Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V11_4/V11_452.ZIP/V11_452

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/YaLVJSq00VcJQ1Ok4z>;
          Sat, 26 May 90 01:34:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <gaLVIx-00VcJA1N05=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 26 May 90 01:33:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #452

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 452

Today's Topics:
              Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #450
              Squirrels, the pope, etc.
     Payload Summary for 05/24/90 [Corrected] (Forwarded)
            Re: Splitting "SPACE"
              Re: Origin of SPS concept?
               Re: Endangered squirrels
                spacy pictures
              Re: Origin of SPS concept?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date:     Fri, 25 May 90  09:56:24 EDT
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #450

> I have said that the Church does support space research
> and I have pointed to the proposed scope as a concrete example.

Exactly what the church supports and does not support are often matters
of extreme secrecy, known only to the pope and his senior cardinals, and
your interpretation of what the church intends does not alter this.
>
> As far
> as money and power are concerned the Church uses it to help the poor

Noone can be that naive. The church collects the pennies, sou, centavos,
and every other denomination of currency they can wring OUT OF THE POOR,
and uses the proceeds to play giant corporation, which they are.

> There has been some debate within the last few months about whether or not
> medical researchers should incorporate the results of the Nazi experiments
> in their current research.  Obviously some feel that the results might be
> useful

Those in the world who are human monsters have already made use of the
results of the nazi "experiments" to advance human knowledge of torture,
since the information was made available in 1945, and it has proven to
be very "useful."

>
>      Also on the subject of nuclear weapons, you wrote:  "Noone
> involved in the Manhattan Project wanted the bomb used on human
> beings.  They signed a petition to that effect.  The War Dept. and
> the Prez ignored it.  Who's fault is this?"
>
The president and the War Department

Although I inadvertantly lost the portion referring to limitations on
land ownership by the roman catholic church, I respond to it nevertheless.
I repeat that the island of Manhattan is in the hands of THREE (count 'em,
ONLY THREE) major landlords, and one of these, arguably the largest of 'em,
is the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. The estimate of their holdings there is in
excess of 60 BILLION DOLLARS. The same is true in many cities, in many
countries, all over the world. I would say that the true wealth of the
church is probably the only truly incalculable quantity on the planet Earth.

> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 24 May 90 21:07:11 GMT
> From: MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU![e-mail]  (Donald Lindsay)
> Subject: Re: Squirrels
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >It is time to set priorities straight.
> >1) The progress of human science IS IMPORTANT.
> >2) The artificially (and forcibly) induced welfare of a small number
> >   of animal pests IS NOT!
> >Therefore,
> >3) Get on with building the observatory, and consign the hapless
> >   squirrel pests to the care of the forces of nature which bred
> >   them.
> >4) When, as a result of human presence in their "habitat," their
> >   numbers rise (as they inevitably will) into the thousands, put
> >   a bounty on them, and publish "100 Ways to Prepare Red Squirrel."
>
>
> This whole thread has been distinguished by an absence of hard fact.
>
> Now it's being distinguished by emotional and unscientific attitudes.
>
> It doesn't seem to have occurred to the poster that the progress of
> biological science is important, too, and would be kinda thwarted to
> have its subject material become extinct ... something that must be a
> possibility if presumably-reputable biologists are concerned about
> it.
>
> Not that I know that that would happen. I don't have the facts,
> either, but at least I admit it. And in the absence of knowledge,
> wisdom is in ***not doing the irrevocable**.
> --
> Don        D.C.Lindsay     Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
>
> ------------------------------
>
As a student of the science of biology, I am equally concerned with
the progress of that science too. I am not concerned with the preser-
vation of every little group of animals that turns up in the way of
worthwhile endeavors such as an astronomical observatory. I repeat
that the animals in question will relocate themselves during the
construction, return in any and every way that they can after the
construction is complete, and will be fruitful and multiply until
they become an unbearable nuisance. The poster who pointed out how
squirrels thrive on every campus in the country did not go far
enough. In point of fact, squirrels are thriving on campuses, where
they did not exist before the campuses were built.

As a colateral example, I cite the migration of the Canadian geese
through upstate New York. The General Foods Research Center was built
right on one of their ages old landing sites. After the Center was built,
the geese returned to landing there, and now annually festoon the campus
with so much goose shit that workers there are in danger of slipping and
breaking their necks.

