Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_333.ZIP/V9_333

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QYBmWQy00UkZ8Fgk5J>;
          Mon,  3 Apr 89 03:17:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 03:17:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #333

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 333

Today's Topics:
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
              Mir Launch Manifest, 1989
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
              Re: Two questions.
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
            more on Liberty Bell 7
       chauvinism (was : Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?)
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 89 14:54:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Trant) writes:
>
>article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew T. DeLuca) says:
>
>% any *real* aliens would make contact with government officials, and we can
>% assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at some elementary
>% school, talking about U.S. drug policy.
>
> We should have talked to you for the best information on alien encounters
>since you apparently know exactly what is needed, who the aliens would talk
>to.  BTW which govt have the ET's decided to contact when the get here?.
>Maybe they are democrates and are waiting to talk to the Congress?. :-)

C'mon, think about it.  You're an alien, attempting to make a friendly contact
with Earth.  How would you do it?  Assume you have a basic knowledge about
the political and social structure of the planet.  You could (1) tell Dan
Rather.  Well, remember what happened in 1938, with the War of the Worlds
broadcast?  Panic across the Northeast United States.  Humanity tends to be
an irrational crowd at times, and with the recent (over the last few years)
spate of nasty alien movies, we night very well have a repeat.  If I was an
alien (actually, the allegation haas been made  :-), I would start from the
top down.  I think that the population as a whole would take the news better
from the government than from Dan Rather.

As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be?  I
would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are
the most advanced nation on earth, and (2) the U.N. (for all it's worth) is
located here, which (I assume, of course) would be an important location to
the aliens, since it is the closest thing we have to anything resembling a
world government.

Of course, I were the alien, I would come back in about a century; I don't thinkwe're really ready to deal with aliens.  A previous poster mentioned that this
is not really the appropriate place for this discussion, so if anyone cares
to continue it, send me mail.



--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: [e-mail]        :

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 17:32:16 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Mir Launch Manifest, 1989

The Soviets have released some information about their Mir schedule
for the rest of the year; together with some information from J. Oberg
and some estimates of my own, here is the expected activity for 1989-90.
Details of the Sep/Oct activity are based on Oberg's scenario. You are
warned that all attempts at detailed forecasts of Soviet space activity
have traditionally turned out to be totally wrong. Enjoy!

Progress-41 undock from rear port            Apr early?
Soyuz TM-8 launch, dock to rear port            Apr 19
    EO-4 Crew: Aleksandr Viktorenko, Aleksandr Balandin
Soyuz TM-7 undock from front port, land            Apr 29
    EO-3 Crew: Aleksandr Volkov, Sergey Krikalyov, Valeriy Polyakov
Soyuz TM-8 move to front port                May 1?
Progress-42 launch, dock to rear port            May
Progress-42 undock                    Jun
Progress-43 launch, dock to rear port            Jun
Progress-43 undock                    Jul
Progress-44 launch, dock to rear port            Jul
Progress-44 undock                    Aug
Soyuz TM-8 move to rear port                Sep
Doosnashcheniya modula launch, dock front port        Sep
D-modula move to side port 1                Sep
Soyuz TM-9 launch, dock front port            Oct
    EO-5 Crew: Not yet selected; possibly Anatoliy Solovyov, Aleksandr Serebrov
Soyuz TM-8 undock rear port                Oct
    EO-4 Crew: Aleksandr Viktorenko, Aleksandr Balandin
Progress-45 launch, dock rear port            Oct/Nov
Progress-45 undock from rear port            Nov
Soyuz TM-9 move to rear port                Dec
Tekhnologicheskaya modula launch,dock front port    Dec
T-modula move to side port 2                Dec
Soyuz TM-9 move to front port                Dec
Progress-46 launch, dock rear port            1990 Jan?


Long term scenario, caveat emptor:

Soyuz TM-10                        1990 Apr
    EO-6 crew replaces EO-5
Soyuz TM-11                        1990 Oct
    EO-7 crew replaces EO-6
Soyuz TM-12                        1991 Apr
    EO-8 crew replaces EO-7
Soyuz TM-13                        1991 Oct
    Visiting crew, with Austrian cosmonaut
Soyuz TM-14                        1992 Apr
    Visiting crew, with French cosmonaut
Soyuz TM-15                        1992 Oct
    EO-9 crew replaces EO-8

2 more modules to be added in this time period.
Mir 2 not expected until late 1990s.


