Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_3/V11_388.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

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/QaGZSJq00VcJMIfk4A>;
          Fri, 11 May 90 02:11:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 02:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #388

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 388

Today's Topics:
           H.R. 2674 questions, and doubt.
              Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #380
                Re: Apollo 12
           A BibTeX Style for Astronomical Journals
           Hubble Space Telescope Update - 05/10/90
              Re: SPACE Digest V11 #285
               Re: why there are no ETs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 May 90 23:09:04 GMT
From: milton!maven![e-mail]
Subject: H.R. 2674 questions, and doubt.

H.R. 2674

I have some questions about H.R. 2674.

There is an executive order from the president stating basically that
all goverment agencies are to buy commercially available launch services,
where applicable, etc...

According to some lawers who are active in the space movement that I have
spoken with, they say that this new legislation has no TEETH that the executive
order does not.   So here is a question :

HOW WILL H.R. 2674 CHANGE THE WAY THAT NASA AND THE DOD DO BUSINESS?

In fact these same people tell me that by legislating this action, it makes the
present structure even more inflexible than it already is.  By that I  mean
that if we decided (or they decided) that there was a better method of doing
business, it would require another legislated act in order to change the
syste.  As it is now, there is more flexibility.

In these days of the Peace dividend, the DOD is much more concious of the way
that it does business, and in fact it has just (Ad Astra May 1990 P.37)
launched a very high security satellite on a rocket that was purchased as a
service, not as a vehicle.  The 2674 supporters use this as an example to say
that the system can work and security is not an issue, but it seems to me that
this is an example that the executive order is working, and we do not need the
legislation...  Any comments?

In section 2 of the bill, ( the Findings section ), theere is a paragraph
that states "the requirements of government specifications relating to vehicle
design, construction, and operation impose an unwarranted burdon on the
engineering and operational freedom necessary to achive substantial cost
savings in the provision of space transportation services".  It seems to say
that mil spec is expensive, and we should allow people to launch with non-mil
spec hardware, and that will reduce the launch cost.  I agree with this in
theory, in that it will decrease the operational cost, but a non mil-spec
launch of any sort is likely to be MORE expensive in the bottom line due to
the INSURANCE needed in case of a failure of the vehicle.  So people will
actually PREFER mil-spec vehicles because the BOTTOM LINE is less after
taking insurance into consideration...  As such the bill will not have the
impact that it purports to.  Any comments here.  I realize that my comments
are general, but if they are available please use specifics.

One further note :  I understand that the point of the legislation is to
reduce the cost of getting to space and foster innovation, etc...  I agree
wholeheartedly with this aim, but it seems that sonce the teeth are already
in place ( Via the executive order ) that this legislation ought to ammend
the weak points of insurance, and purchasing red tape, mil spec, etc...  with
more specific language.

There is a group here in Seattle called Washington State Citizens for Space
(WSCS), and they have said that they will undertake another review of the bill
(they did one when it was first proposed, and found it non-effective), and
propose ammendments to the bill to allow it to more effectively DO what it
purports to do.  If there are any suggestions, in this area, I would be
most happy to receive them.  If indeed WSCS does this I will certainly post
the result.

On first glance, I liked this legislation, I still do, however I have come
to believe that it will not do the job it is advertized as doing.  If I am
wrong, I would like to know about it, but I need more information to re-assess
my position.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trendy footer by:
            John Stevens-Schlick
            Internet?: [e-mail]
            7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126
            (206) 935 - 4384
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss dosn't know what I do.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date:     Thu, 10 May 90  10:34:43 EDT
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #380

> Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus
>
> This is a very interesting topic. A large scale project to make
> uninhabitable planets habitable is quite an undertaking. Especially when
> we consider how difficult it just to take action on slight modifications
> of our own climates on Earth. This would certainly make our current
>
It certainly would be a very large-scale undertaking for the human race,
considering that our only experience is a related field has been taking
a very habitable planet and by hard work and unflagging effort turning
it into an almost lethally toxic uninhabitable one. Considering this I can
hardly wait for mankind to get its collective hands on another planet.

> I personally would like to see most of the peace dividend go towards
> space developement after the deficit is brought under control. So lets
> assume we could actually get governments to commit and stay committed to
> such a project.
>
Apparently you really haven't been paying close attention. It has been
made clear repeatedly to the collective american minimind that there
will be NO peace dividend of any kind. Read his lips - NO PEACE DIVIDEND
WHATSOEVER. america must keep its military profile high just in case
another "threat" to our security should develop as a result of our un-
tiring efforts to develop one.

> One problem with Venus is that in addition to the atmosphere being
> composed of carbon dioxide and contributing to a huge greenhouse effects
> the atmosphere is very dense. It has a pressure of 90 bars, 90 times
> that of Earth at sea level. I would assume this would crush a human
> being. (How does this compare to varios ocean depths and what can humans
> deal with. It woukld seem that in addition to converting carbon dioxide
> to oxgen we also need to get rid of alot of atmosphere. Mars on the
> other hand has a pressure of 0.007 bars. It does not have enough of a
> green house effect to keep heat in and is therefore too cold (while
> venus is too hot). Granted Mars is further from the Sun and Venus closer
> but both planets temperatures are more extreme than they need be.
>
Another problem with Venus (albeit a fatal one) is the surface temperature
of over 900 degrees fahrenheit. If it were possible to construct a habitable
structure out of materials we have here on Earth (and it is not), it would
require a refrigeration plant the size of Mars to make it hospitable for 10
people.

