Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO645.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 28 May 93 14:49:46
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #645
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 28 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 645

Today's Topics:
                            Hubble vs Keck
                             New DC-X GIF
       Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? (2 msgs)
           Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan? (2 msgs)

    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: 28 May 1993 11:23 PDT
From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble vs Keck
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>On the other hand though, you do have one clear problem, above and beyond the
>technical ones, with HST that you don't have so much with Keck, and the other 8
>m when they copme on line. Lack of observing time. With Keck it would not be
>difficult to get several fields imaged deeper Tyson's during a couple of
>observing runs. What are the chances that you'd get a similar large amount of
>time of a facility like HST which is even more oversubscribed than Keck? In the
>future, as long as the repair mission works, I can see HST doing a lot of
>interesting ground breaking, but the bulk of the followup work will be done,
>where possible, from the ground, with instruments like Keck or Gemini.
>
Of course the flip side of this is that access to Keck time is restricted to
researchers from Caltech, UC or U Hawaii (45% each for Caltech and UC, 10%
for Hawaii).  This, of course, does not apply to any 8m class scope built
by NOAO, as all US researchers would have access to such facilities.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
[e-mail]                |
[e-mail]                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 28 May 1993 18:13:26 GMT
From: "Chris W. Johnson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New DC-X GIF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Robin Kenny,
[e-mail] writes:
> Some of the *.gif files can't be displayed. All were ftp'd in binary mode
> and some are OK (a very classy looking craft!) Have all gif's been checked
> for format?

Yes; they were all checked when they were uploaded and to the best of my
knowledge they're all fine. The only problem that's ever been reported
involved out of date graphics software that couldn't read the GIF89a format.
Most of the GIFs are in 89a either because they were submitted that way or
because software I used to rotate or crop them saved them out that way.

I could start checking all GIFs and downgrading them, as needed, to the old
87 format, but the better answer is just to get software that knows about 89,
since these can't be the only GIFs around in the more modern 89 format.

The best solution of all, however, is to use the JPEG (JFIF) files whenever
available.

If the problem you've encountered isn't related to the version of the GIF
format, let me know and I'll try to get to the bottom of it. Please send
me email directly, as this isn't really relevant to the net.

----Chris

Chris W. Johnson

Internet:   [e-mail]
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj

...wishing the Delta Clipper team success in the upcoming DC-X flight tests.

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

Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 14:35:15 GMT
From: "Bruce T. Harvey" <idsssd!bruce>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Claudio Oliveira Egalon) says:
> Kennith Johnson writes
>> Why does it matter so much whether or not Gus (it's spelled with
>> one 's', by the way) Grissom (with an 'm') was surprised at the way
>> his wife reacted?
>
> It matters so much because if he did not describe this incident
> accurately, he might had carried out other inaccuracies to other
> parts of his book.
>
> Claudio Oliveira Egalon

As a writer, I can give one good reason for describing the incident in a
particular manner ...  It's very disturbing to the reader to read a
section of a based-on-fact-but-dramatized book (i.e., fiction) that
states ...  "[Author's note: The next two paragraphs describe events
from two different points of view, based on probable events, the true
natures of which are not assuredly known but are widely deemed to be
accurate based on ... ] ...."

Mr.  Wolfe picked a direction and wrote it that way.  Besides, I believe
the exact quotes from the book show 3rd-Person Omniscient (remember that
from school days?), in which you are reading her thoughts, and _no_one_
tells you their exact thoughts, ever, even when they think they do ...
they can't.  And, I believe the 'slitting wrists' quote was made in
exasperation, rather than cold, cool deliberation.  A little different.

There are undoubtedly inaccuracies with regard to thoughts and feelings,
probably inaccuracies with regard to lesser events (tooling down a
highway, for instance ... smirking ... etc), and probably not with
regard to larger events and reported news.

All books work this way, because all people work this way.

--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bruce T. Harvey    (B-{>::      UUCP:    ... {uunet|mimsy}!wb3ffv!idsssd!bruce
Manager Appli. Devlopmt.::  INTERNET:     wb3ffv!idsssd!bruce%uunet.uu.net@...
INsight Distribution Sys::CompuServe:                               71033,1070
[phone] x315, x352:: SnailMail: 222 Schilling Cir.,Hunt Valley, MD 21031
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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

Date: 28 May 1993 17:54:32 GMT
From: "Bruce d. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

|> [...]
|> The movie is even worse than the book.