 .----------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell       |  phone : [phone]              |
 |  Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell |
 |  60 Garden Street        | bitnet : [e-mail]        |
 |  Cambridge  MA 02138     |  inter : [e-mail]   |
 |  USA                     |   span : cfa::mcdowell              |
 |                          |  telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM      |
 |                          |    FAX : [phone]              |
 '----------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 19:37:01 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc![e-mail]  (Ken Trant)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?


article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew T. DeLuca) says:
% Xref: nsc sci.space:10486 rec.ham-radio:1579 talk.rumors:907 misc.headlines:11954
% In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MacLeod) writes:
%%On Tuesday March 14, 1989 at 6:42 am the following message was received by a
%%UFO investigator in Baltimore through WA3NAN (Goddard) amateur radio
%%transission from the orbiter Discovery.  "Houston, this is Discovery.  We
%%still have the alien space craft, uhh, under observance."  The transmission
%%was picked up on a Radio Shack scanner tuned to 147.45 mhz.
%%
% This is patently ridiculous, thinking that this is actually an alien spacecraft
% sighting.  Most likely, this was either a bit of humor, or the 'alien'
% spacecraft is 'alien' only in the sense that it was not made in the US (most
% likely Soviet).  First of all, if there really was an alien craft, and the crew
% wanted to say something to Houston about it and wanted to keep it secret, they
% would *not* broadcast over an open, unencrypted channel that every Tom, Dick,
% and Harry with a $99.95 scanner could pick up.  More likely, if an alien ship

I think the poster suggested that the "fire on board" statement might have been
prearranged code to switch to another channel. Not to unlikely.

% did appear near the shuttle, the crew would turn around and head for home, under
% orders from the ground, since they're not equipped for alien contact. Finally,

what equipment would you take to an alien encounter?. How are the astronauts
not equipt to handle an encounter with aliens?.

% any *real* aliens would make contact with government officials, and we can
% assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at some elementary
% school, talking about U.S. drug policy.

 We should have talked to you for the best information on alien encounters
since you apparently know exactly what is needed, who the aliens would talk
to.  BTW which govt have the ET's decided to contact when the get here?.
Maybe they are democrates and are waiting to talk to the Congress?. :-)


--
PATH= Second star to the right,          {...Ken Trant...}
      and straight on till morning
National SemiConductor, 1135 Kern Ave. M/S 7C-266; Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Uucp: ...{pyramid,sun,amdahl,apple}!nsc!ken

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 18:33:40 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce![e-mail]  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Two questions.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>
>1.  I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids
>towards earth was really neat.  Question: won't it be awfully hard to
>get the exact trajectory of the asteroid correct?

Good thought, kind of like playing intergalactic billards with egg shaped
balls.

>2.  If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't
>it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a
>merrily burning fusion reaction?  Alternatively, shoot it into the
>center of the sun.  Alternatively, shoot it at the stars.  Why have we
>only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far?

The only easy hot fusion that I know of (given my admittedly limited knowlage
on the subject) is that in an H-Bomb, the side effects of this would be a
bit dramatic (as well as noisy).

The idea of launching the wastes into space has been thought of by others,
but can you imagine what would have happened if the Challenger
was carrying up a load of spent fuel cores. There would be radioactive
pellets scattered about most of the eastern seaboard.  Does anyone know
how far away from the Cape that pieces of the Challenger were found?

Even with the use of a rail launcher the risks would be high.  There is still
a chance that a structural failure or failure on the part of the power supply
that could dump the load in the middle of someones lap.

The idea is good but the risks make it unusable.


--
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) [e-mail] or
Roseville MN 55113                    [e-mail]
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 11:14:58 GMT
From: sgi!shinobu!shinobu.sgi.com![e-mail]  (David Watson)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Tossy) writes:


   [...] depending upon the technology, it maybe cheaper to build
   less capacity and use the existing powergrid to load balance than it would
   be to build enough capacity for each site to meet its peak demand.  (My
   house uses little energy during the day and my office uses little power
   at night.  Today with centralized power production we can share the
   installed power plant capacity - not so without a power grid.)

