home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Space & Astronomy
/
Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso
/
mac
/
TEXT_ZIP
/
spacedig
/
V15_0
/
V15NO057.ZIP
/
V15NO057
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-07-13
|
33KB
|
815 lines
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 92 05:03:54
From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Space Digest V15 #057
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk
Space Digest Sat, 1 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 057
Today's Topics:
A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
Answers to PLANES of the ecliptic question
Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
ET's, life in space
ETs and radio (3 msgs)
Galileo Update - 07/31/92
Odds of Life (2 msgs)
Originas of life (was ET's)
Origin of Life
Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty
Russian/French mission to Mir: agreement signed for future ones
SEDS International Conference Information
Star Trek Realism
Whales and Dolphins
when is the moon?
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:48:21 GMT
From: Fil Feit <filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM>
Subject: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article 15957@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (ryan korniloff) writes:
>
>The 5000 volts are induced by the Earth's magnetic field as the spacecraft
>orbits. The same principle in using magnets to enduce a voltage when you
>pass a magnet through a coil of wire.
>
>
> -- Ryan Korniloff
> -- rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu
Thank you, and thanks also to Mr. Dietz and Mr. Cage who E-mailed me more
involved descriptions that reminded me why I changed my major from Physics to
CS B-).
From the numbers I was sent, (copied from Mr. Cage's E-mail):
#The Earth has a magnetic field. Around and above the equator,
#it is roughly horizontal, going from north to south. Its intensity
#is about .5 Gauss, or 5e-5 Tesla.
#The Shuttle orbits the earth roughly horizontally, and even more
#roughly, from west to east. It moves at about 8000 meters/sec.
#A Tesla is a Weber/m^2, and 1 Weber/sec across a conductor induces
#1 volt. Each meter of a vertical conductor riding along with the
#Shuttle crosses 5e-5 * 8e3 = 0.4 Wb of flux per second, and has
#an induced voltage of about 0.4 volts, more or less. 15 kilometers
#of conductor would build up 5000 volts between the ends, no problem.
it seems that this must operate with about an 80% efficiency to get 5KV
over 15KM. That seems like alot to hope for. And isn't there an inverse
square rule governing magnetic strength? Is this accounted for in that .5
Gauss figure?
Less confued and more amazed,
--f2
-------------------------------------
All of life is six-to-five against.
--Damon Runyon
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:41:00 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
Subject: Answers to PLANES of the ecliptic question
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>I am aware that the sun orbits the galactic center, and also oscillates
>about the center of the galactic plane. This has made me think, though,
>does the plane of the ecliptic precess? We have, on a planetary scale,
>the Earth rotational axis precessing every 26K years; does the plane
>of the solar system do thie also?
Yes, it does, but on a very long timescale (order of billion years, I
suppose).
In principle, each orbital perturbation of the Earth which is not spherically
symmetric and centered on the Sun causes a precession of the orbital plane.
So the Solar quadrupole moment causes a node precession against the
equatorial plane of the Sun (besides a perihelion shift of same order of
magnitude) -- I recently posted a question if that was measured.
I wonder if anybody has appropriate data of the precession of the planetary
orbit planes ? Perihelion precession was determined from Earth based
observations to a rather high accuracy of .1 .. .5 arcsecs per century,
but on node, i.e. orbital plane precession, there seem to be no data
available.
>What would we measure this precession against, in order to distinguish it
>from the revolution about the galactic center, and oscillation about the
>galactic plane?
I would say against the "cosmological background", i.e. the frame defined by
the cosmological background (3K) radiation (that in which the radiation
seems to be most isotropic). This should co-incide with that defined by the
directioins to distant galaxies.
--
Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet> or <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
+ "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+ ^even ^more expensive
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:24:21 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <cecil@physics.unc.edu>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
Newsgroups: sci.space
seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes...
> The cross plane maneouver from 51 degrees down to 28.5 degrees has an
> enormous penalty in payload. This is why you will NEVER see a Soyuz at
> SSF orbit unless it is on Energia. The payload penalty will drop Energia's
> delivered payload to around 50,000 pounds. I do not know the dynamics and
> this estimate is based on what I have read in generalities regarding that
> Energia could at best only deliver a Soyuz to SS Freedom. Anybody have
> Delta V numbers for such a plane change?
