Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_695.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-24 | 18KB

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/ccNMizq00WBw07xk4u>;
          Mon, 24 Jun 91 02:05:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 02:05:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #695

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 695

Today's Topics:
            Whats this USF thang?
              Re: Microgravity?
               Undelivered mail
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
               Re: More on Freedom Vote
               Crary's Quick Debunkings
              Re: Microgravity?
              Re: Microgravity?
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
             Re: Crary's Quick Debunkings

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]

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:    Tue, 04 Jun 91 07:55 CDT
From: Bob Rehak Ext. 3-9437
 <[e-mail]>
         (AIS Central Services  -  Swen Parson 146)
Subject: Whats this USF thang?

What's with this United Space Federation.  Is it a big joke or what.
All I read on this net from the USF is the same rhetoric about the
cold war, the military industrial complex, war time economies, etc.,
etc., etc. I don't necessarily want to see all the money that was
going for defense $$$ going to space programs.  I'd like to have
my taxes cut so I can afford to live a little.  People in the
defense industry will just have to learn a new trade.  I did.  That's
the way it goes in any industry.

If you just get everyone focused
on some grandiose world space program, we will still have the same
socioeconomic problems.  We as a species haven't yet learned to
live together and I doubt that focusing on colonization of space
is going to solve that problem.  We will just bring the same
social ills into outer space with us.  Hopefully there will be
some kind of intergalactic space police to keep us under control.

|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bob Rehak, DBA At Large, BITNET: A20RFR1@NIU                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 15:32:26 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!acm.rpi.edu![e-mail]  (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bev Freed) writes:
>
>            .....................
>
>> A 710-meter shaft set deep into the Earth forms the centerpiece of a
>> new microgravity experimentation facility which will open in July.
B
>> The center is expected to make a significant contribution to
>> biotechnology, metallurgy, ceramics, and other space related
>> research.
>
>            ..................
>
>I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?
>The formula I recall would have the gravitational force there approximately
>.9999 g.
>--
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
>Phone: [phone]
>[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

  The microgravity is not at the bottom, it's during the freefall to GET to
the bottom.  This technique has been used before, I belive it was developed
to create round grapeshot for cannon balls.  The molton metal would be dropped
and allow to cool as it fell.


Carpe Diem                             [e-mail]
                                       [e-mail]
"All that is gold does not glitter."   [e-mail]

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 04 Jun 91 18:31:34 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 18:31:01 EDT
From: Network Mailer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Undelivered mail
To: <18084TM@MSU>

Subject: Asteroid chunks

>>>We have more asteroid chunks on earth than we know what to do with...
>>> we'veanalyzed hundreds and hundreds of them over the years,

>I've seen reams of analysis on asteroid fragments found here on earth...what
>we need to do now is start on some on-site analysis of asteroid material,
>with core sampling and such.  Only so much you can learn here on earth from
>bits and pieces.

Actually, they are really meteorites.  The belief that they come from
asteroids is based, essentially, on the fact that they couldn't have come
from anywhere else (except comets, which would only comprise a teeny %-age)
that we know of.

They are a rather poor smaple, however.  Assuming they are 'stroid-lets,
it's safe to assume that any volatile material was burned out by entry
into the atmosphere, or travel near the sun.  Also, maybe certain kinds
of 'stroid-lets find their way here, which is another bias.  Perhaps the
iron ones that have accumulated over the years have all rusted into dirt,
while the rocky ones survived, and were kept near the surface by the freezing
dirt phenomena (which I've forgotten the name for).  Etc, etc.

That hardly affects the point though, since it is only another reason why we
SHOULD explore the asteroids more thouroghly.

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 21:55:46 GMT
From: newton.cs.jhu.edu![e-mail]  (Paul Callahan)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael McNeil) writes:
>Remember when the *laser* was called a solution looking for a problem?
>Ah, nostalgia....

Well, no.  I'm not that old.  But let's assume for the sake of argument
that people once said such a thing about the laser.  This doesn't prove
anything.  Some people may have called the "inside the egg shell egg scrambler"
a solution in search of a problem too.  In the latter case, they were
almost certainly right.