Perhaps on technical matters. But the general feel given in the movie
concerning life in the family of a "shit-hot" JO "stick-man", it is
100 pct accurate. I know because I grew up in such a family. The
frustration felt by the wives is dead-on.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

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

Date: 28 May 93 11:21:32 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>
>
>>I don't like him because he usually lets his politics dictate his
>>science. His nuclear winter theory was bogus scientifically but he
>>pushed it because it agreed with his politics. He opposed human
>>exploration of space saying it wasn't good science. Then he decided
>>the cold war would end if the US and USSR went to Mars together.
>>Suddenly, humans in space was GREAT science.
>
> My feelings *exactly*.  Given his record of late, I'm left feeling
> that Dr Sagan left his scientific integrity somewhere in the swirl of
> publicity quite a few years ago.  He lets his political agenda drive
> the analysis of data and the conclusions he claims to 'prove' with it;
> an odious habit in a scientist, to say the least.
>

His politics are definately a driving factor in his work.  But is that so
bad?  Someplace you have to balance science, politics, morality, reality,
etc...  The problem I see with Sagan is that he does have a lot of followers
who are not technical enough to determine where his science stops and his
politics begins.

I recently saw Sagan give an excellent lecture "Is there intelligent life
on Earth?".  The scenario is given a spacecraft flyby what could we determine
about life on Earth at varying degrees of resolution.  The crudest resolution
would detect life (chlorophyl), while at increasing resolutions we could
detect intelligent life (non-random structures).  At the highest resolutions
we would question the intelligence of the life (top soil loss on Madagascar
and the burning of the rain forest).  This is where the science stopped and
the politics took over.  Overall it was quite a sobering end to the lecture.
During the question and answer period Carl really got into his politics.

It seemed to me Carl has quit the nuclear war agenda and moved to two others.
Both of which are valid concerns and should be seriously considered.

1) The environment and what we are doing to our home.  He slammed Reagan
big time on this one.  The example was Ronnie's removing the solar panels
from the White House (installed by Carter) because they were "morally
objectionable".  Carl also wnated to know why everyone doesn't drive cars
that get 75 mpg.

    time out for my personal politics on this one:  I have resolved this
    problem in my mind.  I realized that the worse that we can do to
    this planet is cause the planet to flick us off like the parasites
    we are (unfortunately along with many other species).  But we have
    only been here for tens of thousands of years, the planet will have
    another 5 billion years to recover from us.  No problem, life will
    go on.

2)  Manned space flights.  This is a big question on how we are allocating
our limited resources for space research.  We spend huge quantities of money
for each shuttle flight.  The cost of keeping the people as safe as possible
in one of the major expenses.  While at the same time flights like Magellan
are in danger of being shut down because we don't have the eight million
dollars to keep it running.  The shuttle is performing a lot of experiments
with no public information on the results.  Exactly what are we getting from
each shuttle mission?  What are the objectives of manned space flight?
What objectives can not be accomplished by robotic flights?

    My personal politics:  Sagan has raised some good questions.
    Somebody needs to do this.  Enquiring minds do want to know.
    I love the idea of humans in space, but exactly what is the
    cost of us being there?  Would it be better to wait until we
    have exhausted the benefits of automated probes?  This comes
    from a personal bias I guess.  I have finally come to the
    realization that I will never make it into space.  So if I
    can't go, why should anyone else? ;-)

Overall, Carl Sagan dealt with some very technical areas in a way that made
the non-technical people in the audience understand.  This is the art that
Carl has that has made him so popular.  It is the popularity he has that
has given him the soapbox he stands on.  He is the conscious of the
scientific community.  It is a job that needs to be done.

Tony Cecce

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

Date: 28 May 1993 18:02:37 GMT
From: "Bruce d. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In the book Planets and their Atmospheres, JS Lewis and RG Prinn, two
very major players, credit Sagan with reviving the greenhouse theory,
originally suggested by Kuiper, in the 1960s. This is certainly a
non-trivial event. Sagan's area of expertise (if there is only one)
was planetary atmospheres; he has a paper in the big JGR volume from
Mariner 9 on wind-driven weathering processes.

I think people pick on him out of the purest jealousy. Besides being
a first-rate scientist, he is stylish and they are not. Sagan should
not be confused with the archetype who gets mystical about things for the
media. The skeptical side of his science is always prominent when he is
in public. If he has ever done anything to tarnish that image, it was
getting to close to the political advocates in the 1980s. One doesn't
see so much of that now, so maybe he has learned a little from it.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 645
------------------------------