Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_4/V11_456.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 12KB

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/YaLqJqa00VcJ82jU5H>;
          Sun, 27 May 90 01:28:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 27 May 90 01:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #456

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 456

Today's Topics:
              Re: The Vatican Connection
           Krystall module to be launched May 31th
       Info requested - Endeavor construction updates.
     Re: Info requested - Endeavor construction updates.
             Re: Manned mission to Venus
            Re: Splitting "SPACE"
              Re: NASA Select TV
             Re: Manned mission to Venus
            Re: SPACE Vol 11  #450
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 90 08:59:37 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!uhnix1!nuchat![e-mail]  (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: The Vatican Connection

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Murphy) writes:
>
>If I remember correctly, the only reason Galileo wasn't executed for his
>atomic theory was because the Pope was a personal friend of his.  All the
>nasty power-mongers aside, there is not much difference between Spiritual
>Research (i.e. the technical and theoretic stuff) and Scientific Research.
>Both have their Dogma-addicts, but both equally have their shining stars
>and both have frequently been friends in the past.
>

True to some extent, at least.  There is one big difference between
Spiritual Research and Scientific Research, however : you can usually
test your Scientific theories with experiment.  How do you go about
testing a Spiritual theory?  If lightning strikes you, then your
Spiritual theory is wrong?  :-)

>In 'History of Time' Hawking expresses some surprise when, after the Vatican
>had embraced the 'Big Bang' as the basis for the Creation metaphor (see
>also Guth's "Seven Days" in "Very Early Universe"), they invited Prof Hawking
>to speak at a Vatican sponsored conference.  He was most surprised when they
>still allowed him to speak, despite his subject: he had by that time
>concluded that a Bang was not required.  I don't speak for the Vatican ;-)
>but I rather suspect that their motives are somewhat bound up with the
>'boundary conditions' for one of Our Lord's finest Creations (Humanity),
>and are less concerned these days with the Conclusion of the Week.
>

Science has won quite a few battles against religion, as evidenced by the
existence and acceptance of much of the technology we have today (there are
few better ways of proving that your science is correct than by making
something based on your science that works).  Perhaps that's why the Vatican
takes the approach it does these days.

Tough to say...

>--
>Gary Murphy                   uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!garym


            Kevin Brown
            ([e-mail])

Disclaimer : whether or not my opinions accurately reflect those of my
             employer is a matter of opinion!

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

Date: 25 May 90 16:18:29 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!ira.uka.de!smurf!gopnbg!mcshh!abbs![e-mail]  (Rainer Kracht)
Subject: Krystall module to be launched May 31th


 Radio Moscow announced today, that the Krystall module is to be
 launched next Thursday (May 31th). Cosmonauts Anatoly Solovyov
 and Alexander Balandin are busy unloading the Progress craft, which
 will be undocked next Sunday (May 27th).


--

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

Date: 26 May 90 08:32:47 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!milano!peyote![e-mail]  (Bob Mosley III)
Subject: Info requested - Endeavor construction updates.


...seeing as how we're getting daily updates on Voyager, Magellan, and
the STS missions and payloads, does anyone happen to have access to
information concerning the constrution of Endeavor?

...Information such as rate of progress and improvements over the previous
shuttles would be of interest to many, and some source for this info
should be looked into.

...Peter or Ron might want to handle this one if they have access to the
information.

                            OM

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

Date: 27 May 90 00:01:13 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Info requested - Endeavor construction updates.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Mosley III) writes:
>...seeing as how we're getting daily updates on Voyager, Magellan, and
>the STS missions and payloads, does anyone happen to have access to
>information concerning the constrution of Endeavor?

Things are moving along, but it's not exactly dramatic.  Major structural
pieces are together and the cabin is on its way to be mated with the body.
Something like half the tiles are on.  A lot of wiring and plumbing remains
to be done in the interior.  The last arrivals will be the OMS pods, which
may not join up with the rest until Endeavour is at KSC.

>...Information such as rate of progress and improvements over the previous
>shuttles would be of interest to many

Progress is good, Endeavour is ahead of schedule (!) and under budget (!!).
Minor improvements over the earlier orbiters are being incorporated; the
only two I know of specifically are the braking parachute (which will be
retrofitted to the others) and wiring/plumbing provisions for the extra
tanks needed for long-duration missions.

>and some source for this info should be looked into.

