Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO607.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 06:23:34
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #607
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 21 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 607

Today's Topics:
                    ** Animations ASTRO wanted **
               Early Bacteria & Cometary Origin of Life
                   Impediments to NASA productivity
                        Russia's space policy
                 Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
                 Space Marketing -- Boycott (2 msgs)
                 Space Marketing would be wonderfull.

    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, 20 May 1993 12:54:12 GMT
From: Titch <[e-mail]>
Subject: ** Animations ASTRO wanted **
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] ( Frank ROUSSEL ) writes:
> Can someone tell me where i can get astronomic animations ?
> (especially in .FLI or .ANIM format)
i
I know of two, both NASA:
    JPL (128.149.6.2)    /data/pubinfo/images
    Ames (128.102.18.3)            /pub/SPACE/ANIMATION

Hope this helps.

-R.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rich Browning ([e-mail])   *  ASTRO SCOOP! ASTRONUT TO LAND ON SUN!
Department of Computer Science    * "I've got it all worked out," says Jim
University of Brighton            * Biggles, "I'm landing at night!".
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 07:12:17 GMT
From: Rodney Heyd <rod@halley>
Subject: Early Bacteria & Cometary Origin of Life
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,sci.bio

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
:
: This "new discovery" of primitive bacteria was indeed overhyped.  It's
: been known for a long time that bacteria, probably as complex as those
: that exist today (eg some could do photosynthesis) date back to the very
: end of the period of intense bombardment -- ie no more than 200 million
: years from the end of the bombardment, vs. over 3,500 million years since
: then, and most of the complexity of life, the highly improbable
: structure of 1000's of proteins, metabolic pathways, etc. already
: existed at that time.
:
: This doesn't tell us much about the probability of life
: appearing.  It does tell us one of two things:
:
: (1) the first 200 million years of evolution, much of which may have
: involved freefloating autocatalytic sets rather than centralized
: genetic reproduction, must have been orders of magnitude more rapid
: than the succeeding genetic evolution of the next 3,500+ million
: years, or
:
: (2) Life originated in comets, which are now starting to look
: like very freindly environments for autocatalytic "primordial
: soups" -- start with highly complex interstellar and radiation-created
: organics, mix in periodic solar warming events, and the
: complex organics form chemical cycles that catalyze the transformation
: of more primitive molecules into their own more complex forms --
: freestanding metabolisms, or "autocatalytic sets".  By this theory
: genes appeared later, providing a dense, stable coding for efficient
: metabolisms which outcompeted the freestanding autocatalytic sets.
:
: According to recent calculation, substantial chunks of a large comets
: that struck Earth during the heavy bombardment period could have survived
: reentry, so that RN, DNA, and perhaps even chunks of "frozen
: soup" could have survived to seed the earth with early forms of
: life (which might still exist today in comet(s), but more likely
: were extinguished since the lifetime of comets is small).
:
: If life only appeared once on one comet, what is the probability
: that the comet calved off pieces that hit both Mars and Earth?
: I note that calving itself is a common occurence among
: comets, but either Earth and Mars would have had to line up
: fortuitously along the comet's orbit, or the calved pieces would
: have had to have been long-lived.  During the period of heavy
: bombardment, comets might have been extremely large, so that
: calving into thousands of long-lived, Halley-sized pieces is
: not out of the question.
:
: More importantly for the evolution of early life, a heavy
: density of calving comets may have provided many opportunities
: for autocatalytic sets on one comet to seed another comet, so
: that the evolution of life on comets could span the lifetime
: of many individual comets.  Comet lifetimes are often very short
: once they enter the inner solar system and become active, usually
: less than 1 million years.  Larger comets would last longer,
: but higher solar radiation flux, eg during the period which
: "dried out" the inner asteroid belt, might offset that.
:
: Nick Szabo                    [e-mail]
: --
: Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

I'm a little confused about (2) above.  Are you saying that molecules as
complex as DNA can be formed in comets??  This is something I am very
skeptical of.  The problem I see here is that a fairly high density of
organic material is needed to form such complex molecules.  Some work
is currently being done on the possibility of polymer formation in
comets however this is just getting started.  At this point, I have a
hard time believing that very complex molecules can form.

