Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO442.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 24KB

Date: Fri,  9 Apr 93 05:40:50
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #442
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  9 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 442

Today's Topics:
      Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.
                             Biosphere II
              Blow up space station, easy way to do it.
                        Degrees vs. experience
                            ENVIRONET Help
                              Fred & Tom
                            Fred's flames
     Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint US Archaisms) (2 msgs)
                     Moving parts or solid state?
                     Space Sticks- no longer made
                           TOPEX info query

    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: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 19:13:17 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> |What we need, at this point, is to build an orbital demonstrator...
>> |There is no need to waste time and money repeating the preliminaries...
>>
>This is not the point.  Note that I did not specifically mention the DC
>program.  They do not mention the DC program.  This (1st stage) work is work
>that to my knowledge has never been done.  And that it to ascertain the
>extent (as much as possible) of the commercial market in a fashion that
>will allow them to go to wall street for financing.

This has been done repeatedly.  The bottom line is very simple:  the only
customer whose volume of business is predictable with any certainty at all
is the US government.  All other major markets -- tourism, powersats,
whatever -- are too small, too far down the road, or too uncertain.
Otherwise it would have been done long ago, by Boeing if nobody else --
Boeing doesn't *need* to talk to Wall Street to fund a billion-dollar
project, not if the timing is right and the market is solid.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 13:18 PST
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q1kia$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In <1q09ud$[e-mail]> Pat writes:
>>>Why is everyone being so critical of B2?
>> Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science.
>
>These guys do a lot of things,  that are based on empirical observation
>of highly complex multi-variate phenomena.
>
>B2 is not bench science,  but rather a large scale attempt to
>re-create a series of micro-ecologies.   what's so eveil about this?
>Given it's not funded by NSF,  why should it be held to peer-review
>methods.

B2 certainly doesn't seem to be doing any science the way it is being
run.  But I think that it is useful to distinguish between the *principle*
and the *implementation.*  The implementation clearly has much to be
desired.  But in principle, if organized differently, it could have
been good science and an interesting engineering project as well.  If
someone wants to privately fund a project which otherwise might not
be done, who's to say that they shouldn't?  That's free enterprise for you.
And if it is so interesting that people want to pay to get a tour of the
facility, what's the harm?  (Actually, I could see *some* harm, but
I don't want to pick nits.)

The important issue seems to be that the management of the project is
not scientific management.  It is business management.  They seem to be
operating in the kind of secretive proprietary mode that businessmen
are familiar with, but which scientists generally abhor.  Furthermore,
they don't seem to be putting the scientific goals at the top of their
priority list.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
[e-mail]         although I have no right to say so, having
                 been a single cell so long ago myself that I
                 have no memory at all of that stage of my
                 life." - Lewis Thomas

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 09:02:09 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Oh, I thought you meant "blow up" as in Saddam Hussein launching
a modified Scud when our beloved astronauts violate his no-fly
zone over the Tigris.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 93 18:04:01 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Degrees vs. experience

[various people offering opinions on degrees vs. experience WRT economics]

>>I don't need an economist to balance my checkbook, decide what product
>>is cheaper, pick a good job, or any of the things that make up economics,
>>so it seems lambasting someone for talking economics without a degree
>>is like lambasting someone for gossipping without a psych degree.

>Gee, I don't need a doctor to put on a Bandaid, decide when I'm sick,
>or any of those.  Lambasting someone for talking medicine without
>knowing anything about it (no degree required -- [Fred insults Tom some
>more.  Surprise.  <Yawn>]     ) is rather like, well, like lambasting
>someone for talking economics without knowing what they're talking
>about -- or talking anything else without knowing what they're talking
>about.  Hey, I don't need an astronomer or planetary scientist to find
>the sun or the moon.  What do we need them for?

Economists lambast each other for not knowing what they are talking
about all the time.  So, if you lambast me for not knowing what I am
talking about, that would make me an economist!  (assuming of course,
that you are one. :-)  The point being, if they can't agree on what's
up, why should anyone trust that their knowledge has any application
to reality?

No, you don't need an astronomer to find the sun or moon, but you will
probably be using someone else's astronomical knowledge for, say, finding
the current position of the latest possible Kupier Object.

Is there a isomorphic example in economics?