To change the plane of an orbit of radius r w/ circular orbital velocity
v by angle Da requires
Delta-v = 2v sin(Da/2) [ 1 ]
For 39 <= Da <= 60 degrees this can be reduced by doing the plane change
at a larger radius ra because v decreases w/ radius. However, the energy
required to place the vehicle in the transfer orbit increases w/ radius.
So there is an intermediate radius that minimizes the energy requirements,
given by
ra/r = sin(Da/2) / [ 1 - sin(Da/2) ]
When Da = 39 deg, ra/r = 1, and when Da = 60 deg, ra/r = infinite.
In this case
Delta-v = 2v{ Sqrt[ra/r]*Sqrt[2/(1+ra/r)]*[1+sin(Da/2)/(r/ra)] - 1 } [2]
w/ ra > r.
For the case of an Energiya launch (51 deg. inclination) to reach Space
Station Freedom (28.5 deg. inclination) Da < 39 deg. so equation [2] offers
no advantage over [1], and from [1] you require a Delta-v = 39% on top of
the initial circular velocity, essentially the same as that required to reach
escape velocity (41%) from radius r! (This explains why the Apollo did all
the maneuvering during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Mission ... the SM engine had
the populsive capability and I believe that the Saturn 1B was launched
at higher inclination than 28.5 degs. The capability was sufficiently
marginal however, that the Apollo had insufficient fuel to reboost
Skylab after the Soyuz rendezvous.) Energiya is capable of placing about
105,000 kg in LEO and about 16,000 kg to escape or approximately to Space
Station Freedom. Soyuz has a mass of about 7,600 kgs.
All this suggests that for Energiya to play any role in Space Station
assembly, the Station would have to be assembled in a higher inclination
orbit, say 40 degs.
--
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169 Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:41:00 GMT
From: "Robert S. Hill" <bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: ET's, life in space
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <rwallace.712535030@unix1.tcd.ie>,
>bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert S. Hill) writes:
>>Suppose the `reaction vessel' contains 1E6 molecules of each of 20
>>amino acids. Suppose that our magic polypeptide contains 1000 amino
>>acids, 50 of each kind for simplicity. Let C(N,n) mean the combinations
>>in N objects taken n at a time (since it's a little hard to make double-
>>height parentheses on my terminal). ^ is exponentiation operator.
>
>> Prob(magic molecule) = C(1E6,50)^20 / C(2E7,1000)
>
>I think you're using combinations, where permutations would be more
>appropriate (given that it's not only how many molecules of each type
>you select that's important, but also what order you arrange them in).
Oops, you're right for the denominator, which is too small by a factor
of 1000 factorial. I think the numerator is still right, given the
postulates of the model. Log(numerator) = 4710.33 & log(denominator) =
7300.92, so log Prob = -2590.59 [Previous incorrect value of log(denom)
was 4733.32] Note that I've actually weakened my own case, since
log 20^(-1000) = -1301.03. Mea culpa.
I _still_ think, however, that you have to make a model with explicit,
detailed assumptions and compute the probabilities the right way. The
reason is that combinatorics gets you into factorials and into huge
values of exponents. And of course, your probabilities assumed for the
basic, microscopic events have to be physically well-founded. And,
as others have said, you have to know all the outcomes that count as
success. These last two requirements seem to be the hard part, judging
by the rest of this thread.
Is there a `biostatistical mechanics' which, like statistical mechanics
in physical chemistry, produces a well-defined macroscopic outcome
for a collection of 10 to the zillion power interacting items?
- Bob Hill
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov ***MY individual opinions ONLY***
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:10 CST
From: HAIRSTON%UTDSSA.DECNET@relay.the.net
Subject: ETs and radio
>>From: Alex Howerton <alexho@microsoft.com>
>>As Albert said, "God does not play
>>dice with the universe."
------------------------------
I don't think this quote was used in the context that Albert originally
meant it. He was refering to his disagreement with quantum mechanics since
it can only describe physics at the atomic level in probablistic
terms and not deterministic terms. The problem here is that 60 years of
physics works has shown Einstein was completely wrong in this case.
(He died never having accepted QM as legitimate.) What quantum mechanics
shows is, yes, at the smallest scales "God DOES play dice with the Universe".
And chaos theory shows that the effects of this randomness at the atomic
level eventually is amplified to show some effects on macroscopic physical
systems.
