Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V11_3/V11_396.ZIP/V11_396

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

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/IaHYGFm00VcJIMnE52>;
          Mon, 14 May 90 01:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 14 May 90 01:38:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #396

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 396

Today's Topics:
    Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)
              Carl Sagan's Bugs
               Re: why there are no ETs
               Re: why there are no ETs
    Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)
Re: Dirigible launchers (was Re: Pegasus launchers, space-going DUCT TAPE)
    Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)
    Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)
            Re: Voyager Update - 05/08/90
               Re: Sex in space
               Re: why there are no ETs
               Re: Sex in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 May 90 01:55:39 GMT
From: crdgw1!sixhub![e-mail]  (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

| Great idea!  Now, when will someone figure out as practical a way to
| terraform this planet?  (only 1/2 a :-] on that one)

  We're doing a pretty good job now, aren't we?
--
bill davidsen - [e-mail] (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 13 May 90 21:30:42 EST
Subject: Carl Sagan's Bugs
Source-Info:  From (or Sender) name not authenticated.



     Carl Sagan suggested using microorganisms in _Cosmos_ (I believe).  He
suggested using dark-colored bacteria at or near the poles of Mars.  The
bacteria would live on ambient moisture and gas there.  Their darkness would
allow them and their environment to absorb heat, hopefully raising the
temperature.  If successful, the polar ice caps would melt to liberate water
and gases for an atmosphere.

    These ideas were proposed by Carl Sagan, and I do not necessarily concur
with them.  Of course, the ideas may not have even been Sagan's - he may have
just been writing about the theories of others at the time.

                                              David R. Brierley
                                              Northeastern University Geology

                                         [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 May 90 20:56:41 GMT
From: decvax.dec.com!zinn!ubbs-nh!siia![e-mail]  (David Dick)
Subject: Re: why there are no ETs

acad!megalon![e-mail] (Paul Baclaski) writes:


>It just occured to me that one of the possible reasons we have not discovered
>extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe is that they have
>created full fledged virtual reality systems and feel no need to
>go exploring space because they have enough fun exploring the inner
>space of their collective minds.

A problem we may encounter, also--collective navel contemplation
isn't very effective in helping to solve little problems like
environment-destroying meteorites or other calamities.

David Dick
Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company(sm)]

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

Date: 14 May 90 04:26:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Edward Joseph Bennett)
Subject: Re: why there are no ETs

>bill davidsen - [e-mail] (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) wrirtes:

>  What are the odds of two civilizations existing at the same time?
>Earth is at least 3 billion years old, and we have been using radio for
>maybe 100 years. Assuming no change in the world population trends we
>will no longer have resources for space exploration in another 100
>years. That leaves a very small window for an intelligent race to
>discover us.

This overly pessimistic and has many flaws. First, I thought one of the
reasons for developing space is to expand are supply of resources. In
our solor system there are huge supplies of metals, energy, etc., etc.
Second, Assuming no change in world population trends may be flawed. The
US for example in the past century has went from large population growth
to negative population growth (Our small population growth is from
immigration). Likewise most other 'Developed nations' have. It is only
third world nations that have a population boom. If we end the cold war
and channel efforts to bring education and birth control (and economic
progress in general) to these regions there is no reason to assume
current population trends. Third, The big problem we have is not really
a lack of resources but unequal distribution of resources, inefficient
use of resources, and armed conflict. The world can easily produce
enough food to feed everyone many times over but the US pays farmers to
leave fields empty.

Lets treat Earth as a typical planet. It seems that civilizations will
becoming into space technology just as many other problems are starting
to become acute. The question is what is the probability that a
civilization will adress these problems and solve them before it is too
late. (avoid blowing themselves up, destroying the enviroment, and
overpopulating themselves). I personally would say the probability of
this is at least 1 in 10 civilizations would make it and extend their
window well beyond the 100 years you give them.

I think the real question on E.T.'s is why don't they want to be seen.
Certainly any civilization with interstellar travel capabilities would
certainly have the technology to escape our primitive means of detection
if they so wished. Probability is that their are E.T.'s visiting and
they are not allowing themselves to be detected (or at least not
confirmed). So can we think of a theory that would explain why they
wouldn't want to be detected.

Ed

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

Date: 13 May 90 04:05:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Edward Joseph Bennett)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)


Since we our allowing for the possiblility to divert coments from their
orbits, remove moons from Saturn, and build blinds big enough to shade
all of venus I'll throw my far out idea out for cooling Venus. Simply
move it farther from the sun. Now I don't know what kind of imapact this
would have on Earth but while we are moving it why don't we let the
Earth and Venus orbit each other as a binary planet system. We can do
whatever with the moon if it would complicate things too much. This
might be a real bad idae. I don't know if an orbit could be found to
that wouldn't dramatically change the Earth climate and tides.

Also if you use the Venitian blinds approach mentioned before you could
also solve the problem of having the days be too long. Just open and
close the blinds in a cycle that simulated an Earth day. I suppose you
could even simulate seasons this way.