                                           Marc Arlen
                                           AZM@NIHCU

DISCLAIMER - The opinions expressed with regard to the worth and fate
             of small furry things are PURELY my own, and they in no
             way incorporate or reflect any of the views of any mem-
             ber of the staff of NIH, or HHS.

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

Date:     Fri, 25 May 90 11:02 EST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Squirrels, the pope, etc.


        I have a solution to 'squirrelgate' that is at least amusing if not
doable.   Ok, we have over a hundred little rodents who may or may not
adapt to the building of this observatory.  The catholic church it seems is
putting one small telescope on this site as well, and needs the PR so that
the public doesn't see them as anti-science, heretic burners like they 'used'
to be.  Well, lets solve two problems at once....we just let the vatican
round up as many of the little tree rats as they can and transplant them to
a suitable site and declare it a vatican nature reserve.  They can show their
support for both science and nature with one pontifical gesture, and even
make a buck or two selling peanuts for kids to toss to the squirrels when
they open up the nature park.  Just think of the marketing potential of a
'Vinnie the vatican squirrel' lunchbox/dixie cup/t-shirt line.  I'm sure
the business talent is already in place.

        I wonder if there was a similar concern when they were building the
Statue of Liberty and displacing the very rare "Ellis Island Rat" and the
more common "NY harbor seagull".  I doubt it.  Get real, get building.  If
the red squirrels are as tough and cagey as the kinds seen all over the
place, they'll hang in there and probably be a pain to the astronomers years
later (chewing on the lines going to the clock drive).  If they can't take the
shock, evolution was going to off them the next time there was a forest fire on
that mountain range anyway.   Lighten up.  Oh, yeah, before the flames come
down, the first paragraph should be lined with smileys, etc.  No dislike for
the catholic church specifically should be implied------I feel the same way for
all of them of any denomination.  Equal opportunity agnostic and proud of it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Death before disclaimer!"

"It's not my planet, monkeyboy!"-----John Bigboote'
---------------------------------------------------------- [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 May 90 16:05:15 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Summary for 05/24/90 [Corrected] (Forwarded)


                                   Payload Status Report
                                   Kennedy Space Center
                                   Thursday, May 24, 1990

          George H. Diller
          407/867-2468
          FTS 823-2468


          DELTA/ROSAT

               The spacecraft was erected atop the Delta rocket as
          scheduled on May 17.  Yesterday it was encapsulated in the new
          10-foot tri-section fairing.  Final checks of ROSAT instruments
          have been performed and a pre-launch communications verification
          test with the central telemetry station at Hangar AE and the
          project control center in Germany is underway today.


          AC-69/CRRES

               The Simulated Flight test, a plus count to check the flight
          events of the Atlas Centaur vehicle which began yesterday, is
          concluding today.  In this exercise, onboard systems were
          activated and their performance verified in the same manner in
          which they will operate in flight.  A countdown dress rehearsal
          is scheduled for on or about June. 30.  All countdown events up
          to main engine ignition will be performed, which includes fully
          loading the vehicle with liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen, and RP-1
          kerosene propellants.

               In the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, the CRRES
          spacecraft was fueled with a total of 265 pounds of hydrazine on-
          orbit control propellant today.  Encapsulation in the payload
          fairing is scheduled for June 11.



          ULYSSES

               On Tuesday, May 22, the Ulysses spacecraft was removed from
          its shipping container in the clean room of Hangar AO.  Receiving
          inspections are underway.  Final assembly and testing operations
          will begin next week.

               The Inertial Upper Stage is scheduled to be moved from Cape
          Canaveral Air Force Station to the Vertical Processing Facility
          at KSC on June 5.  It has been undergoing final assembly and
          checkout by the U.S. Air Force 6555th Aerospace Test Group and
          Boeing in the Solid Motor Assembly Building on CCAFS.


          GAMMA RAY OBSERVATORY

               GRO is inactive this week due to the hazardous fueling
          preparations and loading underway in the same facility.