Also, Max Born was once sitting next to Einstein at some meeting when Albert
made some pronouncement about God and physics. After he sat down Born turned
to him and said "Albert, I do wish you'd stop telling the dear Lord how
to behave."
______________________________
Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--University of Texas at Dallas
"So when is this 'kinder and gentler' going to kick in?"--Molly Ivins
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:46:50 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: ETs and Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1992Jul30.220544.9067@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>subtract out all systems that don't have a planet in the liquid water zone,
>>
>>This is where we get into real guesswork. Note, though, that the liquid-
>>water zone is wider than we once thought -- Mars would have liquid water
>>if it was bigger. (The idea that the "habitable zone" is very narrow and
>>Earth has just happened to stay in it has been discredited.)
>
>The potential liquid water zone of a G star like ours is roughly from
>near Venus orbit to somewhat beyond Mars orbit given specially designed
>planets in the various places. Now on the solar system scale, that's a
>small range of distances.
What about worlds like Europa, where the surface is frozen ice(s),
but a liquid ocean exists under the crust? You get radiation shielding
without a magnetic field that way, too.
James Nicoll
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:55:34 EDT
From: "John F. Woods" <jfw@ksr.com>
Subject: ETs and Radio
Newsgroups: sci.space
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The only argument against extraterrestrial life/intelligence that strikes
>*me* as being particularly telling is the Fermi Paradox: if they're out
>there, why didn't they colonize this planet long before we evolved?
There've been a number of suggestions for the answer to this one, mostly
centered on the idea that when ETs have the kind of toys necessary for
stellar travel, they commit suicide instead in nuclear wars. It may also
be just that, since FTL travel definitely looks like an impossibility (unless
causality isn't all it's cracked up to be), stellar colonization may just be
more trouble than it's worth.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1992 00:34:57 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Galileo Update - 07/31/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director
GALILEO
MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
POST-LAUNCH
July 24 - 30, 1992
SPACECRAFT
1. On July 24, as part of the DDA (Dual Device Actuator) pulse/LGA-2 (Low
Gain Antenna #2) stow activity, real-time commands were sent to checkout the
star scanner. This activity was performed as a precaution to protect the star
scanner from "seeing" bright particles which could release if an HGA (High
Gain Antenna) rib released. Additionally, real-time commands were sent to
open the Star Scanner (SS) shutter and to reacquire celestial reference.
Scan Type 6 was selected which allowed the collection of precise wobble data.
Analysis indicates the wobble estimate to be approximate .7 milliradians
following the open loop wobble compensation on July 23. Also, real-time
commands were sent to reconfigure the System Fault Protection (SFP) AACS-INIT
(Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem) pointing slot from the Sun to
the Earth after the DDA pulse/LGA-2 stow activities. This change will allow
the spacecraft to lock up on the star set in the Earth slot if an AACS Power
on Reset (POR) occurs.
2. On July 27, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value for this mission phase.
3. During the week, the DC bus imbalance reading has continued to change
significantly. The DC measurement has ranged from 105DN (12.2 volts) to
148DN (17.4 volts) and now reads 122DN (14.2 volts). This measurement
variation is consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly
team. The AC measurement has remained relatively unchanged and reads
3.1 volts.
4. The Spacecraft status as of July 30, 1992, is as follows:
a) System Power Margin - 51 watts
b) Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
c) Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.16 rpm/Star Scanner
d) Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 5 degrees
off-sun (leading)
e) Downlink telemetry rate/antenna-40 bps (coded)/LGA-1
f) General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
acceptable range
g) RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
h) Orbiter Science- UVS, EUV, DDS, MAG, EPD, and HIC are
powered on
i) Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
acceptable range
j) CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
Time To Initiation - 184 hours
GDS (Ground Data Systems):
1. The DSN (Deep Space Network) placed the new Telemetry Processor Assembly
(TPA) software version OP-D 4.01 into SOAK test at all complexes on 28 July.
The project participated in a successful Multimission Verification Test (MVT)
for this software on May 27.
