Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_177.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 12KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/MbkVYDO00WBwEIgE5G>;
          Wed, 20 Feb 91 01:37:03 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 01:36:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #177

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #165
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #161
         POTENTIAL MAJOR FLARE WARNING - 19 FEBRUARY
             Re: Martian Mystery?

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 22:44:15 EST
From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #165

Re:  Gaia Hypothesis

Specifically, To John Roberts'question.  I have no idea what is meant by an
internet address.  The problem is that words like Net and List and Network get
used around here interchangably, leaving us hardware guys in the total dark.
Here's my best guess.  I'll try to remember this in my sigs, too:
       Tommy Mac, Tom Mcwilliams,  [e-mail]
That's the best I can do.  I'll work on figuring out the rest (if there is any)

About Gaia:  It all started when two people, whose names I can't remember, were
discovering the amazing importance of micro-organisms in the atmosphere.  The
negative feedback is an important issue, and in fact, is also an important
current question.

But here's my understanding of current Gaia theory.

Of course, the actual defenition of life is beyond reason, but, as a working
model, consider:
 Life exists in a collection of matter if it has these characteristics:
         A) uses energy in any form for the organization of matter
         B) experiences growth
         C) reproduces
 Quite a simple defenition, but workable.

The next important question is :  What is an individual?
    a cell?   a cell colony?  a species?  a biome?  a biosphere?  all of them?

organelles:cells::cells:organisms::species:biospheres

This is the basic analogy that the Gaia Hypothesis wants to resolve.

What does all this have to do with space?

----If we colonize ANY part of space, Gaia will have been vindicated-----

Gaia already grows, and also uses energy (sunlight) to organize matter.
But, she has not reprodeced, YET.

When the original proposer of the Gaia Hypothesis was critisized on the re-
production issue, he pointed out that since a bacteria takes 20 minutes to
breed, and an elephant takes two years, should we be suprised if it takes Gaia
5 billion years, considering it's size?  How much does a biosphere weigh?

Some have proposed that we are Gaia's nuerons, since we can foresee changes,
unlike any other species has been able to do.
I propose that we are also Gaia's sex organs, since we can leave the biosphere,
unlike any other species can do.

The originator of the Hypothesis (Sorry I can't remember the guy's name) also
pointed out that birth, in mammals, is usually triggered by the drain that the
fetus causes on the resources that the mother has to offer.
     Maybe our current resource crises are the labor pains......

If you continue thinking of analogies (cells excrete their wastes, while our
civilization would be better off with polluting industrial processes in space)
you will not only find many of them, but you might begin to see the almost
unarguable position of the Gaia Hypothesis.  The only reasons not to accept it
at face value are:  (as far as I can tell)

1)  Gaia is childless
2)  Our defenition of life is non-existent (Or so vague it's meaningless)
3)  Our defenition of individual organisms is non-existent

Maybe my vision of the Hypothesis is too romantic.  But hey, who cares?  By all
the defenitions of life that I know, Gaia fits.  Even the reproducing part.  We
could still drop primitive organisms into the atmosphere of other planets
(which, BTW, I learned is illegal, according to some treaty that we signed)

Tommy Mac
[e-mail]
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 22:00:30 EST
From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #161

In reply to  Dan Mocnsy's comments regarding O'Neill - Govt. Financing.

I agree about the differecnces in scale.  It is exactly what you pointed out
regarding unproven features of space systems that makes me believe that we will
probably see lots of space stations before we see a space habitat.

Don't forget however, that the problems with Hubble could have been solved by
better QC on the ground (Like Challenger).

Also, before you judge the differences in scale too harshly, don't forget to
factor inflation.  When airplanes got started, $20 translated into an ounce of
gold.  Now those coins are $400.00  That means that a 1975 investment of
20 bil (400 bil over 20 years) was about $10 million then.

