Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO055.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 26KB

Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 05:03:50
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #055
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 31 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 055

Today's Topics:
                  2nd (last)  RFD sci.space.planets
                A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
                      Antiproton-boosted fission
               Biogenesis (was: ETs and Radio) (2 msgs)
                     ET's, life in space (2 msgs)
                            ETs and Radio
                    International Venus Colloquium
        News: The Space Station That Would Not Die (from UPI)
                         Propulsion questions

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 92 22:47:29 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: 2nd (last)  RFD sci.space.planets
Newsgroups: sci.space,news.groups,sci.astro

This is just to clarify a few things:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David Knapp) writes:
>Another poke in the side to stimulate discussion of the formation of a
>.planets group.  The following has been discussed so far:

[...many people's worthy opinions deleted...]

> [e-mail] says that
>
>"I am interested in it, too, but planetary science is also a major component
>of sci.astro, which has an even larger bandwidth than sci.space.  It would
>help tremendously, I beleive, to have a .planets group, which would reduce
>traffic on both groups, and also tend to make the subject matter on all
>three (sci.astro, sci.space, and the new .planets group) more specific."

>In response to  [e-mail]'s saying that
>
>">Planetary science is a major component of sci.space, and I'm very interested
>>in it. If you create sci.planets, then the people who have only limited
>>Usenet access (me, for instance, at the moment, plus all the people on SPACE
>>Digest once that's working again) won't be able to read it or post to it,
>>thus limiting the participation in sci.planets and reducing the value of
>>sci.space."

The attributions on the above two quotes are backwards.  I believe the
new group would be a great help, and John Roberts is worried about limited
access.

[...more worthy opinions deleted...]

To reiterate my POV, I think the group should be sci.space.planets; that
should help the users w/limited access.

I hope the software here lets me post this.  It tend to get upset when the
quote is longer than the original writing.

--
  Shari L Brooks                   |   [e-mail]
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   [e-mail]
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 21:59:51 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Hi all.
>
>Can someone explain how that works?  I saw reference to this on the AP
>wire, and they must think this is perfectly normal, since no-one is
>bothering to explain it.
>
>Is there an article on this some kind soul can direct me towards?

Look in last week's Aviation Week for an article on the TSS launch and
experiments.

--
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| [e-mail]    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
|   **** Papoon for President! You Know He's Not Insane!! ****

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 07:46:02 GMT
From: "Gregory N. Bond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antiproton-boosted fission
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 23 Jul 92 20:25:49 GMT, [e-mail] (Thomas J. Nugent) said:

>> Unrelated: Weren't books like the Skylark series and the Lensman series
>> (both by E.E. Smith) written sometime in the thirties?  As in, he was
>> simply ignoring the physics which said one simply could not accelerate
>> to a speed faster than that of light?

Each series had a different approach.  The Skylark series basically
said relativity was wrong.  The Lensman series had a device to
neutralize inertia, the assumtion being that relativity didn't apply
to massive but inertialess matter!

[As one of the characters said, inertialess mass isn't so wierd if you
consider we don't really know what mass is!]

Greg, ashamedly admitting a fairly extensive E.E. Smith collection!
--
Gregory Bond <[e-mail]> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
``USL has never sold long distance.  You're going after the wrong men in black
  hats.  (Or, in the case of Plan 9, black space suits)'' - Tom Limoncelli

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 22:18:18 GMT
From: russell wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biogenesis (was: ETs and Radio)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Obvoiusly Mr. Wallace wants to have the exact story of biogenesis
>handed to him. We'd all like to see it, but the chemists and
>biologists have not yet worked it out. In the meantime, us lay
>people (of whom Mr. Wallace most certainly is one) will either have
>to be content with the partial answers and plausibility arguments
>that the professionals find compelling, or undertake serious reasearch
>on their own. Trotting out old arguments or well-known current
>problems to the Net does not constitute research.

There is a serious question as to the actual probability of the
appearance of life on a planet like Earth. I consider that this
probability is very low, as do a number of people who know a lot more
about biochemistry than I do (there's a book called "Seven Clues to the
Origin of Life", where the author puts the case better than I have for
the improbability of the appearance of organic life; he then goes on to
suggest that the first life forms were silicon-based, which I find even
more improbable...). On the other hand, many biochemists consider that
this probability is quite high, and that there are only a few missing
pieces left in the puzzle. This is what the current argument is about.
If you have something to contribute to one position or the other
(presumably the other, from the tone of your post :-), by all means go
ahead, but I don't find that your post does much to advance the
argument.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
[e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 22:25:54 GMT
From: russell wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biogenesis (was: ETs and Radio)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven J. Edwards) writes:

>#> 4) At some point an rRNA replicating cluster using amino acids becomes
>#> capable of partial synthesis of useful amino acids.  This replicator
>#> gains a tremendous advantage over imperfect and less efficient
>#> replicators who must compete for the limited spontaneous amino acid
>#> production.
>#
># Why would it gain an advantage, given that without a cell membrane, the
># amino acids it synthesizes would float away to benefit the other
># clusters just as much as the synthesizer?