This implies something that deserves explicit mention: there is nothing
I know of that makes a "grid" incompatible with decentralizing energy
production.  In at least some places, individuals with windmills sell
their surplus power back to a utility.  If each household made enough
power on the average, couldn't we still use the "grid" just to balance the
load?  What if utilities stopped producing and became brokers?

            -D.

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 15:07:28 GMT
From: pdn!rnms1![e-mail]  (0000-Akash Deshpande(0000))
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chuck Kring) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>> Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
>> land into mirrors.
>
>    1> Deserts get cold at night because there is little vegetation or
>    2> If the greenhouse effect were a problem, then much of the reflected

and spacecrafts and airplanes will have a real problem. Gives a new meaning to
mirage, though. And isn't there a plane called mirage, tying all these together?
-Akash

Akash Deshpande                    ATT Paradyne
uunet!pdn!ard                    Mail stop LG-129
[phone] o                 Largo, Florida 34649-2826
Like certain orifices, every one has opinions. I haven't seen my employer's!

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 17:18:41 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!dover![e-mail]  (Mike Waters)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Trant) writes:

>I think the poster suggested that the "fire on board" statement might have been
>prearranged code to switch to another channel. Not to unlikely.

Yes I think that would be the LAST code I would pick. Something like "I need
to send you some numbers" would get far less unwelcome attention and is just
as distinctive.

Airports use similar codes in paging, they NEVER announce: "Fire and Bomb
Squad report to gate 6". It comes out as: "Mr Williams please meet your party
at gate 6 right away." The reasons are pretty obvious in both cases. If Mr
Williams is the head to the fire and bomb squad for that shift it is both
secure and known to everyone who needs to know.

--
*Mike Waters    AA4MW/7  ...!sun!sunburn!dover!waters OR [e-mail]*
"Calvin Coolidge was the greatest man who ever came out of Plymouth
Corner, Vermont."
        -- Clarence Darrow

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

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 18:29:09 CST
From: [e-mail] (Harold E Mueller)
Subject: more on Liberty Bell 7

April issue of "Skin Diver" (p. 122) has a note about the planned recovery
of Liberty Bell 7.  Note says Subsurface Technologies (Subtek), a Fort Worth,
TX organization specializing in underwater artifact recovery, has been
given NASA sanction to recover the capsule.  Subtek has created the Liberty
Bell 7 Recovery Foundation to run the operation.  Capsule will be located with
a Subtek-developed device called EMS-3; no details on it.  Capsule is at
5000 meters, "the deepest manned recovery ever attempted."  Recovery
will be carried live from "a deep diving research submarine with
specially designed underwater television cameras" and a "floating marine
archaeology facility with live television broadcasting capabilities."
Subtek also plans to recover Spanish treasure ships and give artifacts
to museums.  Contacts:  Robert Fuller or Larry Moore, Liberty Bell 7
Foundation, 6618 Azle Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76135, [phone].

Hal Mueller                  [e-mail]
Grad Student, CS Dept.       n270ca@tamunix (Bitnet)
Texas A&M University         [phone]

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 22:18:38 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: chauvinism (was : Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
> [...]
> As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be?  I
> would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are
> the most advanced nation on earth, [...]

I think you are lucky that usually postings to sci.space are restricted
to the USA, otherwise you would soon be buried in flames by a lot of
Europeans and Japanese, and quite a few other nationalities too.
Canadians are probably too polite to even comment on your statement, :-),
but it really bugs me...

I can't believe that attitude, it usually goes hand-in-hand with
"the USA is the only real free country in the world", etc....
Contrary to popular opinion, people can (and do) say anything they like
(without resorting to libel and slander, of course) in quite a few other
countries around the world.

I suppose any further discusions in this vein should be restricted
to sci.politics or whatever; I don't read those groups anyway. |-O
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 06:09:20 GMT
From: att!alberta!ncc!atha![e-mail]  (Ross Alexander)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Nonsense.  Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big
> deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems
> is certainly a nuisance.
[...]
> You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
> space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, or just being

As a matter of fact, if your propulsion technology is good enough, it
will supply artificial gravity all by itself - one gravity constant
boost is artificial gravity by any reasonable definition of the term.
:-)

    Ross

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #333
*******************