Rod Heyd

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

Date: 20 May 93 23:47 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity
Newsgroups: sci.space

are you the ken jenks presently employed by rockwell?
tom

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 93 00:13:39 +0400
From: "Ivan M. Moiseyev" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russia's space policy
Newsgroups: sci.space

     April 27, 1993 Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation
accept significant documents in field of Space Policy:
     1. Statement of the Supreme Soviet on the Priorities of the
Space Policy of the Russian Federation
     2. Resolution of the Supreme Soviet on Measures to Stabilize
the Situation in the Space Science and Industry
     This documents is analog of US President's Directives.
     The fact of adoption this documents means creating of new
Russia' Space Policy.

 STATEMENT OF THE SUPREME SOVIET ON THE  PRIORITIES OF THE SPACE
                POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
                            (briefly)

     1. In the Russian Federation, space activities shall be
conducted for the purposes of ensuring the well-being of the
people, developing the Russian Federation, strengthening its
security, as well as solving the global problems of humankind.
     In the context of the Russian space exploration effort it
must be ensured that
     - enterprises, organizations and citizens of the Russian
Federation have an equal right to participate in space activities
and use their results;
     - information about space activities be accessible to the
public;
     - monopolism be restricted and private enterprise
encouraged;
     - space projects and programmes be subjected to independent
examination;
     - space activities be safe, and environmental-friendly.
     2. Russia's Federal Space Programme shall be shaped in
conformity with the requirements and economic potential of
society and the state.
     Commercial space projects shall be aimed at achieving
maximum socio-economic effect, concentrating on the development
of information, communications, television and ecological
monitoring networks and on mineral wealth exploration.
     In the area of space research the priority should be given
to exploratory work that makes it possible to pose and achieve
fundamentally new objectives, as well as to applied development
projects commissioned by concrete customers.
     Military space exploration ought to be focussed largely on
using spacecraft for operational control, communications,
reconnaissance and other types OF SUPPORT to the armed forces.
     The Statement says about the need to effect structural
changes, including conversion of profitable aerospace enterprises
to joint-stock companies or their privatisation, which, however,
must accord with the specifics of the space industry and space
science. As this takes place, the unique test rigs and essential
space infrastructure will remain in state ownership and become
accessible to interested companies and organizations.
     The Statement points out that to preserve the intellectual
property of companies, organizations and individuals that have
participated in the development of spacecraft and space
technologies is of paramount importance. Drawing on the world
practice, it is necessary to work out a system of crediting,
taxation and government guarantees for companies and
organizations engaged in space projects.
     It emphasizes the importance of attracting foreign
investments backed by the government's appropriate guarantees and
those offered by interested Russian companies and organizations.
The Statement proceeds from the assumption that the state policy
should be aimed at supporting the efforts of domestic companies
and organizations in the world aerospace market, at promoting
international cooperation and integration in the area of space
exploration on the basis of mutual advantage, and at meeting
Russia's commitments under international agreements.

  RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME SOVIET ON MEASURES TO STABILIZE THE
           SITUATION IN THE SPACE SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY
                            (briefly)

     Resolution of the Supreme Soviet, instructs the Government
of the Russian Federation to:
     - authorize the RSA to commission on behalf of the
government the manufacture of space systems, complexes, and
technology employed in R&D and for commercial purposes, and also,
jointly with the Russian Ministry of Defence, the manufacture of
space systems, complexes and technology used both for civilian
and military purposes;

     - draw up a procedure for facilitating the implementation of
space projects financed by companies, organizations and
individual citizens, including by way of giving them government
guarantees, favorable credits, tax exemptions, etc.;
     - work out a programme of structural changes in space
science and space industry, including the creation of federal
space centers on the basis of the leading design bureaus and
research institutes, as well as holding and joint-stock companies
entitled to purpose-oriented financing, including from conversion
funds;
     - draw up a plan for the further utilization of the space
infrastructure, primarily the Plesetsk spaceport, with account
taken of socio-economic development aspects of the relevant
regions;
     - take the necessary steps to preserve the existing
scientific and production ties in the space sector of the
Commonwealth of Independent States, including holding
consultations with the Republic of Kazakhstan in order to specify
the status and prospects for a further joint use of the Baikonur
spaceport;
     - draw up and implement a single scientific and economic
policy related to international agreements on space exploration
and utilization, including commercial space projects.
     The Resolution provides for the creation of a Russian Space
Fund conceived as an independent entity that is to attract funds
both from internal and external sources in order to encourage
scientific research, to form insurance stocks, to introduce
aerospace production methods to other industries, and to support
campaigns in favour of using space technology as a means of
raising the educational and cultural standards of the public.
     It is also planned to set up an ad hoc group of deputies
composed of members of interested standing commissions and
committees under the chambers of the Supreme Soviet, which will
help to exercise parliamentary control over space activities.