Of course, airplanes were selling for fifty bucks, too. (Jennies, post WWI)

-Tommy Mac            -Standrad Sig Under Repear
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:    Tue, 19 Feb 91 01:33:18 MST
From: [e-mail] (Cary Oler)
Subject: POTENTIAL MAJOR FLARE WARNING - 19 FEBRUARY
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

            /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                     POTENTIAL MAJOR FLARE WARNING

                         ATTENTION  ATTENTION

            /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


                          February 19, 1991


ATTENTION:

     There is a distinct possibility for major flaring to occur within the
regions now near the eastern limb.  There is an elevated risk for potential
X-class and/or major proton flares from the regions now returning to
the east limb.  Although the occurrence of any major flares from the eastern
regions are still fairly incapable of producing significant terrestrial
impacts aside from potentially strong SID's and SWF's, the risk for major
flaring is high enough to warrant a potential major flare warning.  This
warning will almost certainly remain in effect throughout the coming week
(19 - 26 Feb) at least, and probably into the second week as well (26 Feb
to 06 March).  Major flaring is expected to occur over the next two weeks.

     Major flaring could begin to be observed within the next 72 hours.
Sudden ionospheric disturbances (SID's) and shortwave fading (SWF's) could
become abnormally intense and of long duration should major flaring occur.

     Several active regions are returning into view near the eastern limb.
One region, now visible and identified as Region 6509, is of large size and
appears to be moderately complex.  Magnetic measurements of this region are
not yet reliably accurate due to its proximity to the east limb.  M-class
flaring has increased significantly over the past 48 hours.  Four M-class
flares were observed on 18 February.  Two of these flares originated from
Region 6504 (S16E36); a class M2.6/1N at 07:30 UT, and a class M1.0/SF at
22:07 UT.  Both of these flares are suspected of producing minor SID's/SWF's.
The other two M-class flares were optically uncorrelated, which points to
the possibility that another active region is around the eastern limb
spawning these events.

     The solar flux increased dramatically today to 267, which is a huge
jump of 53 points compared to yesterdays flux value of 214.  This single
day increase in the solar flux may represent further evidence to suggest
that a potentially significant active region is ready to rotate into view.
We will soon know just how significant the activity just behind the eastern
limb is.  An optical region responsible (at least, in part) for the large
increase in the solar flux should become visible on 19 February.  This would
coincide with the expected return of old Region 6471, which became very
active just as it departed the western limb two weeks ago.  A better
analysis of the regions on the eastern limb will be possible by about 21
February.  An additional bulletin may be posted near this time if activity
proves to be unusually energetic or complex.

     The solar activity prediction chart given in the latest STFR report
has obviously been invalidated with todays unexpectedly high increase in
the solar flux.  Rough predictions for the next 72 hours suggest a further
dramatic increase in the solar flux to 340 by 21 February.  Further increases
to near 360 (or higher) are possible in the days following.  The sunspot
number broke 300 again today and was measured at 301 on 18 February.  The
sunspot number could reach (or possibly briefly exceed) 400 before this
week ends.  The background x-ray flux increased again to a class C2.7
x-ray level on 18 February.

     Widespread openings on 6 meters will be possible over the next two
weeks if solar indices reach the levels anticipated.  Solid communications
on the high HF bands will also be possible throughout the next two weeks.
However, frequent flare-induced SID's will cause some periodic distortion
and fading over the sunlit portions of the earth.

     Watch for possible major flare alerts.


            /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

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

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 08:50:41 PST
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Re: Martian Mystery?


In SPACE Digest V13 #173,
<[e-mail]> "Tim McCollum" writes:

>A few nights ago, on a late night talk show, a gentleman was promoting
>a book about UFO's and the like.  I generally don't pay too much attention
>to such discussions but he had one piece of evidence that he claimed was
>photo of the Martian surface.  The photo appeared to show a huge face
>and a pyramid.  Of course he claimed that they were not natural features
>and had to be made by some intellignet life.  Are these photos really
>of the surface of Mars, has anyone heard of these photos before, and what
>is the commonly accepted interpretation of these photos?

>Just curious,
>Tim McCollum  (tpm4017@panam)

About a year and a half ago, someone posted to the Space Digest two sets of
image data for the "Face" from two separate photos.  I looked at the thing
on a graphics workstation and found that the dark side of the "Face" is
not symmetrical with the bright side.  When you look at it three
dimensionally, it just doesn't look like a face.  If Mars had been in a
different orientation when the two photos were taken, nobody would have
ever recognized it as a face.  If you want to see for yourself, I can
send you the data, or maybe post it to Space Digest.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same
 distance from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures
 where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water,
 there is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
 -- J. Danforth "just-a-heartbeat-away" Quayle, January 1990

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #177
*******************