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

Date: 25 May 90 20:34:25 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!IDA.ORG!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Splitting "SPACE"

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:
> The other thing to remember about "sci.space" is that it is not an entity
> in and of itself; it is also part of the Internet SPACE Digest mailing list.
> These are currently two-way gatewayed together. (I think "sci.space.shuttle"
> is also fed into the SPACE Digest, one-way only.)
>
> If sci.space is subdivided into several more subgroups, the effects
> include:
>
> - these subgroups will also have to be fed into the SPACE Digest mailing
> list, so as to continue to provide the same level of information to
> the participants on that side of things. (rest deleted)
From what I've seen of recent discussion topics originating from a Space Digest
posting, I do not think useneters would be missing much if we were cut off from
 it.

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

Date: 26 May 90 03:39:01 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Origin of SPS concept?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:
>Does the concept of a Solar Power Satellite that transmits its power output
>down to Earth via microwaves, where it is received by a "rectenna", have a
>single point of origin?  That is, did one person think this up from
>scratch?  If so, who was that?

Peter Glaser is usually credited with it, although I do not know the
detailed early history of the concept.
--
Life is too short to spend    |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
debugging Intel parts. -Van J.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 May 90 14:05:48 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!osprey.cvs.rochester.edu![e-mail]  (Bill Haake)
Subject: Re: Endangered squirrels

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Titus) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>...  Estimates of
>>the Mt. Graham red squirrel population range from 50 to 150 individuals.
>>   [quite a bit deleted]
>>...  Since the
>>squirrels' habitat spans about 10,000 acres, ...
>
>I have a hard time reconciling these numbers.  If we assume
>100 squirrels for the population, then we've got a population
>density of 0.01 squirrel/acre.  This is way too low for a
>small rodent -- I would expect something in the range 1 to 10
>squirrels/acre, or 100 to 1000 times as great a density.
>Squirrels just don't range very far.  At 0.01 squirrel/acre,
>they couldn't even breed.
>
>I think either their range must be smaller or their population
>must be larger.
>
>greg
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Titus ([e-mail])                      Ada Project
>Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
>Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.
>Cray Research, Inc. is not in the squirrel business.

One problem with Greg's analysis is that the squirrels may not be distributed
uniformly throughout the 10000 acres. There may be only a few locations in
the area where the squirrels are concentrated in sufficient numbers to
enable them to find mates.

I've cross-posted this to sci.bio and directed followups there in the hope
that a squirrel biologist somewhere might provide some better answers
to this critical issue :-).

Bill


f
o
d
d
e
r














Bill Haake                      [e-mail]    (128.151.80.13)
University of Rochester         [phone]

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

Date: 25 May 90 18:17:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (David Allen Markley)
Subject: spacy pictures


Could anybody tell me where good pictures of planets, stars, etc. area
available on the net. The format doesn't really matter (postscript, gif,
etc).

Thanks in advance,

--David ([e-mail])

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

Date: 25 May 90 21:01:19 GMT
From: thorin!homer![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Origin of SPS concept?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:
>Does the concept of a Solar Power Satellite that transmits its power output
>down to Earth via microwaves, where it is received by a "rectenna", have a
>single point of origin?  That is, did one person think this up from
>scratch?  If so, who was that?

    Dr.  Peter Glaser is frequently cited as the originator of the SPS
concept.  The earliest reference I can find is:

    Glaser, Peter E.: Power from the Sun, Its Future, _Science_ V162
    #3856, Nov 22, 1968, pp 857-861.

    I believe he is involved with a (very expensive) journal titled
something like _Satellite Power Systems Review_ these days (has anyone
actually read this?)

>I ask this because I heard one of those short radio science features
>last weekend that briefly discussed this topic, and on which a specific
>academic person (whose name I sadly cannot recall), who had written a
>Physics Today article on the subject, was [seemingly] credited with
>creating the idea.

    It sounds like the radio program may have confused Gerard
O'Neill's September 1974 space colonization cover article in _Physics
Today_ with Glaser's work.  Not surprising, since the initial
justification for space colonies was as a construction base for SPS.

    The only group I know of still working on R&D issues relevant to
SPS is O'Neill's Space Studies Institute, which I heartily encourage
everyone to join (ask me via email for more information about SSI).
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    "A compact set can be controlled by a finite police force no
     matter how dumb." H. Weyl ca. 1938

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #452
*******************