>>What does an economist have to offer to a reasonably intelligent person
>>that they can't learn without a degree?  Or, what do economists offer
>>anyone, that they can't get from one of those debt-consolidation firms?

>You appear to not even understand what economics *is*, Tommy.  You
>seem to have it confused with financial accounting.  However, to put
>things in perspective, I can change light bulbs and turn on switches
>without an electrician; what do we need those for?  I can bandage a
>sprain without a doctor; what do we need those for?  You 'need'
>economists for the same reason that you 'need' any specialist, Tommy.

OK, you've given me a great example of ordinary electronic things that
your average thinking dude can deal with.  I can't think of any economic
thing that I'd need an economist for.  Can you provide a good example of
such?

Also, rather than alluding to, and insulting me for, my 'economic ignorance',
you might tell me what you mean by 'economics', since the problem here is
probably one of a defenition of terms.

>>Well, that's just it, economists, unlike CPScientists, Doctors, and several
>>other fields (not including cosmologists, of course :-) can't agree on how
>>their field works, even though just-plain-folks usually do.  So what value
>>an economist or his degree?

>They can, however, agree on a number of things that those
>just-plain-folks just happen to agree on WRONG.

Do you mean they can agree on what the averge dude is wrong about, or do
you mean that 'economic theory' as a field has some immutable truths
that they have 'discovered', in the same league as say, physical or
natural laws?  If the former, so what?  If the latter, what are they,
besides those I referred to earlier?

>>In other words, how much of the reality that is 'economic events' consists
>>of things that can only be understood by economists, and how much of it is
>>affected, and made unintelliglble-to-anyone, by economists?

>Say the same about any other speciality and perhaps you will see the
>fallacy of your previous statements.  However, I rather doubt it;
>libertarian ideologues (like most other political ideologues)
>generally can't see what they don't agree with.

No, it's not the same at all.  Physicists, to pick an example, may make
physics unintelligible by using arcane or dense jargon, but they don't
actually change how physics works, how nature operates.

Economics, OTOH, is all about human behavior, and when laws that affect
economics are passed, particularly those that economists have suggested,
then the economists are changing the objects and relationships that they
are trained to study.

That's why I said 'economic events' rather than 'economics', which includes
economic theory.  'Physics' is changed by physicists, but the ordering
and laws behind 'physical events' are not.

What on earth do your opinions about the ideologies you think I believe in
have anything to do with it?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:09:00 GMT
From: David Ward <abdkw@stdvax>
Subject: ENVIRONET Help
Newsgroups: sci.space

I spoke with Dr. Michael Lauriente, who runs ENVIRONET, regarding
anonymous logins via ftp.  He requested that anyone who is interested
in using ENVIRONET contact him via mail or phone.  Usage is open to
the public, but is screened in order to avoid conflicts of interest
with regards to GSFC staellite proposals.  In other words, if you
are bidding on a GSFC contract, you won't be allowed to use E-NET
to improve your bid.

Dr. Lauriente was very helpful and accessable.  If your use is
appropriate (and most are), he will send you an E-NET User's
Manual with appropriate login name and password.

Dr. Michael Lauriente
ENVIRONET Office
Mail Code 420
NASA/GSFC
Greenbelt, MD  20770
[phone]

Hope this helps with the previous request.

David W. @ GSFC

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

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 93 18:48:51 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fred & Tom

>[Fred and Tom blowing air]
>[Fred and Tom disagree on reality]
>[Fred and Tom question each other's motives, sanity, maturity, shoe size]
>[etc...]

>But I'll let you in on a little secret that I've
>explained to you before.  When you don't flame me, you generally don't
>get flamed in return.  Funny how that works, huh, Tommy?

Yeah, funny.  Funny how my original post to you was about how "only
flaming back" causes exactly the situation we are in now.  Each of us
balmes the other, each of us thinks the other started it, and neither
of us are discussing the things we supposably are on the net to discuss.

Hey, Fred, I only flame people that claim they 'only flame back', and even
then, sometimes I just try to convince them that it never goes anywhere.

Aren't you convinced, yet?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 93 19:05:56 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fred's flames

>Right.  Do what Tommy does and lie about who started this particular
>little string.

