Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min
(WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.035%)
growing fast! up another notch by mid May 1993!-----^
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 1993 21:24:43 -0400
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.net>
Subject: I want to be a (NASA) space cadet
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <C76v86.405.1@cs.cmu.edu> CZ45@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ45000) writes:
> What does a mission specialist really do - both during a mission
> and between them?
Lot's of PR.
pat
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 93 19:01:50
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <17MAY199315161242@juliet.caltech.edu> irwin@juliet.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
In article <1993May17.123001.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>progress toward a Buck Rogers future. You'll have to come up with a
>more convincing explanation than blaming it on a single President
>who's been in office a few months. (Hint #1: Maybe you can't lay the
>blame fully on any President or set of Presidents. Hint #2:
And Hint #3...if you really want to find a scapegoat who has occupied the
Oval Office, how about that guy who killed Apollo...what was his name? Nixon?
(OK...Congress didn't exactly go out of its way to save Apollo either back
then).
Hell, the STS commission that laid down the specs for the
shuttle was the Agnew commission - no wonder it's screwed, eh?
The SRBs first fired in April(?) 1977, anyone _really_ think
that Carter could have cancelled them and and mandated LRBs
at that point?
| Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night |
| Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites |
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? |
| "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 |
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 02:54:06 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <davem@ee.ubc.ca>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <17MAY199315161242@juliet.caltech.edu> irwin@juliet.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
>
>And Hint #3...if you really want to find a scapegoat who has occupied the
>Oval Office, how about that guy who killed Apollo...what was his name? Nixon?
Don't forget the *real* reason that Nixon ignored the space program and didn't
even bother showing up for the launch of Apollo 11. Hint #4 What was the
name of the aircraft carrier that was supposed to lead the Apollo 11
recovery force but was replaced by the USS Hornet on Nixon's personal
request? A. USS John F. Kennedy
(no smiley's, I'm afraid :-( :-( :-(
--
Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:44:49 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
>I watched the landing live, including that part, and I didn't hear the
>statement conventionally attributed to Armstrong.
>There were other statements I did hear about seeing purple rocks. The
>astronauts had been primed by their geology teachers to look for purple
>rocks. The geologists said that the presence of purple rocks would be a
>very important discovery. The reports, however, were a "practical joke"
>played on the geologists by Armstrong and Aldrin; there were no purple
>rocks. If Apollo 11 had not returned safely to Earth it is possible that
>no further expeditions to the moon would have been made, and our only
>direct geological evidence would have been the statement about purple
>rocks.
>I've always felt that sending jet jockeys on an expedition and passing
>them off as scientists was a bad, even fraudulent, idea. That "joke" only
>reinforced my feelings.
>Leigh
You say that as if REAL scientists have never played jokes like
that. They do it all the time. I'm sure the guys on the ground
recognized sarcasm.
I'm pretty sure they'd have done the "hell! there's an alien!" thing
if they'd have thought of it. One of the teams was making jokes about
footprints and tire tracks being stuff not left by them... and they
were _obviously_ joking.
As for the jet jockey comment, I'm sure Mary Shafer will try to
be merciful. Hint: both Armstrong and Aldrin had PhD's in engineering...
--
Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 02:33:06 GMT
From: Ha Li <dmunroe@vcd.hp.com>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
> robink@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Robin Kenny) writes:
>"That's one small step for (a) man, one damn leap for mankind!"
^^^^
>Robin Kenny - who doesn't hear that as "big" and is curious who else doesn't...
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind"
-Dave
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:42:36 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics
Newsgroups: sci.space
prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>I suspect that 50 years from now, one will find an engineering history
>book with the shuttle, the great eastern, and the spruce goose
>all in one chapter.
>pat
The Great Northern and the Spruce Goose will be in one
chapter.
The shuttle will share another with the R-101.
