Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V11_2/V11_265.ZIP/V11_265

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/Ma:K4f600VcJM5iE4s>;
          Mon, 16 Apr 90 02:07:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 90 02:07:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #265

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 265

Today's Topics:
        Re: releasing data / digitized images
                Re: HST Images
             Re^3: Fermi paradox
        Re: releasing data / digitized images
               Re: Interstellar travel
               Re: Interstellar travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 90 05:02:46 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (Ted Fabian)
Subject: Re: releasing data / digitized images

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Fabian) writes:
>>I'd like to add a few comments to the recent discussion which has been


 stuff from my original article deleted


>
>I only quote this paragraph to point out that, to the extent Ted gets
>"negative feedback" on these opinions, it is NOT likely to center around
>his presumed access to images -- but rather on the opinions themselves.


thus far, I've only seen three replies to my message.. and yours is the only
one that really could be considered negative.. but that's beside the point...


>
>>Many folks have been critical of policies which seemingly prohibit release
>>of images until one year has passed..
>
>This is not the primary criticism.  Most everything anyone has asked for
>is lots more than a year old.  The objection is that even DECADE-old
>images are not available in a digital form where amateurs can easily get



Tom, you clearly are missing the point I was trying to make...  while the data
is probably available somewhere, the processes in which it was likely archieved
have made it either very difficult to find or to use let alone supply it to
hobbiests or amateur researchers...


I've heard discussions in which folks have difficulty in finding shuttle
data and drawings from the design phases because it was not filed or
cataloged properly in an electronic format.. and that was recent data...
do you really expect data from a decade ago to be stored any better??

sadly, I don't think it is... I could be wrong, but since the project I
am working on is supposed to correct prior mistakes in current projects,
I suspect I'm not far offbase..


>
>
>>First and foremost, the overall goal of the spcae program and / or the
>>particular mission (in this case, the HST) needs to be weighed against
>>the benefits provided by releasing the images...
>
>The overall goal is knowledge.  This is not something that has to be
>"weighed against" releasing publicly announced results in machine
>readable form.


aqgreed.. knowledge is a desirable goal.. but there is a fine line between who
needs what knowledge...


As Mary Shaffer points out to you in another reply to your message, you (and
others) have still not given any valid reason or research goal for needing
the data...


consider the following:

data is made available to the world at large through the networks.. it's
then grabbed from a server somewhere by foreign groups or individuals with
whom the United States does not currently have exchange agreements.. those
people research that data, and turn it around into something that could be
used against the United States...

now that scenerio may not apply here for digitized space images, but the
idea is the same.. if someone does not have the "need to know" or the
"need to access data" that data should not be released...

it would be like my asking you personally to post you income tax returns
and copies of all your receipts to the nets... you'ld undoubtedly respond
that it's "none of my business"... it's the same thing here.. while some folks
may be justified in needing the images, it's not necessarily the best vehicle
to release those images over the net... some control needs to be present..
yet the same goal exists in my asking you for your tax info.. it would
provide me knowledge... again, your control of that info stops me..


think about it..




>
>>I don't think that it will.. if you have a need to get the data, you're
>>either already in such a position, or you know how to get the data without
>>complaining openly to the world about it..
>>
>>rather, I think the things we're seeing in SCI.SPACE as of late are from
>>people who don't have a need to have the data.. they simply want the data
>>either as a status symbol, or as some sort of ego booster..
>
>This is pretty awful, and I hope/assume Ted's already sorry he wrote
>it.  It's also why we don't pay random GS's in the research centers to
>decide who "needs" data.


no, I'm not sorry.. I'm trying to point out reality to you... also,
your crack about "random GS's in research centers" is not very nice...

the folks who are the GS level workers in NASA (myself included) are
a dedicated bunch of people who could move to private industry and double
or triple their incomes.. but they have chosen to dedicate themselves to
research or development roles as civil servants...

if you've got problems with their decisions, or their decision making
processes, try walking a mile in their shoes before you step on their toes...
they're using their best judgement under the circumstances and within the
guidelines they've got to live with...