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 10:14:17 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Charlie Prael) writes:
 >Scott-- You're ignoring several things that make live 30fps video
 >realitstic.  Those things are the military communications satellite array
 >that is normally used for transmitting data.  The TDRS series, for
 >instance, provide high data-rate transmission capabilities to both NASA
 >and the USAF.  There's LOT of ways to get 30fps video down in realtime.

Yes, but don't forget there are DOZENS of DoD sats up there, all competing
for the communications assets... some with astonishingly high data transfer
requirements, such as the GEO ELINT birds, two SAR imaging sats, and a long
list of others in addition to the Advanced KH-11 birds in question...

Another question is whats the NEED for "live video" from space?  The primary
job for these sats is to produce high resolution images (i.e. stills) of
areas for detailed analysis, to build up various maps and datasets, and to
be able to compare images of the same region from multiple satellite passes
in order to highlight any changes and such.  None of these missions would
be particularly enhanced by "video"...

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 07:26:33 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <1th6ql$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Walker Andrew John) writes:
>>>    We've destroyed most of the Earth, can't we at least leave something
>>>alone?We are supposed to be the most intelligent species, but sometimes
>>>you have to wonder.

>>We've destroyed the Earth? It was still there last time I looked. I
>>think "arrogant" is a trait we can agree on. We've _changed_ the
>>Earth, in some places quite radically. But suggest we've even
>>come close to destroying it (i.e. made it uninhabitable to all forms
>>of life) is probably the most arrogant thing I've heard in a
>>long time.

>    I was not suggesting we've made it uninhabitable to all forms
>of life, what I am saying is that if changes aren't made soon
>we could some time face big problems.As an example, in some areas of
>the world deforestation followed by farming has led to areas of land
>being left useless.Also our pollution is leading to many species
>becoming extinct...

Let's put this into perspective: When photosynthetic life first
evolved, wasn't the Earth's climate radically altered (by
converting a carbon dioxide atmosphere into a nitrogen/oxygen
one)? While mankind may be an evolutionary development that
causes mass extenctions, we certainly aren't the first to
do so. The planet and the ecosystem have survived none the less.

>...and fish stocks in certain areas have been greatly
>reduced.By destroying the earth I'm referring to our resources.Sure
>we can use them, we just have to be a lot more careful.

I think you are refering, therefore, to _self_destruction. At
least to my mind, there is a great difference between destroying
ourselves and destroying the entire world.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 06:02:02 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines

[e-mail] (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> Dan Gaubatz <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>For some reasons we humans think that it is our place to control
>>>everything.  I doubt that space advertising is any worse than any other
>>>kind advertising, but it will be a lot harder to escape, and is probably
>>>the most blatant example yet of our disregard for the fact that we are
>>>not in fact creaters of the universe.  Annoying little species, aren't we?

>>Particularly annoying are people like yourself who think that anything
>>human beings do is pathetic, insulting, and not worth trying.  While it is
>>true that we didn't create the universe, we CAN change many aspects of it
>>and we SHOULD change it in ways that improve our lives.  By your logic
>>we should just stop trying to make our lives better because we are
>>going to die anyway, and because we aren't powerful enough to control
>>everything in the universe in some vast and impossible way.  There's
>>something really sick of that view of man's place in the universe
>>and the pursuit of human values.

>I love it--one person does an extreme argument, then the next poster has
>to take it even further out. Look, Brian, your argument is too full
>of holes to detail them all, but basically: you are full of it.

Now there's a sound bit of argumentation.

>It is ridiculous to say "well, we change our environment some, therefore
>we should just change it haphazardly, and no one has the right to
>object to any changes we make, cause then they are obviously sick".

Perhaps you should read what I wrote, because that's not what I said.

>Just because we have changed our enviornment to make it more habitable
>is no justification for placing a billboard in space.

Of course it isn't, and it isn't the argument I made either.

>We DO change our environment to make it better, that is not the point.

