence, the probability that there is exactly one life-bearing planet in
the universe is no greater than 1/e, or about 37%.
   The extreme sharpness of this curve is a strong argument for itself
that there is other life out there. If r varies by an order of magnitude
each way, P(1) changes quite a bit. For r = 0.1/N, P(1) = 9%. For r =
10N, P(1) = 0.045%. So, you might ask yourself what are the chances that
the probability of a given star developing life would be close to 1/N,
where N is the number of stars in the universe?

>Phil Nelson . uunet!pyramid!oliveb!tymix!hobbes!pnelson . Voice:408-922-7508


--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | "Like most
 [e-mail]              | intellectuals he is
 [e-mail]          Ad astra! | intensely stupid."
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |  Marquise de Merteuil

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #330
*******************