--
Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert,
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary
------------------------------
Date: 18 May 93 00:06:52 GMT
From: Dan Williams <djwilli@uswnvg.com>
Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.uucp) wrote:
: In article <1so3lo$2m6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
: >
: >
: >THere you go again. MOre thumb promoting, quinto-podal leaning
: >atavism :-)
: >
: >I think jane goodal documented basic tool use among the
: >gombe chimps. and i think any sort of multi purpose
: >tentacle could also make a highly effective affector.
:
: Chimp grasping ability is limited by the lack of an opposable
: thumb, though a three finger arrangement, mutually opposable,
: is feasible for an alien. Boneless tentacles can exert considerable
: pull but not push due the the lack of leverage imposed by the lack
: of hinged bones.
:
: >I could visualize some sort of multi-tentacled land creature,
: >which developes a pretty good tool culture. it could even
: >be amphibious, or aquatic. something like an octopus,
: >with a bigger brain.
:
: Lack of a skeleton means that muscles have to actively resist
: gravity at all times on land rather than supplying only balancing
: forces. That means that much more energy would be required for the
: creature to function. The bones also supply leverage points for
: pushing and lateral movement. That's why you don't find large
: active boneless creatures on land.
:
Shells also provide protection from gravity, and also from loss of precious
water. Large variable tides would subject a variety of sealife to the rigours
of a duo-environment.
: In water, the situation is considerably better since bouyancy
: supplies the necessary resistance to gravity. However, water
: imposes constraints on technology in several respects, primarily
: in metalworking and the use of combustion for external energy
: requirements. It's hard to imagine aquatic creatures developing
: the technology for spaceflight.
:
Water dwelling creatures have a significant disadvantage but prehaps
anphibious creatures or water dwellers that have returned to the land
would avoid the problems of a strict aquatic upbringing. Maybe otters
could do it.
: Many tentacles, like many eyes, run into problems with processing
: overload. In any evolutionary situation where various creatures
: can develop, those with sufficient, but not excess, sensors and
: manipulators tend to prosper. It's interesting to note that, on
: land, creatures are either two legged or 4 legged, with tiny insects
: having 6 or 8 legs, but never 3 legged, though that would be a
: stable configuration. It can be argued that 2 legged creatures
: are actually 4 limbed, however, with two of the limbs not normally
: used for locomotion.
:
2 leggers are definitely four leggers with specialized functions evolved
for the forelimbs. Either tool use, flight, or what ever.
: So it seems Nature has decided that 4 limbs are
: the necessary minimum for large active land creatures, and that
: 6 or 8 are excess in creatures large enough to have complex brains.
:
I would argue that Nature has worked with several successful bus designs in
creating different species. Insects do walk on a double tripod base,
I know of no three legged species but 5 limbs are common amoung some
groups, {Elephants, and new world monkeys} How about snakes? Crustaceans,
clams, or slug. The squid might be a good base design. Grow a shell to provide support, use large tentacles to pull the body along and retain the smaller
tentacles as manipulators combined with the mandibles to provide leverage.
Of course this creature requires either wheels under the shell, or a natural
environment of a thick algal mat to ease the drag on its shell. :-)
I would consider it to be a falacy to expect life to have evolved under rules
simular to what guided life on this planet. Materials taken advantage of
could be diferent, as could base structures. What if the intelligent creature
is some form of communal organism.
In any case a new bus type for a three legged creature would be at a serius
disadvantage verses a four legged creature in our current environment.
Four leggers have had too much of an evolutionary head start.
In a new environment there could be different conventions or starting points
that make the use of a tripod base the norm, or something even more startling.
: Thermodynamic considerations of surface/volume relationships would
: seem to dictate that active complex creatures stay in a size range
: similar to what we see about us. 6 inch tall intelligent aliens
: seem unlikely, as do those much larger than the elephant.
:
Giants were not unknown in this world and given a little longer development
time may have produced intelligent tool users. Our own species ranges from
7 foot giants to under 3 feet tall. It might have been harder to survive
outside that range, but we really don't have enough of a sample to say it
is impossible to be intelligent tool users on either end of the scale.