TRAJECTORY
As of noon Thursday, July 30, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:
Distance from Earth 116,127,000 miles (1.25 AU)
Distance from Sun 163,651,000 miles (1.76 AU)
Heliocentric Speed 47,400 miles per hour
Distance from Jupiter 667,782,000 miles
Round Trip Light Time 20 minutes, 56 seconds
SPECIAL TOPIC
1. As of July 30, 1992, a total of 8094 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch. Of these, 3222 were pre-planned in the
sequence design and 4872 were not. In the past week, 32 real time commands
were transmitted; all were pre-planned in the sequence design. In addition,
5453 mini-sequence commands have been transmitted since March 1991; 3201 were
pre-planned and 2252 were not. In the past week, no mini-sequence commands
were transmitted. Major command activities this week included commands to
checkout the star scanner, open the star scanner shutter and reacquire
celestial reference, select scan Type 6, reconfigure the system fault
protection, and reset the command loss timer.
2. The High Gain Antenna (HGA) DDA pulse/LGA-2 stow activities were scheduled
from July 21 to July 24, 1992. The warming turn to a 31 degree off-sun
attitude along with the first DDA two second motor turn on was performed on
July 21. The spacecraft remained at the warming attitude for approximately
24 hours. The second DDA motor turn on was performed on July 22 just prior to
the spacecraft turning back to a 5 degree off-sun attitude. Sun gate data was
collected after the sun acquisition completed. The LGA-2 motors were turned
on for 16 seconds on July 23 and the LGA-2 antenna was successfully stowed.
The star scanner checkout, along with collection of sun gate and wobble data
was completed during the July 23-24 time period.
___ _____ ___
/_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
| | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab |
___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you
/___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | happen.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:11:56 GMT
From: russell wallace <rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie>
Subject: Odds of Life
Newsgroups: sci.space
In <ceS9ElO00WB6Egy2J_@andrew.cmu.edu> dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt) writes:
>IF (big if) one assumes that the probablilty of life arising on earth is
>so small that it couldn't happen, then there are only 2 possiblities
>for our existance:
>1) That life arrived from another place (accidentally or purposefully)
>2) That "God" created us
No, there are two other explanations:
3) The universe is infinite (therefore life must have formed in an
infinite number of places; however hardly any areas the size of the
*visible* universe would have even one inhabited planet).
4) The parallel worlds interpretation of quantum theory is correct, and
since the number of possible worlds either is infinite or for practical
purposes might as well be so, then many worlds will have an inhabited
planet (but far fewer will have two).
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 1992 12:17 EST
From: WENDY WARTNICK <afwendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Odds of Life
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <ceS9ElO00WB6Egy2J_@andrew.cmu.edu>, David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
>IF (big if) one assumes that the probablilty of life arising on earth is
>so small that it couldn't happen, then there are only 2 possiblities
>for our existance:
>
>1) That life arrived from another place (accidentally or purposefully)
>
>2) That "God" created us
>
>About 1) - this only delays talk, as SOMEwhere down the line life had to
>arise spontaneously...kinda like the "turtles all the way down [to what?]"
>argument.
>About 2) - If we assume that the odds are impossibly small for life to
>have arisen anywhere, then this proves "God's" existence.
Stuff deleted
I guess more importantly about 2)....
If G-d created humans on this planet..why not anywhere else? Why create a
whole universe of empty planets? I know people will say..."well! one can
never know the Lords mind!" Good dead end argument...
I do not know why some people have such a hard time accepting the
possibility that humans may not be some unique creation.
wendy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 13:05:06 EDT
From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu>
Subject: Originas of life (was ET's)
>>They wouldn't even have to self-replicate, just affect each other.
>>If one set of reactions happened to get into some kind of positive
>>feedback....
>Why would they not have to self-replicate? If positive feedback was
>sufficient, then a hydrogen flame should be the first life form. (And
>remember, we not only need self-replication, we need non-trivial
>self-replication.)
I was thinking more along the lines of RNA group 1 leads to the creation
of group2...it, in turn with group 3,4,5...N creates group 1 again.
Sort of an "I'll make you if you make me" kind of deal.
And I've still seen no definition of non-trivial, unless you mean
'using DNA', which I would call, instead, 'DNA-centric'.
>>Check out 'protien spheres' in some biology book, BTW. It's not
>>that unusual for non-life to mimic life.
>So what? We need actual life, not something that just mimics it. And
>mimic is exactly all that those protein spheres do, given that they
>don't have any equivalent of genetic information.