>This is trivally answered: first, the synthesized products do not
>merely float away because they have assorted polar regions that can
>interact with the synthesizer, and second, other similar or identical
>replicators nearby would share in the benefit of peptide production
>from other than themselves.

I don't think polar regions by themselves are enough to stop the amino
acids floating away pretty quickly. And why should nearby pieces of RNA
be similar or identical? If you answer, because the original piece of
RNA used amino acids to replicate itself, then this is begging the
question, because the point at issue is can you get something capable of
non-trivial self-replication.

># As a matter of interest, just how could an RNA cluster synthesize amino
># acids? From what raw materials? I thought synthesizing amino acids
># required energy, and therefore a complex set of enzymes to extract that
># energy from something.

>All chemical reactions require energy to start; this is called the
>"activation energy" of a reaction.  There are several natural sources,
>some of these are: photons from the Sun, ambient kinetic energy
>(heat), stored chemical energy from previously producted compounds,
>and lightning.

Sure. Now how is an RNA cluster actually going to go about tapping this
energy to synthesize amino acids, without already having a complex set
of enzymes?

>#> 5) The protein making rRNA clusters become self sufficient and the
>#> first true ribosomes are the result.  This is a good candidate for
>#> "first life".
>#
># Yes, it certainly would be, except the problems again arise:
>#
># without a cell membrane, how would the "first life" cluster gain an
># advantage, when all its carefully synthesized enzymes floated away to
># benefit other replicators?

>Again, the peptides do not just "float away"; peptides that did get
>loose would benefit similar (or identical) replicators.  These
>secondary replicators would likely be physically close anyway.

Again, why are nearby replicators similar, unless you previously assume
that the RNA cluster is capable of non-trivial self-reproduction?

># you *still* need the full machinery for non-trivial self-reproduction.

>No.  Simple RNA replicator molecules can do it with only naturally
>occuring amino acid molecules.  Complex RNA replicators may synthesize
>some to all of the needed amino acids (and other molecules).

Has an RNA cluster unsupported by enzymes been demonstrated to
synthesize amino acids or peptide chains (actually, stringing amino
acids together into proteins is more important, because there would be
plenty of amino acid molecules already floating around)?

># This means that the RNA must serve as a blueprint carrying the
># information to synthesize the proteins which assist with the synthesis
># of proteins and the replication of the RNA. What is the simplest system
># capable of doing all this, and is it simple enough to have a reasonable
># probability of falling together by chance? I don't think so. Why would
># you not require the full transcription apparatus?

>Information necessary for early replication does not need the "full
>transcription apparatus" because it is not based on any genetic code.
>Early RNA replicators had their replication information stored in
>their three dimensional structure, not in any one dimensional coded
>strand.  RNA chains act as sort of a "poor man's emzymes": there are
>only four bases instead of dozens of amino acids, but there still is a
>lot that can be accomplished.  Laboratory results show that: both RNA
>and amino acids form under natural conditions, complex RNA structures
>form spontaneously, some these structures have the power of
>replication and peptide synthesis.  Of course, none of the early
>replicators had the efficiency and fidelity of today's genetic
>apparatus.  But they didn't need it either.

Hmmm... this is interesting; you're saying that an RNA cluster could
double as blueprint *and* machinery, thereby making things a lot easier.
However, you would still seem to have the problem that the RNA cluster
must eventually get around to synthesizing some proteins that are going
to assist it in replication, and these would tend to drift away before
being much use. How much of this has been demonstrated so far?

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
[e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 20:51:51 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: ET's, life in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert S. Hill) writes:
>Of course, I haven't _proved_ a darned thing, but I think that the
>`horrendous odds against' argument is pretty shaky.