Just because some solutions eventually find the right problems doesn't mean
that they all will.  As a rule of thumb, I would say it's usually a better
idea to find solutions to problems rather than going the other way.  There
are lots of exceptions of course. Sometimes it's worth following a lead
even if it's not clear what it's good for.  The key issue in this case is
the cost involved.  I don't believe in devoting the necessary resources
to Fred unless it is clearly the solution to somebody's problem.  To design
it by compromise and then determine what it's good for after the fact is
entirely the wrong approach.

--
Paul Callahan
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 00:36:02 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>What money for another orbiter are you referring to?

NASA put in money for a new orbiter in their 92 request to OMB. OMB took
the money out and used it to fund HLV work. This was in accordance with
the recommendation of the Augustine Commission. At the same time we have
seen reports indicating that it is likely that another orbiter will
be needed if NASA intends to continue relying on it. Add to that the
fact that this decision all but insures that the production lines will
be shut down and it becomes clear that there will be no more orbiters built.

>As far as commercial procurement policies go, most commercial cargo was
>removed from the shuttle manifest after Challenger...whatever commercial
>cargo is left is insignifigant, at best.

Exactly. If you want to kill a transport system you make sure nothing
can fly on it. Elimination of commercial cargo is just one more nail.

>As for what is left, you are
>forgetting military research, astronomical research, (such as ASTRO, now
>scheduled to fly again) scientific projects such as the tethered vehicle
>experiment slated to go up soon, high-altitude winged vehicle performance
>research, and any number of ideas I haven't mentioned.

Almost all of which could be done better and cheaper on a space station.
It will be hard to justify the huge cost of the Shuttle then.

It will take a long time but it can be done.

>It looks like NASA will have a fleet of four orbiters for an indefinite
>period of time; when the next shuttle is lost or retired from service,
>it's a fair bet that we'll see funding for a replacement.

Odds are good that in a few years another will be lost. At that time
you won't get a replacement because there won't be a production line
to build it.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 12:29:28 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!mpirbn![e-mail]  (Daniel Fischer)
Subject: Crary's Quick Debunkings

[Sorry for not using the F-command for attributing the earlier articles here,
 but the machine keeps replying "interp buffer overflow!" and cancels rn -
 does someone know what this kryptic error message wants to tell me?]

Frank Crary wrote about our beloved 'Mars Face' and the VIKING photos of it:
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Both photos were taken when the sun was in a SLIGHTLY different position,
however there are also photos with the sun in RADICALLY different positions,
such as illuminating the opposite side. These photos, although a lower
resolution, clearly show a plateau that looks NOTHING like a face. Farther,
in the photos that DO look like a face, the shadows cast by the plateau
imply a shape very different from that of a face.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Do you have a reference for these OTHER photos? Have they been published
somewhere? To my knowledge (based mainly on an infamous paper in APPLIED
OPTICS in 1988) there are only the two well-publicised VIKING photographs
that have high enough resolution, and there's nothing with a resolution
anywhere near that from other dates. And there is the photoclinometric
analysis by Carlotto (in the aforementioned paper) that demonstrated
convincingly that the actual topographic relief of the feature does indeed
resemble a face, and that the visual impression given in the original
VIKING frames reproduces the actual surface shape pretty well - the usual
debunking of the thing that it is 'a play of light & shade' is incorrect!!!

So the thing is there, and one should do some actual physical studies with it:
how likely is it that martian erosion forces create a thing that looks like a
face? (I presume, it *is* likely, but why doesn't someone with a background
in such stuff do some actual science here?) ONLY THIS WAY can we stop Mr.
Hoaxland (pun intended) from spreading his stories and his fans from flooding
the networks with his latest crap! Outdated debunking ('light & shade') can do
only harm, now that the scientific investigation of the feature has come so
far as it has come - the same thinking has discredited scientific UFOlogy in
the past when too little attention was paid to the actual physical stimuli
that were causing many of the UFO reports, stimuli from THIS world, of course.

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 18:41:46 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Pendleton) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
> > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bev Freed) writes:

              .....................