Well, ok, protien spheres only mimic life. But, if protien spheres mimic
cell membranes, and RNA replicators 'mimic' enzymes and tRNA, well, how
many things need to be shown that 'mimic' life before you'll be satisfied
that it IS life, or at least may be part of the origin of life?
Maybe you'll prefer a different way of thinking 'statistically'. What's
more improbable...that some configuration or system of amino acids/rna/etc
began self-replicating enough to 'evolve'...or that all these things just,
'by chance', mimic life-processes, but have nothing at all to do with the
origin of life? I choose the latter.
-Tommy Mac . " Malcolm X: +
.------------------------ + * +
| Tom McWilliams; scrub , . You've seen the hat, " +
| astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . '
| Michigan State University ' . "
| 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , *
| (517) 355-2178 ; + ' now catch the movie! *
'-----------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 13:26:09 EDT
From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu>
Subject: Origin of Life
>How is an RNA cluster actually going to go about tapping this
>energy to synthesize amino acids, without already having a complex set
>of enzymes?
Luck. Enzymes are catalysts.
>Has an RNA cluster unsupported by enzymes been demonstrated to
>synthesize amino acids or peptide chains (actually, stringing amino
>acids together into proteins is more important, because there would be
>plenty of amino acid molecules already floating around)?
>Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
Say, Russell, this question of yours lends support to the idea that you do
want the entire story handed to you on a silver platter. You were correct
about that criticism adding little to the discussion, but only since it
left out a crucial question...What do YOU think is the origin of life?
(Since a system of simple replicators, whether 'trivial' or not, which
evolved into something more seems unacceptable to you)
P.S- Please include a defintion of 'non-trivial self-replication.'
-Tommy Mac . " Malcolm X: +
.------------------------ + * +
| Tom McWilliams; scrub , . You've seen the hat, " +
| astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . '
| Michigan State University ' . "
| 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , *
| (517) 355-2178 ; + ' now catch the movie! *
'-----------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:01:46 GMT
From: Tyler Brown <frisbee@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
I posted the message below in sci.astro last week. The results are amusing...
>>I know that the moon Phobos means "fear" and was a consort of the God
>>of war (Mars/Ares), but I forget what "Deimos" means. Could someone
>>remind me?
>> frisbee@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
>
>I received several replies, some of which are appended below.
>
>The current vote total is:
>
> Terror 10
> Panic 6
> Hate 1
> Fear 1 (Said that Phobos and Deimos meant fear!)
> ^^^
>One said that Phobos means panic...
>
>
> frisbee@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
There appears to be no clear consensus on the meaning of "Deimos"!!! Also,
several posters gave varying translations for "Phobos"!!!
Curiouser and curiouser... All anyone can agree on is that they are named
after a bad emotion... My favorite combo would be "fear and loathing"...;-)
frisbee@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
Some excerpts:
________________________________________________________________________________
> My recollection is that Deimos means "terror". Corrections?
>
> bell@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
> No corrections..I read that is what Deimos means."terror"
>
> andromed@cs.dal.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
>Well, to add more fuel to the fire, I read in "The Flammarion Book of
>Astronomy" (Copyright 1964) that "The satellites of Mars have been
>named Phobos (panic) and Deimos (terror),..."
>
>Curiouser and curiouser.
>
>jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
>Demos = Panic.
>
>P & D are either Mars' (Ares' in Greek) war horses, or his
>sons, depending on what myth version your reading.
>
>jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
>My Follet's "Classic Greek Dictionary" gives Deimos as "fear, terror" in
>the Greek-English section. In the English-Greek section, it gives
>"panikon (deima)" for Panic, so go figure.
>
>gwc@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
> My Vote is for PANIC!
>
> gliba@scivax.stsci.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
>"Fear" and "terror"
>
>dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu
>
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:30:19 GMT
From: Glenn Chapman <glennc@cs.sfu.ca>
Subject: Russian/French mission to Mir: agreement signed for future ones
Newsgroups: sci.space
The Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 mission to the CIS (Commonwealth of
Independent States) Mir space station has begun its research. French
President Mitterand spoke with the crew, cosmonauts Anatoli Solovyov, Sergei
Avdeyev from the Soyuz TM-15, long term crew Alexander Viktorenko and
Alexander Kaleri, plus French "spationaut" Michel Tognini. Viktorenko and
Kaleri, and Tognini will return in the Soyuz TM-14 on Aug. 10th. On July
29th French and CIS officials signed an agreement to send joint missions of 14
day duration to Mir every two years for the next eight years, paid for by
the French. Solovyov and Avdeyev will stay up until January, which means they
may not return with the scheduled Israeli mission in November or that mission
has been delayed until January. (From Radio Moscow reports).