Or, as has been pointed out before:  many improbable things happen
every day.  Before deciding whether something is likely to happen, you
must know:

    (a) the probability that any single attempt will succeed
        (which is what "horrendous odds against" people focus on)

    (b) how many attempts are being made
        (eventually the coin *will* land heads ten times in a row)

    (c) how many different results you will accept as success
        (it's very improbable that a golfball will land on any
        *particular* tuft of grass, but it has to land *somewhere*)

As an example, the odds are horrendously against your thinking of a
particular distant friend just before you hear from them or receive
important news about them... but in fact there is perhaps one chance
in ten that it will happen to you sometime during an average lifespan,
because there are many chances for it to happen and many ways it
could happen.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 22:23:50 GMT
From: russell wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject: ET's, life in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert S. Hill) writes:

>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>>>>>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>>>>>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any
>>>Not accident.  Think in statistics.  Given umpteen billion gallons
>>>of warm, super gunky sea, what are the possibilities that any one
>>>group of amino acids could form self-replicating protiens...

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (russell wallace) writes...
>>I *am* thinking in statistics. If the smallest possible self-replicator
>>is 1000 amino acids in size, and there is only one self-replicator of
>>that size, and supposing there are 20 possible amino acids, then the
>>odds against any 1000-amino acid chain being a self-replicator are
>>20^1000 to 1. Against this statistic, the total number of molecules that
>>can have been formed in the visible universe since the beginning of
>>time is insignificant.

>Any time I see the phrase `the odds against X,' a little alarm bell
>goes off in my head.  Let's postulate a situation and do the combinatorics.

>Suppose the `reaction vessel' contains 1E6 molecules of each of 20
>amino acids.  Suppose that our magic polypeptide contains 1000 amino
>acids, 50 of each kind for simplicity.  Let C(N,n) mean the combinations
>in N objects taken n at a time (since it's a little hard to make double-
>height parentheses on my terminal). ^ is exponentiation operator.

>   Prob(magic molecule) = C(1E6,50)^20 / C(2E7,1000)

I think you're using combinations, where permutations would be more
appropriate (given that it's not only how many molecules of each type
you select that's important, but also what order you arrange them in).


--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
[e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Jul 92 20:42:30 GMT
From: Alex Howerton <[e-mail]>
Subject: ETs and Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (russell wallace) writes:
>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any
>complex structure to fall together by accident is extremely improbable;
I don't agree with this argument. An "accident" is something unforeseen,
outside our sphere of knowledge.  Evolution and other natural processes
only happen "randomly" and "by accident" insofar as we are not suffic-
iently developed enough in our ability to perceive the workings of the
cosmos to discover the cause. An "accident" has a specific and discreet
series of events that lead up to it. To assert otherwise is to deny the
whole body of work on Chaos theory.  As Albert said, "God does not play
dice with the universe."

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

Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:09:54 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Venus Colloquium
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

This is being forwarded from a Magellan team member.

  *****************************************************

     From August 10-12, 1992, an "International Venus Colloquium"
will be help at the California Institute of Technology's Ramo
Auditorium in Pasadena.  More than 100 scientific researchers
from around the world will present their results based on data
from NASA's Magellan and Pioneer Venus missions and on earlier
Soviet missions to Venus.  The colloquium will be particularly
timely, as Magellan has almost completed its third radar mapping
cycle around Venus, while Pioneer Venus is nearing its final
entry into the planet's atmosphere.

     The Lunar and Planetary Institute is providing organization
for the colloquium.  Pam Jones (telephone [phone], facsimile
713-486-2160) is the point of contact for registration or
logistics questions.

     The conveners of the scientific program are Dr. R. Stephen
Saunders at JPL (telephone [phone], facsimile 818-393-0530)
and Dr. Sean C. Solomon at MIT (telephone [phone], facsimile
617-253-1699).

     Registration before August 3 through LPI is $40 (students
$20).  At the colloquium, registration will be $50 (students
$30).  A free public lecture hosted by the Planetary Society will
be held on Monday evening, August 10 at 8:00 PM.  Dr. A. T.
Basilevsky from the Vernadsky Institute, of the Russian Academy
of Sciences will speak on "Views of Venus: An Historical
Perspective".

     Those interested in more information about this colloquium
or any of a broad range of other planetary programs in which the
Lunar and Planetary Institute is involved may use an electronic
bulletin board over the national computer networks.  On SPAN
(DECNET), set host to LPI::.  On Internet, connect by "telnet" to
"lpi.jsc.nasa.gov" (192.101.147.11).  On either network, give the
username "lpi".  Among many other topics, this system gives
access to the latest announcement and registration form for the
Venus colloguium.  It also provides access to the full set of
abstracts for the papers which will be presented.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.

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

Date: 30 Jul 1992 20:07:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: News: The Space Station That Would Not Die (from UPI)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Lines: 121
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]


  {from UPI news wire}
        Space Station Freedom Survives Attempt To Kill It

    Space Station Freedom got a reprieve Wednesday as the House voted
  down an amendment aimed at killing the $30 billion project.