Ed

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

Date: 14 May 90 01:59:59 GMT
From: crdgw1!sixhub![e-mail]  (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Dirigible launchers (was Re: Pegasus launchers, space-going DUCT TAPE)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrian Hurt) writes:

| Even the B-1B can go faster and higher than a B-52, although in its military
| role it probably wouldn't do so.  The B-52 can't go beyond Mach 1; the B-1B
| can; and the B-1A could go at Mach 2.  The B-52 can't get over 50,000 feet;
| both B-1 types can get over 60,000 feet.

  The XB70 could go mach 3 in the 60s. I wonder how hard it would be to
retool the design and convert the bomb bay to passenger space. I see
that Boeing is going to spend (I believe) 35 million on evaluating the
development of a new SST to replace the Concorde. The XB70 was twice as
fast as the goal of this new system, and appeared to have a much higher
cargo (weight) capacity. I suppose that like so much technology it has
been lost or classified.
--
bill davidsen - [e-mail] (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

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

Date: 14 May 90 05:02:34 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!uluru5![e-mail]  (Daniel Ake CAROSONE)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward Joseph Bennett) writes:
> [..] my far out idea out for cooling Venus. Simply
> move it farther from the sun. Now I don't know what kind of imapact this
> would have on Earth but while we are moving it why don't we let the
> Earth and Venus orbit each other as a binary planet system. We can do
> whatever with the moon if it would complicate things too much. This
> might be a real bad idae. I don't know if an orbit could be found to
> that wouldn't dramatically change the Earth climate and tides.


The place you are looking for is at one of the Langrange points of the
Earth's orbit. The idea is that we get Venus to execute the same orbit as Earth
with a time delay. Orbits that have such configurations (a delay of 60 degrees
of arc) are stable.

Putting the Venus/Earth system into a binary orbit would indeed be a Very Bad
Idea, unless the Earth's biosphere gets so bad that we have to reverse
Terraform Terra. Then just about anything goes. (no smiley. This is serious)

[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 May 90 16:32:51 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watcgl!watnow![e-mail]  (Mark Earnshaw)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward Joseph Bennett) writes:
>Since we our allowing for the possiblility to divert coments from their
>orbits, remove moons from Saturn, and build blinds big enough to shade
>all of venus I'll throw my far out idea out for cooling Venus. Simply
>move it farther from the sun. Now I don't know what kind of imapact this
>would have on Earth but while we are moving it why don't we let the
>Earth and Venus orbit each other as a binary planet system.

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to place Venus in the same orbit as Earth, but
on the opposite side of the sun?  I have no idea how this would affect the
other planets (if at all).  My guess would be that it wouldn't have any
negligible effect though.

Of course, this solution would make travel to Venus somewhat difficult unless
you just stopped dead in space and waited the 182.5 days for Venus to reach
you (might have to do some maneuvering to counter-act the sun's gravity).  :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Earnshaw, Systems Design Engineering       {uunet,utai}!watmath!watnow!mark
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada         [e-mail].{edu,cdn}

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

Date: 13 May 90 03:44:55 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Rick Ellis)
Subject: Re: Voyager Update - 05/08/90

In a message of <May 09 12:08>, Lance Michel ([e-mail]) writes:

 LM> >        One Week    Propellant Remaining     Output     Margin
 LM> >  Spacecraft (Gm)             (Kg)           Watts      Watts
 LM> >   Voyager 1  42            36.5 + 2.0        370         59
 LM> >   Voyager 2   6            39.6 + 2.0        374         66

 LM>                 ^
 LM> Okay, I give... What is this?

Grams of propellant used per week.


--
uucp:     Rick Ellis
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 13 May 90 22:47:30 GMT
From: netnews.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu![e-mail]  (Pravin Maheshwari)
Subject: Re: Sex in space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris May) writes:
>>... a friend and I are interested in knowing whether anyone has
>>had sexual intercourse while in orbit...
>
Wasn't there some discussion a few months ago about some NASA experiments!
__________________________________________________________________________
pravin maheshwari
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[phone] (h)
[phone] (o)

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

Date: 14 May 90 01:54:20 GMT
From: crdgw1!sixhub![e-mail]  (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: why there are no ETs

In article <[e-mail]> acad!megalon![e-mail] (Paul Baclaski) writes:
|
| It just occured to me that one of the possible reasons we have not discovered
| extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe is that they have
| created full fledged virtual reality systems and feel no need to
| go exploring space because they have enough fun exploring the inner
| space of their collective minds.

  What are the odds of two civilizations existing at the same time?
Earth is at least 3 billion years old, and we have been using radio for
maybe 100 years. Assuming no change in the world population trends we
will no longer have resources for space exploration in another 100
years. That leaves a very small window for an intelligent race to
discover us.
--
bill davidsen - [e-mail] (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

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

Date: 14 May 90 04:09:19 GMT
From: elbereth.rutgers.edu![e-mail]  (Trashy)
Subject: Re: Sex in space


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
    (Chris May) writes:
>... a friend and I are interested in knowing whether anyone has
>had sexual intercourse while in orbit...

The latest figure I heard for "space shuttle sex" is that
it has been done at least seven times.  Apparently it is a difficult
process.  You need a third person to steady you.


--
Barry Schwartz              [e-mail]
(When I am in Canada, try {...rutgers}!utai!lsuc!nrcaer!alzabo!trashman)

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #396
*******************