The above is mostly from the latest issue of Spaceflight; see my posting
about it.
--
Life is too short to spend    |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
debugging Intel parts. -Van J.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 May 90 06:30:07 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>>...After all, russians weren't that much motivated
>>to go to a particular planet when they started their space program, and
>>this is why they have sent close to 20 spaceships to Venus...
>
>    No, it indicates that the Soviet planetary science program has had
>a remarkably unsuccessful series of Mars missions and lacks the
>capability to stage an outer planets mission to date.

Well, be fair:  the Soviets launched a small sequence of Mars missions
very early, and then switched to almost exclusive concentration on
Venus, giving up on Mars.  HOWEVER... they have now dumped Venus entirely
and gone back to Mars (albeit so far not too successfully), so enthusiasm
for Venus based on Soviet activity should be restrained.

The fact is, after the Magellan mission, it will probably be a long
time before the next Venus mission.  Most everybody gives it a rather
low priority now.
--
Life is too short to spend    |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
debugging Intel parts. -Van J.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 May 90 09:23:32 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!uhnix1!nuchat![e-mail]  (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Splitting "SPACE"

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:
[arguments against breaking up sci.space deleted]

Personally, I'm in favor of adding only one of the newsgroups originally
mentioned to the sci.space newsgroup list :

    sci.space.henry

It's the only logical choice...:-) :-) :-)


            Kevin Brown
            ([e-mail])

Disclaimer : whether or not my opinions accurately reflect those of my
             employer is a matter of opinion!

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

Date: 27 May 90 00:45:26 GMT
From: stephsf![e-mail]  (Bill England)
Subject: Re: NASA Select TV



It would make it eaiser for both individuals and cable companys if Nasa
Select was on a more centrally located SAT.  Right now it's so low on
the horizon that douglas firs in my neighbors yard interfere with most
of the signal.   Satcom 4  is even below the Horizon in Alaska and
Hawaii.

Most cable companies don't have a large number of dishes and probally feel
that pointing one of them on Satcom 4 would be a gross wast of resources
for just a single transponder.

If NASA moved to Galaxy 1 on a transponder next to CNN I'll bet you
could see live NASA all the time.

There is probally a cost effective middle ground in the sky somplace ...

 +--------
 |  Bill England
 |  Stephen Software Systems, Inc.,   Tacoma Wa.
 |  [e-mail]              [phone]
 |

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

Date: 27 May 90 00:36:10 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Well, be fair:  the Soviets launched a small sequence of Mars missions
>very early, and then switched to almost exclusive concentration on
>Venus, giving up on Mars.  HOWEVER... they have now dumped Venus entirely
>and gone back to Mars (albeit so far not too successfully), so enthusiasm
>for Venus based on Soviet activity should be restrained.
>
>The fact is, after the Magellan mission, it will probably be a long
>time before the next Venus mission.  Most everybody gives it a rather
>low priority now.

This is true.  The U.S. do not have any plans on the drawing board for
Venus after the Magellan mission, and the Soviets won't launch another
mission until 2005 with another Venera Venus soft lander.

       _   _____    _
      | | |  __ \  | |       Ron Baalke           |  [e-mail]
      | | | |__) | | |       Jet Propulsion Lab   |  [e-mail]
   ___| | |  ___/  | |___    M/S 301-355          |
  |_____/ |_|      |_____|   Pasadena, CA 91109   |

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 26 May 90 12:49:10 EST
Subject: Re: SPACE Vol 11  #450
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.



     In Space, Volume 11 Issue 452, Derd Valpar writes that many of the
Church's activities are secret and that the Church is one of the three
major landowners in Manhattan to the tune of 60 billion dollars.

     In the same posting you accuse the Church of being secretive and yet
you hide your sources from us.  Who's being secretive now?  Since you easily
produced a dollar figure it should be equally easy to point out your
references.  But again, you haven't quoted references in SPACE yet (to my
knowledge) so why should you start now?

     Your "explanation" of the telescope as a secret plot reminds me of those
who said that the Challenger explosion was the result of a misfiring of a
military laser and that there is no evidence because it is all secret.  How
convenient.  Your explanation also ignores my previous posting which said that
results from the Vatican's scope could easily be confirmed or disproved by
other astronomers, perhaps using the other two scoipes that are going to be
built on Mt. Graham also.  The Vatican's scope is not the only optical scope
in the world and it is by no means the most advanced (Hubble, for example).

     Your comment about the poor is still refuted by the fact that one Catholic
was able to win the Nobel prize for forming an order to help the poor.  The
Nobel committe is not as naive as you think.

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #456
*******************