>
>Someday a team of three or four bright high school students will
>announce a totally unexpected new discovery based on NASA information
>they got from a BBS or CIS or UUCP download from some generous, forward
>thinking clearinghouse person who decided to attack this problem in spite
>of the nay-saying attitudes expressed above.   What an ego booster, eh.


I hope you're right that some bright folks will be motivated to make new
discoveries.. but I trust that they'll get their start by going through
channels, and by having the research backing, or the grants, or the
resources to work with the system, not against the system...




       remainders of my original, and Tom's reply message deleted...


>
>'We have luck only with women -- not spacecraft!'     \\  Tom Neff
> -- R. Kremnev, builder of failed Soviet FOBOS probes //  [e-mail]


--
----------------------------------------------------
Thanks,    Ted Fabian   NASA Lewis Research Center
           [e-mail]      *my opinions
           [e-mail]      *are my own..
--
----------------------------------------------------
Thanks,    Ted Fabian   NASA Lewis Research Center
           [e-mail]      *my opinions
           [e-mail]      *are my own..

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

Date: 15 Apr 90 22:39:36 GMT
From: uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU![e-mail]  (Greg S. Hennessy)
Subject: Re: HST Images

In article <5A040F0F19280354-MTABWIDENER*DXANDY@widener> [e-mail] writes:
#
#  What's to stop some enterprising amateur (or professional) astronomer
#from intercepting the signals from the HST and decoding them himself?

The downlink goes into White Sands Missle Range. Not a very large area
to have a receiver in. I don't know how large of a dish you would
need. The decoding of the signals would not be trivial.



-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: 16 Apr 90 02:36:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Landon Dyer)
Subject: Re^3: Fermi paradox

In article <[e-mail]> (Frank Scherb) writes:
>Why not consider the idea that the Galaxy is so big that given about
>a million years of exploration you still only see a very small piece
>at best? ...

I know where they are: they've been nibbled to death by ducks:

    "Sorry, Jor-El, the senate proxmired the appropriations bill
     for your probe, and the `Save Krypton' lobby is petitioning
     the EPA to outlaw mass-drivers because they affect the planet's
     spin...

    "In any case, you can't launch the thing with a Kryptonite power
     reactor -- you have to use something SAFE, like plutonium."

It's quite possible that bureaucracy and political short-sightedness
are universal...

:-)

--

-----------------------------------------  "Mmmph!  Urghurmph!  Grugmph!"
Landon Dyer, Apple Computer, Inc.          "What's he trying to say?"
Development Systems Group (MPW / DSG)      "I dunno -- someone shoved a
NOT THE VIEWS OF APPLE COMPUTER              lawyer in his mouth."

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

Date: 13 Apr 90 00:01:25 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: releasing data / digitized images

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Fabian) writes:
>I'd like to add a few comments to the recent discussion which has been
>going on here in SCI.SPACE about the releasing of images in formats
>that allow those images to be viewed on PCs.. however, I suspect that
>I'm liable to get negative feedback.. so let me preface my thoughts by
>first saying that I'm in no way connected to the HST Project, nor am I
>in any position that would provide me with access to their data or their
>images.. if I wanted the images, I'd have to wait like everyone else..

I only quote this paragraph to point out that, to the extent Ted gets
"negative feedback" on these opinions, it is NOT likely to center around
his presumed access to images -- but rather on the opinions themselves.

>Many folks have been critical of policies which seemingly prohibit release
>of images until one year has passed..

This is not the primary criticism.  Most everything anyone has asked for
is lots more than a year old.  The objection is that even DECADE-old
images are not available in a digital form where amateurs can easily get
their hands on them for private study and research.  The amazing growth
of amateur computer data exchange is being ignored.

As for new HST data, I have heard nothing but understanding and sympathy
for the yearlong investigators' data embargo.  It makes sense.  But this
does not address the unavailability of older data, or data not affiliated
with a particular investigation team (like the guidance images slated
for early release in a few weeks).

>First and foremost, the overall goal of the spcae program and / or the
>particular mission (in this case, the HST) needs to be weighed against
>the benefits provided by releasing the images...

The overall goal is knowledge.  This is not something that has to be
"weighed against" releasing publicly announced results in machine
readable form.