    The House voted 237-181 against an appropriations bill amendment
  that would have cut $1.2 billion from the 1993 budget for the Natl
  Aeronautics and Space Administration, effectively eliminating the
  space station. The oft-delayed space station has been the centerpiece
  of the Bush administration's space program, even though it has also
  been a favorite target for some congressional budget-cutters.

    With Wednesday's vote, the station has survived 5 attempts in as
  many years by the House to kill it.

    House members from California, where many US aerospace firms are
  based or have factories, came to the station's defense in Wednesday's
  debate.

    "The space station will keep the aerospace industry a viable
  industry...while we go from a defense-related industry to a
  civilian-related industry," Rep Dana Rohrabacher (D-Cal) said. But
  Rep Howard Wolpe (D-Mich) derided the space station as "nothing more
  than a public works program for the aerospace industry."

    Others argued that the money earmarked for the space station could
  be better used on such domestic projects as housing, crime-fighting
  and education.

    "I urge [House members] to vote against the space station...$30
  billion could make a real difference for families across the US of
  America," Rep Peter Visclosky (D-Ind) said.

    On Tuesday, 100 House members wrote to House Speaker Tom Foley
  (D-Wash) to voice their support for the station.


  Subj:   SSF vote in House

  XMT: 19:21 Wed Jul 29  EXP: 19:00 Thu Jul 30

  U.S. HOUSE DEFEATS MOVE TO KILL FUNDING FOR SPACE STATION FREEDOM

  WASHINGTON (JULY 29) UPI - The House, concerned about the potential
  loss of thousands of jobs and world leadership in space science,
  Wednesday defeated a move to cut off funds for the planned U.S. space
  station.

  The 237-181 vote to continue the program came despite arguments by
  critics that the nation cannot afford the estimated $40 billion cost
  of the space station and the money should be spent on other science
  programs or domestic needs.

  Supporters of the project feared that budget pressures might cause
  the House to vote against the project, as it did last month when the
  House voted to halt funding for another costly and controversial
  science project

  - the super-conducting super collider being built in Texas.

  Supporters of that program have since worked hard to have the money
  restored by the Senate, which could vote on the matter Thursday.

  Opponents of the space station have tried several times in recent
  years to kill the program and made another attempt Wednesday during
  consideration of the 1993 appropriation for the National Aeronautics
  and Space Administration.

  The bill included $1.7 billion for the space station, which was $525
  million less than what President Bush requested for the program.

  Rep. Bill Green, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the amendment to cut the funds,
  called the space station "a black hole" that drains money from other,
  more worthwhile science projects.

  Green said the space station should be killed and the country should
  move on with "a more balanced space program."

  Defenders of the project said it is vital to the space program and
  would provide an economic boost as well, generating as many as 75,000
  high tech jobs.

  Rep. George Brown, D-Calif., chairman of the House Science, Space and
  Techonology Committee, argued "there is a direct and inescapable
  relationship between our investments in research and development in
  this country and our ability to promote economic growth and to
  provide jobs for the people of this country."

  Brown said the space station is "the centerpiece of our invetment in
  space," and, noting cuts already made in NASA's requests, said that
  "at a time when we should be increasing our investments in civilian
  research and development we are cutting them to the bone."

  Rep. Dick Zimmer, R-N.J., an opponent, noted that he original plan
  called for the space station to have a crew of eight and be able to
  carry out such functions as serving as a staging base, manufacturing
  facility, space observatory, assembly facility and research lab, all
  for a cost of $8 billion.

  Now the project is estimated to cost as much as $40 billion, carry a
  crew of four, and serve only as a research lab, Zimmer said.

  The research "is important, but is not worth $40 billion," he argued,
  saying that "instead of being a doorway to space, space station
  Freedom will lock the door to space by diverting funds from other,
  more worthwhile programs."

  But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said the space station project
  is vital to the U.S. aerospace industry, which he described as "a
  powerhouse for America," but which is vulnerable in the post-Cold War
  period. If the station is canceled, "the American aerospace industry
  will be derailed in its transition from Cold War into a peaceful
  competitive world."

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "Is there not an abode in Hell for the arrogant?"
        -- Koran, SURA XXIX -- The Troops, v. 63

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 09:48:03 GMT
From: "Gregory N. Bond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

>> Interesting system - you have to keep feeding it, whether you need the
>> drive or not, or it keeps heating up until it blows your ship to
>> smithereens. :-)

And you certainly don't want to run out of gas....

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <[e-mail]> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
``USL has never sold long distance.  You're going after the wrong men in black
  hats.  (Or, in the case of Plan 9, black space suits)'' - Tom Limoncelli

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 055
------------------------------