Soak yer head, Fred.  Cool off a bit.  Yes, perhaps I did start 'this
thread' by suggesting that you were a bigger flamer than Steinn.  But you
started the flame-war, aka sandbox-fight by flaming me for doing so, when
I hadn't met the necessary Fred-requirements for unadulterated flaming,
ie., flaming you.

Alas, you simultaneously vented your emotions reagrding my statement that
your were a bigger flame than Steinn, and proved me right.  So why so upset?
Prove me wrong about it, instead of getting a bug up yer ass.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 8 Apr 93 15:39:00 GMT
From: jeff findley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint US Archaisms)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Lines: 43
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
|> >

[Original article about Indiana not using Daylight Savings Time deleted.]

|> > Don't worry, Tom.  I think "Indiana Pi" secured that reputation firmly
|> > and forever, back in the last century.
|> >
|> > Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey
|> > Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
|>
|> Hey Wild Bill,
|> Do you mean the old Hoosier bromide: Pi R not square!  Pie are round,
|> cornbread R square?  If not then I guess I need some schooling on my
|> own state's history.
|>
|> I'd say e-mail me the answer but it is obvious from these flamers that
|> use their keyboards as aids in onanism and not discourse, that bandwidth
|> is no problem in this newsgroup.  If they can use hundreds of lines
|> in odes to their egos, surely we can use 50 or 60 on goofiness.
|>
|>

I don't have all the facts, but the story goes something like this:

Years ago, Indiana passed a law that said "Pi = 3.14".  This was supposed
to save money, since using 3.14 was easier and faster to do calculations
with than 3.1415926535...  Besides, what difference does that little
0.0015926535... really make?  Well, this turned out to be a really stupid
law.  Scientists and engineers really complained and tried to explain to
the politicians that the extra significant digits really do make a difference
and that the quality of Indiana goods, research, etc. would suffer.

Needless to say the law was repealed :-)

Jeff Findley (born a Hoosier, moved away (to Ohio)
--
 +---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Findley, SDRC              | This is a test of the .signature system. |
| Cincinnati, OH                  | Remember, this is only a test.           |
| e-mail: [e-mail]   | All opinions above are my own, I think.  |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 20:09:05 GMT
From: Rob Unverzagt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint US Archaisms)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> |> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> |> >
>
> [Original article about Indiana not using Daylight Savings Time deleted.]
>
> |> > Don't worry, Tom.  I think "Indiana Pi" secured that reputation firmly
> |> > and forever, back in the last century.
> |>
> |> Hey Wild Bill,
> |> Do you mean the old Hoosier bromide: Pi R not square!  Pie are round,
> |> cornbread R square?  If not then I guess I need some schooling on my
> |> own state's history.
> |>
> |> I'd say e-mail me the answer but it is obvious from these flamers that
> |> use their keyboards as aids in onanism and not discourse, that bandwidth
> |> is no problem in this newsgroup.  If they can use hundreds of lines
> |> in odes to their egos, surely we can use 50 or 60 on goofiness.
>
> I don't have all the facts, but the story goes something like this:

Since when has not having ANY facts stopped anyone from posting?

> Years ago, Indiana passed a law that said "Pi = 3.14".

Years ago, the Indiana legislature was CONSIDERING passing a
law to decree that the circle could be rectified.  This implied
that pi was not the usual 3.14159..... but something else --
in this case 3, based on the "proof" of how to rectify the
circle.

> This was supposed to save money, since using 3.14 was easier
> and faster to do calculations with than 3.1415926535...

This was supposed to save money, since the man who "proved"
that the circle could be rectified was soon going to patent
his proof, requiring all future textbook publishers to pay
him to publish his proof.  He told some senators that if
Indiana would officially recognize his "advance", the state
would be exempt from this royalty.

> Besides, what difference does that little
> 0.0015926535... really make?  Well, this turned out to be a
> really stupid law.

Well, this turned out to be a really stupid idea, and when someone
with a brain in their head heard about what was going on at the
capital, he coached some key senators in math and they
defeated the bill.

> Scientists and engineers really complained and tried to explain to
> the politicians that the extra significant digits really do make a difference
> and that the quality of Indiana goods, research, etc. would suffer.
>
> Needless to say the law was repealed :-)

Apparently it needs to be said: the law was never passed.

Shag

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  [e-mail]   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
[e-mail] |

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

Date: Thu, 08 Apr 93 18:31:46 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moving parts or solid state?