Since Mir is currently occupied by two crews a year the French/CIS
agreement means that half of the cosmonaut replacement missions for the rest
of this decade are payed for.
Glenn Chapman
School Eng. Science
Simon Fraser U.
Burnaby, B.C., Canada
glennc@cs.sfu.ca
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:24:17 GMT
From: Jerry Matulka <matulka@convex.com>
Subject: SEDS International Conference Information
Newsgroups: sci.space
I am looking for information on the SEDS International Conference that is
supposed to happen in Washington, D.C. at the end of August. If you have
information on this conference or know who I might contact to find out more
information I would appreciate hearing from you. Thanks!
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Jerry Matulka Phone: (214)497-4305 Email: matulka@convex.COM |
|3000 Waterview Parkway, P.O. Box 833851, Richardson, Texas USA 75083-3851 |
|___________________________________________________________________________|
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:20:19 GMT
From: Jack Hudler <jack@cscdec.cs.com>
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <nsmc5kc@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> wsj@wpd.sgi.com writes:
>
>interstellar space. AND the way the shuttles bank and turn as if they're
>airplanes.
They bank and turn because, if they didn't, you'd bitch that they didn't.
--
Jack Hudler - Computer Support Corporation - Dallas,Texas - jack@cs.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:01:27 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <ewright@convex.com>
Subject: Whales and Dolphins
Newsgroups: sci.space
In <9207280213.AA24733@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>One theory I've heard for a "typical" mass beaching is that one whale
>in a pod (usually a young, inexperienced one) gets confused by the
>echoes in shallow water and runs aground. Its cries of distress upset
>the other whales so much that they fling themselves on the shore, either
>in a vain rescue attempt, or as deliberate suicide.
>One could perhaps view this as emotion dominating over intellect, or as a
>case of whales having values different from (most) humans.
Oh? So you've never heard of search parties going out looking
for a lost person, in bad weather, although several people may
die in the attempt? Especially if the lost person is a child?
Sounds very human to me.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:02:45 MDT
From: slndw@cc.usu.edu
Subject: when is the moon?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Howdy.
I have another simple (maybe) question.
Anybody know when the moon rises/sets during
the next two weeks??
---thanks
Mark Taratoot DoD#3323
Watershed Science Unit
Dept. of Forest Resources
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-5215
SLNDW@cc.usu.edu
------------------------------
Date: P
From: P
id AA05601; Fri, 31 Jul 92 11:01:16 EDT
Received: from crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
id aa08749; 31 Jul 92 10:53:49 EDT
Received: by CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU id aa06953; 31 Jul 92 10:52:18 EDT
To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!psgrain!ee.und.ac.za!ucthpx!casper.cs.uct.ac.za!bjohnson
From: B Johnson <bjohnson@casper.cs.uct.ac.za>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: UFO's
Message-Id: <Bs8z16.Cnu@casper.cs.uct.ac.za>
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:43:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: casper.Bs8z16.Cnu
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Lines: 25
Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
It strikes me that either UFO's are non-existent (UFO in the ETI sense)
or the universe is so crowded with inhabited planets as to make earth
uninteresting.
Lets look at it this way. What would you do if you're the captain of
an interggalactic space exploring vessel. You encounter a planet that
plainly exhibits several life forms ( Intelligent or not).
Do you
a) get all excited, jump up and down, and "radio" base for further
instructions.
b) go have a quick squiz, grab a couple of specimans, and bug out.
c) tell all your intergalactic explorer buddies, so they come have
a look.
d) do a detailed survey, and after determining intelligence, try
and make contact.
e) Say "ho-hum another bunch of bi-peds, how boring."
So the qustion is... if life is as rare as everyone would make it
out to be, and UFO's are around, why aren't we the major attraction
in the galactic fairground.
Bruce
<bjohnson@casper.cs.uct.ac.za>
------------------------------
End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 057
------------------------------