> > > A 710-meter shaft set deep into the Earth forms the centerpiece of a
> > > new microgravity experimentation facility which will open in July.
> > > The center is expected to make a significant contribution to
> > > biotechnology, metallurgy, ceramics, and other space related
> > > research.

              ..................

> > I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?
> > The formula I recall would have the gravitational force there approximately
> > .9999 g.

> Not a problem. You put the experiment in a high density streamlined
> container and you DROP it 710 meters. During the fall you get
> microgravity. At the end you get macrogravity. :-)

N people also sent me this by email.  However, is this better than taking to
a substantial height (we do have ways to get drops of well over 7000 meters)
and it is not necessary to get quite as much macrogravity at the end?  Also,
one could even have good observing methods along the way instead of merely
removing the product from a canister.  How long a really low-gravity fall
would we get from the height at which the SR-71 could be flown?

--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 20:58:19 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>... is this better than taking to
>a substantial height (we do have ways to get drops of well over 7000 meters)

The problem with substantial heights is air resistance.  As any skydiver will
tell you, an object released from an aircraft at any normal altitude is not
in free fall for more than a fraction of a second.  The drop-tube microgravity
facilities typically evacuate their tubes to a vacuum before drop.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 21:35:01 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!isi.edu!wlf.isi.edu![e-mail]  (Craig Milo Rogers)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures


    A space station capable of repairing and refueling ordinary
satellites probably would make an excellent base for assembling
interplanetary probes.  No more need for VEEGA orbits -- just launch
the probe, propulsion and fuel separately, assemble in orbit, run a
systems check, then launch for Mars, Jupiter, etc.

    Thus, the space station under consideration here is desireable
from both economic and scientific considerations.

                    Craig Milo Rogers

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 01:00:59 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Crary's Quick Debunkings

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>Do you have a reference for these OTHER photos? Have they been published
>somewhere? To my knowledge (based mainly on an infamous paper in APPLIED
>OPTICS in 1988) there are only the two well-publicised VIKING photographs
>that have high enough resolution, and there's nothing with a resolution
>anywhere near that from other dates.

Unfortuantly, I do not have a reference to these photos. I saw a presentation
on the subject, that included a large number of photos of the site. These were
NOT high resolution photos, as I said in my first post. But, in awswer to
your remark, what is high "enough" resolution? While these photos were
much lower resolution, they could be computer enhanced. Mr. Hoagland has
put great emphasis on the enhancements of the high resolution photos,
however, so far as I know, there has been NO effort to enhance the lower
resolution photos. I, personally, find ignoring this data questionable in
a scientific discussion (of course, that implies that the "Face on Mars"
debate could possibly BE scientific.)

>So the thing is there, and one should do some actual physical studies with it:
>how likely is it that martian erosion forces create a thing that looks like a
>face? (I presume, it *is* likely, but why doesn't someone with a background
>in such stuff do some actual science here?)

In fact, such a feature is very UNLIKELY. But there are thousands, if not
hunderds of thousands, of similar plateaus on Mars. It would be supprising
if ONE of them did not look like a face.

>...ONLY THIS WAY can we stop Mr.
>Hoaxland (pun intended) from spreading his stories and his fans from flooding
>the networks with his latest crap! Outdated debunking ('light & shade') can do
>only harm, now that the scientific investigation of the feature has come so
>far as it has come

What scientific investigation? I do not consider the ANY of the published
work I have seen "scientific." As far as the need to study the plateau,
there are far too many interesting features on Mars for the qualified
people to study ALL of them. If Mr. Hoagland, or anyone else, wants
this feature to be studied, then he should put forward valid, scientific
reasons to study it. Even if it were to look EXACTLY like a face, when
viewed from ALL angles, I do not think that this alone justifies studying
it.

By the way, a reasonable estimate of the AGE of the feature can also be made.
If I remember the presentation I saw correctly, homo sapien did not exict
when the feature was created. Assuming this is the case (I can not recall
the reference) I do not see how the "face" could have ANY significance.

                     Frank Crary

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #695
*******************