>Fred sez;
F>And solid state is always more reliable than anything involving moving
F>parts, as well as easier to repair/replace.  The equipment I used to

>Pat responds;
P>Not neccesarily.  Depends on the quality of the Electronics,
P>and the mechanicals.

>Fred replies
F>Ceteris paribus, you stupid git.  Of course if the solid state stuff
F>is made out of Cheetos and string it probably won't be as reliable as
F>a moving part!  Basic rule #1 of engineering:  If it has to work for a
F>long time with minimal maintence, minimize the number of moving parts.

Tom replied;
T>Oh, just to keep on the thread;  If Pat was stupid for suggesting the
T>(presumably obvious) fact that some solid state is less reliable than
T>mechanicals, then aren't you stupid for incorrectly stating that solid
T>state is ALWAYS better?

Fred again:
>We're talking GENERAL RULES, Tommy.  You know, like if you need to do
>X and you have $Y to spend, which are you going to use, moving parts
>or non-moving parts?

You weren't talking GENERAL RULES, you were talking immutable laws of
engineering.  Look back at your first post, where you said "always".

All Pat or I said is that your 'general rule' might not apply.  You have
said nothing about why it MUST apply.

T>Also, presumably for a power plant on a space station, despite the scaling
T>back of the (design for) Fred, we're talking heavy voltages and/or
T>currents, and I know for a fact that solid state's reliability has an
T>inverse relationship with power.  Ever fix a TV or stero?  Know what's
T>bad 80% of the time?  Output transitors on the steros and the high-
T>frequency SS components (horizontal and power) on the TV.  These are
T>the components that see the highest power and temeratures.  (I'm ignoring
T>the problems caused by lightning, since they are ususally caused by
T>ungrouded antennae and lightning doesn't occur (much?) in space)

>Tommy, I used to work on a few tens of millions of dollars of the
>taxpayers electronic equipment.  One of the parts was a thing called
>LIPS, which stood for Litton Industries Power Supply.  It was an
>inverter power supply that handled well over a quarter of a million
>watts.  So I have just a bit more experience than your "working on a
>TV".

And you are going to tell me that working on 1/4 million watt power-
supplies here on Earth, gave you more 'general' experience than my
work on steros, tv, vcrs, and computers, for the purpose of making
judgements about power systems on a space station?  I'd like to know
why, if so.  Are you a bigger, badder electronic whiz, because you
worked with energies that can fry people, rather than just hurting
them or killing them?  Is this a new thing?  Macho nerds?

>>The case is certainly the same for high power/temp. mechanicals, but
>>I think blanket statements about which is better are a bit premature,
>>expecially for a design that isn't even being prototyped yet.

>Go study some engineering, Tommy.  Or is that another one of those
>disciplines that you think you don't need to know anything about in
>order to pass judgements, like economics?

I didn't pass judgment, Fred,  You did.  All I said was that I thought,
given what I know (which is quite a bit, Fred, probably more general than
you, but that's pretty immaterial) it seemed a little early to be passing
judgment.  I'm not sure, but somewhere within your 'advice' and your
sarcasm, I think I can read that you agree on this point.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 19:52:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Sticks- no longer made
Newsgroups: sci.space

Thanks to all who helped me out with this. I called Pillsbury and Carnation, and
after speaking with an assistant director at Pillsbury, I found my definitive
answer. Pillsbury made these back in the late 60's and early '70s, and
discontinued them at least 15-20 years ago. They do not plan on bringing
them back. Space Food Sticks were never involved with any space program- my
apologies for creating noise in this group, but I appreciate all the
assistance.

John

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 20:37:08 GMT
From: Jim <[e-mail]>
Subject: TOPEX info query
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am looking for references about the TOPEX altitmeter experiment
which go into detail about the overall design of the system (i.e.,
exact frequencies, modulation of the signals, orbital parameters,
etc.).  References in the open literature (or available via ftp)
preferred.  Any help would be appreciated.

Jim
--
*---------------------*------------------------------------*
|  Jim Secan          |   Northwest Research Assoc., Inc.  |
|  (jim@.nwra.com)    |   P.O. Box 3027                    |
|  [phone]     |   Bellevue, WA  98009              |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 442
------------------------------