> A good approach would seem to be to take crabon dioxide from Venus and
> transport it to Mars. This would lessen the Green house effect on Venus
> (and Temp) and also lower atmospheric pressure. On Mars this would have
> the opposite effect. Once Mars was warmed up. It would have a supply of
> water in the forms of melted ice caps. I guess the question is (assuming
> we can feasable transfer materials in sufficient quantities between
> planets) can we strike appropriate balances on either planet to make
> them habitable.
>
This represents a formidable application of technology that we do not have.
At our current level of sophistication in space travel, it will take the
u.s. 100 years (that's right folks, a century) to lift into orbit the men
and materials to build the make-believe space station certain government
spokespeople keep fantasizing out loud about. Not five years as proclaimed,
but 100 years. And in light of this capability you are proposing moving
atmospheric elements on a planetary scale (trillions of tons) through space
from one planet to another. A project of that kind would take tens of
thousands of years. Trash the idea.

> I know this discussion has been focused on Venus but most of the
> questions I raised could equally apply to Venus also.
>
A fascinating study in redundancy, but it seems to be somewhat lacking
in informational value.

                                          Marc Arlen
                                          AZM@NIHCU

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

Date: 10 May 90 13:14:25 GMT
From: pilchuck!seahcx!phred![e-mail]  (Pete Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Apollo 12

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>
>But for moon shots, well, it seems the moon is always in the same
>relative orbit, so a direct earth-moon window would happen once per
>day (as the earth rotated to the correct spot for launch).  So why is
>the window only open a few days per month?
>Greg.
>--

Well for one thing, the Moon has phases. You want to launch such that
when you get there, that part of the Moon is in sun-light.

Peter Jarvis..........

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

Date: 10 May 90 16:08:36 GMT
From: mcsun!hp4nl!nikhefh![e-mail]  (Sake Hogeveen)
Subject: A BibTeX Style for Astronomical Journals


A BibTeX style has been developed for the preparation of lists of
references for astronomical journals which employ the (Author, year)
system of citation.

It is available from the Bitnet fileserver [e-mail],
in the ASTRON FILELIST.

The ASTRON.BST style for BibTeX comes with documentation, examples,
a template for maintaining BibTeX database files, and a file with
mnemonics for journal names which assures that the names appear
abbreviated according to the "International List of Periodical Title
Word Abbreviations".

The documentation contains an appendix which addresses some aspects
about the use of TeX and LaTeX for scientific publishing.

Sake J. Hogeveen
____________________________________________________________________
Astronomical Institute `Anton Pannekoek', Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Bitnet: [e-mail]                 UUCP: [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 May 90 22:07:37 GMT
From: usc!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 05/10/90


                     HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE UPDATE
                              MAY 10, 1990

With the completion of the low voltage and flight functional
testing of Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS), all of
the science instruments aboard the Hubble Space Telescope have
now essentially completed their low voltage and flight functional
testing.  The next step in verifying the science instruments will
be to test the instruments' high voltage operations.

 Ron Baalke                       |    [e-mail]
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |    Go Lakers!

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

Date: 10 May 90 12:30:51 GMT
From: voder!nsc!taux01![e-mail]  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V11 #285

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|There has been a fair amount of discussion on E.T. life-forms and UFOs, so it
|might be instructive to consider two phenomena I have seen, and what they
|likely are:
|
|1> whilst watching the night-sky a few years back one summer, there was a point
|source of light, say 4th magnitude, that traversed across the celestial sphere,
|but erratically:
|
|                              ..  .  ---->
|erratically -->     .   ..   .  ..
|                     ...  ... .
|                            ..
|
|it must have taken quarter-half an hour to cross the sky.
|Can anyone find a suitable explanation for this (and no, it wasn't Venus *8-)

   O  <- weather balloon
    \
     \
      .  <- light for tracking (not everyone can afford radar)
        swinging in the breeze.

(The other example was already adequately explained)
--
    Amos Shapir        [e-mail], [e-mail]
National Semiconductor (Israel) P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
Tel. [phone]  TWX: 33691, fax: [phone] GEO: 34 48 E / 32 10 N

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

Date: 11 May 90 05:29:04 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: why there are no ETs

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward Joseph Bennett) writes:
>>>It just occured to me that one of the possible reasons we have not
>>>discovered extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe is that they
>>>have created full fledged virtual reality systems and feel no need to go
>>>exploring space because they have enough fun exploring the inner space
>>>of their collective minds.
>
>>I'm not sure how serious this was intended to be, but it has the same
>>flaw as all the other "they're not seen because they don't want to be"
>>arguments: it assumes that ALL civilizations come to the identical
>>conclusion.

>>I still like my explanation.  When you achieve interstellar travel
>>or communication, someone comes along and kills you.

Which also has the same flaw mentioned above -- it assumes the killers
are able to succeed in all cases.  I can believe in berserkers, but
not in omniscient, omnipotent berserkers.

>What if we are being observed as an experiment that they wanted minimal
>outside interference with. That would explain why we don't see them. If
>they are seen they destroy the evidence and they use force to make sure
>nobody else comes to see us.

The problem with this theory (in addition to being just a tad paranoid
:-) is that it's completely non-falsifiable.  As long as no evidence
is found to verify the existence of these observers, it can be taken
as evidence of their ability at concealment...

The thing I like about the virtual reality theory is that it rests
upon two simple assumptions:

    1) That it's easier for an intelligent race to build reality
simulators than starships.

    2) That aliens will prefer living in a simulated world which
they can create and control to a physical world which they cannot.

Of course, the fact that these assumptions are simple doesn't
necessarily mean that they're right...

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #388
*******************