Yes it is the point since that was the basic position of the original poster.
He made no particular arguments against space ads except that they
would be made by human beings who "disregard" the fact that they are
not the "creators of the universe".  My point was not to argue in favor
of doing haphazard things, or even to argue in favor of space ads,
but to point out the absurdity of the misanthropic ideas used to argue
against space ads.

>The point, which you avoided, is this: does adding a space billboard
>to the night sky make human life any better?

It probably would make life better, yes, but whether I'm right on that issue
or not SHOULD be the question at issue, not whether humans are an
annoying species with an evil self-important view themselves.  I would
love to debate the issue on the ground of human benefit, but first we need
to establish that human benefit (and human rights as a corrolary) IS the issue,
not whether human beings are contemptable worms.

>I (and lots of others) think not.

If not, then don't buy the products advertized and don't look at them.
My general take on space ads is that they are a kind of nifty fad, and that
they'll probably put up a few and people will get bored with them and
they'll stop.

Tell me, do you think that blimp advertising is bad?  Does it really annoy
you?  Why so?  How is a space ad different from a blimp ad.

>The only argument Ive heard in favor of this proposal
>is "o, its progress, you eco-freaks just want to stop progress.",
>which ignores the crucial point that putting a billboard in space
>doesn't make life any better for anyone except those who will be getting
>paid for it.

It is also doing some good for the folks who are paying for it too,
otherwise why would they be shelling out the millions necessary to
put them up in space?  Personally, I think it would be a pretty nifty
thing to see.  Do you think fireworks are a worthless expression of
human hubris too?  Do they not make human life better than it would
otherwise be?

As for environmentalists wanting to "stop progress", that is an
accurate argument against the environmentalists in the sense that
if all they say is "Space ads are bad because human beings are all
puffed up with themselves and space ads make that even worse."
then their arguments don't address the important issue and they are
even wrong on THAT issue too.

--Brian


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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 07:48:45 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Olaf Vancura) writes:
>>Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,
>>visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less
>>(down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
>>to me...

>Look Frank, give it a rest.  A) Your ignorance is amazing.

Are you trying to end an argument, or start one?

>...B) This has nothing to do with investing.

Follow-ups directed accordingly.

>Optical telescopes were probably 70% about 25 years ago, with most of
>the rest radio, but that's because of a lack of technology back
>then.  The advance of cryogenics, X-ray and UV reflective coatings and shell
>mirror assemblies, etc. has advanced IR, X-ray, and UV astronomy.
>Of course these new "windows" have advanced greatly, and optical has
>taken its place as a subset of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
>It certainly has not died, nor will it ever.  It contains information
>about 10^4 to 10^5 K gas not obtainable elsewhere.

If you care about 10^4 to 10^5 K gases. Some of us don't consider
stars the be all and end all of astronomy. Planets, nebulas,
molecular clouds, etc... are equally important parts of astronomy,
which only occasionally use optical astronomy. While optical
astronomy may be a valuable technique, it is no longer the
heart and blood of the field.

>>That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.
>>But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything
>>up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most
>>people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are

>Again Frank, your ignorance shows.  Humans cannot see out to 7 microns.
>Try 0.7 microns.  You're off by a factor of 10.

A reasonable person, reading my post, would correctly assume I had
made a typo and left out a decimal point. Someone looking for
an excuse for insults might reach a different conclusion.

>...The IRAS satellite
>(that's Infrared Astronomy Satellite) goes out to 100 microns.  They seem
>to have it straight.  No one in their right mind claims 100 microns is
>visible.

I was refering to the proposals for new adaptive optics telescopes:
They talk about "optical" systems (implying visible light) and
then refer to the potential resolving capability as many tens of
microns. While they don't directly call 100 microns "visible"
they imply that the mid-IR is part of the "optical" spectrum.
In effect they are exagerating the abilities of adaptive optics,
and making it appear as if these abilities applied to the
visible.

>>The sign the office door says, "Astrophysical, Planetary and
>>Atmospheric Sciences." Although perhaps my degree in astrophysics
>>from Berkeley doesn't qualify me either...

>I find it hard to believe you have a degree in astrophysics.
>My opinion of Berkeley just plummeted.  Did your degree come as the
>prize in a CrackerJack box?!

No, but I'm afraid the degree looks as if Berkeley spent about that
much printing it...

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 607
------------------------------