>I don't think that it will.. if you have a need to get the data, you're
>either already in such a position, or you know how to get the data without
>complaining openly to the world about it..
>
>rather, I think the things we're seeing in SCI.SPACE as of late are from
>people who don't have a need to have the data.. they simply want the data
>either as a status symbol, or as some sort of ego booster..

This is pretty awful, and I hope/assume Ted's already sorry he wrote
it.  It's also why we don't pay random GS's in the research centers to
decide who "needs" data.

Someday a team of three or four bright high school students will
announce a totally unexpected new discovery based on NASA information
they got from a BBS or CIS or UUCP download from some generous, forward
thinking clearinghouse person who decided to attack this problem in spite
of the nay-saying attitudes expressed above.   What an ego booster, eh.

[ the remainder of Ted's posting, which manages to miss the point
completely about what people want from HST -- we'd like a tiny sample
of images released from the labs, and at the discretion, of individual
investigators, in whatever format they stored them on their Suns etc
before release, plus a tiny sample of guidance/engineering images from
HST support itself, again in any format they want -- is omitted. ]
--
'We have luck only with women -- not spacecraft!'     \\  Tom Neff
 -- R. Kremnev, builder of failed Soviet FOBOS probes //  [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Apr 90 05:14:26 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel

>So what is the Fermi Paradox?  Is this the equation where you try
>to estimate various factors which relate to the chances of intelligent life...

To sum up *very* briefly, the Fermi Paradox is that interstellar flight at
substantial fractions of the speed of light doesn't seem too difficult for
a civilization not much older than ours, a single civilization can thereby
fill the entire galaxy in an eyeblink of geological time, and such
civilizations ought to be common in the galaxy by everything we know now...
so, in Fermi's words:  "Where are they?".  Why haven't we been visited?
Why has native intelligence (ours) been able to develop undisturbed on a
planet that has been ripe for colonization for a billion years or so?
Why aren't the large engineering works of *really* advanced civilizations
visible in the galaxy?

It is not difficult to concoct explanations for why a single civilization
would fail to be visible.  The hard part is making the explanations really
inevitable, so that even oddball civilizations well off the normal
development path cannot escape them, while making them natural enough so
that *we* don't have to be inordinately lucky or extremely unusual to
have gotten as far as we have.

I've seen many proposed explanations of the Fermi Paradox; I researched
the subject a bit for a series of articles on it for the Canadian Space
Society newsletter a while ago.  I find none of the proposals believable
enough to account for the evidence.  It's unsolved.
--
With features like this,      |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
who needs bugs?               | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Apr 90 06:23:46 GMT
From: oravax![e-mail]  (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Re: Interstellar travel

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
] >So what is the Fermi Paradox?  Is this the equation where you try
] >to estimate various factors which relate to the chances of intelligent life...
]
] To sum up *very* briefly, the Fermi Paradox is that interstellar flight at
] substantial fractions of the speed of light doesn't seem too difficult for
] a civilization not much older than ours, a single civilization can thereby
] fill the entire galaxy in an eyeblink of geological time, and such
] civilizations ought to be common in the galaxy by everything we know now...
] so, in Fermi's words:  "Where are they?".  Why haven't we been visited?
] Why has native intelligence (ours) been able to develop undisturbed on a
] planet that has been ripe for colonization for a billion years or so?
] Why aren't the large engineering works of *really* advanced civilizations
] visible in the galaxy?

What's always puzzled me about the Fermi Paradox is why it's considered
paradoxical.  Since Fermi's argument is a strong one, it strongly
suggests that "what we know now", just isn't so.  This is hardly
paradoxical (unless you go by the "demonstrated proposition which is
contrary to received wisdom" sense of "paradox").  So what if
intelligent life is rare in the galaxy?  Why not?

I don't know about the rest of the human race, but I find the prospect
of an unpopulated galaxy for us to explore and populate to be
completely within reason, and very exhilarating besides.

--
Douglas Harper                     oravax![e-mail]
"Finally, in conclusion, let me say just this."   -- Peter Sellers

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #265
*******************