Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_3/V15NO325.ZIP/V15NO325

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 92 05:00:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #325
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 19 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 325

Today's Topics:
                  Aerospace and Commercial Products
                     Defense Conversion, to Space
                             Dyson sphere
             Dyson Spheres and Cosmic Spaghetti (2 msgs)
         Math programs with arbitrary precision for the Mac?
                     Nuclear Power / FAQ (4 msgs)
                  OPEDIUS Sounding Rocket Experiment
               Pres Debate & military spending (3 msgs)
            Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail (2 msgs)
                       SETI functional grammer
                               subsribe
                     UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", 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 [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Oct 92  00:19:46
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aerospace and Commercial Products
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gary Coffman writes:

>Unfortunately, the aerospace industry is ill equipped to operate
>when separated from the government teat. There's little consumer
>demand for $800 toilet seats, or $120 million dollar ex-ballistic
>missiles. The companies don't have a clue how to make $19 Walkmans,
>or even $2 million dollar sewage treatment plants. Their corporate
>culture isn't setup to handle such concepts.

    Hmmm.... I think you might be overstating things here a bit
much.  Most "aerospace" firms are pretty reasonably diversified
with a variety of commercial products being produced within the
firm, already.  Maybe I can give some examples with a couple of
local firms, where I know their products...(This is being done from
memory, so don't hold me to exact percentages of market shares...)

    Rockwell -- Built the B1, MX 4th Stage, Space Shuttle, and a
major contractor on space station.  Also a major subcontractor to
Boeing for commercial aircraft (about $200 M/yr business), builds
about 60% of the world's supply of modem chips, builds Goss color
printing presses (those presses used to print color newspapers),
automobile doors, axles, etc., and is the world's largest
manufacturer of sunroofs.  About 75 % of their sales is non-
government.

    McDonnell-Douglas -- builds F-15, F-18, T-45, and a major piece
of the Space Station. Also the #3 largest commercial aircraft maker
in the world, and one of 2 commercial US launch firms. While the
firm's financial status has not been the best, that was caused by
massive investments into the DC-11 program which is now in the black
regarding cashflow -- as is the MD-80 program.

    TRW - builds military spacecraft (classified programs), and
NASA satellites (GRO and TDRS, for example).  They also have a very
large autoparts business, make about 80% of the worlds auto airbags
(among others), and have a very profitable credit/data base business
(TRW creditline).

   For many aerospace firms, you could say "they don't have a clue
how to make $19 Walkmans", but then how many US firms do?  They do
turn out a fair number of consumer goods -- in the examples above,
modem chips, and auto air bags are rather large run consumer goods.
   As for "Their corporate culture isn't setup to handle such
concepts", that also is not strictly true.  Within all of these
firms are very entrepreneural elements at the highest international
level -- that 60% market share of modem chips at Rockwell is world-
wide market share, and that 80% airbag market share at TRW is also
world wide market share.  McDonnell Douglas is also willing to "play
with the big boys" on commercial aircraft.
   The real trick will be to bring over that entrepreneurial talent
and skill to utilize the engineers and production equipment now
being used for government programs.   But, at least in these three
firms I've looked at, there are nuclei of that talent in-house.

>The question is, though, just what high tech consumer goods do
>these companies know how to produce, and more importantly,
>*market*?
    See above.  In at least a significant percentage of "aerospace
firms" there are good examples of high tech consumer goods that they
do currently produce and market successfully.

> And, how much of their military capabilities will they preserve
>for the day when the world heats up again, as it will?
    This is a question that I don't think the aerospace industry
should answer.  This a public policy question which will have to
answered by the next Congress and presidential administration.
Keeping unused, or little used, military production facilities
around will cost money.  I don't expect an aerospace firm will keep
a production line and tooling around with no orders (or expectation
of orders) on hand.  Maintaining an industrial base will be the
responsibility of the Congress and Administration -- and it will
cost money.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor


--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: Sun, 18 Oct 92 14:03:28 EET
From: [e-mail] (Me!)
Subject: Defense Conversion, to Space

> Date: 17 Oct 92 23:12:54 GMT
> From: [e-mail]
> Subject: Pres Debate & military spending
>
> Quayle, while discussing what to do with the defence industry
> in this era of post-cold-war cutbacks, specifically mentioned
> building up the space program as a partial solution.

For a stimulating read, check out a book entitled "Report from
Iron Mountain".  This purports to be a think-tank study examining
what socially useful non-military functions are served by warfare
and military spending.  It then considers what would happen if
peace broke out:  What alternatives would there be ?  How well
would they perform the various functions identified ?

The space program came in at the top of the list of alternatives,
for such reasons as being both a source technological advance and
a potentially bottomless pit for expending economic surpluses.
All it lacked in the authors' view was the social cohesion aspect
of rallying against a common enemy.

Didn't Reagan once mention keeping SDI as insurance against
an extraterrestrial menace ?  Perhaps someone could produce a
"director's cut" of "E.T." with an altogether more horrific ending ..

[I have since heard the opinion that "Report from Iron Mountain"
  was written tongue-in-cheek.  If so, it was quite well-done.]

/fred

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 21:30:18 GMT
From: "Alan M. Carroll" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dyson sphere
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Donald Arseneau) writes:
> But the light bounces around to the other side and will still get absorbed
> eventually.

Heheheh. Not if part of the sphere is transparent. Then you get a
photon drive. You need active control to keep the star centered, but
you can't have everything.

--
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 21:23:01 GMT
From: "Alan M. Carroll" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dyson Spheres and Cosmic Spaghetti
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
> But here's where I pull the ace out of my sleeve.  The vast majority of the
> solar system isn't rock.  It's hydrogen, helium and other stuff not especially
> well suited to construction.  And we've ignored the question of atmosphere.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. There are two types of
Dyson spheres - those in Star Trek and the ones postulated by Dyson.
Only the latter are constrained by physical law :-).

For a real Dyson sphere, you have to give up the idea of living on it
- it's no different than a _really_ big space station. In fact, as
Henry Spencer pointed out, Dyson's original proposal was equivalent to
an orbitally coordinated swarm of O'Neil colonies. You put enough of
them in staggered orbital planes and you'll capture effectively all of
the starlight. Best of all, you can build this type of Dyson sphere
incrementally. If you need gravity, you spin locally.

Niven proposed a different form of this which was sort of neat.
Instead of multiple O'Neil colonies, you just build one that's
extensible. You extend it until it wraps all the way around. If it's
thin enough (say, ~10km with a 1AU radius) the rotation stresses are
negligible. So you can spin it for gravity. As you need more power,
you either build another or just keep extending. Eventually you cover
the star like the string in yarn ball.

--
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 22:49:41 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dyson Spheres and Cosmic Spaghetti
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Alan M. Carroll) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>> But here's where I pull the ace out of my sleeve.  The vast majority of the
>> solar system isn't rock.  It's hydrogen, helium and other stuff not especially
>> well suited to construction.  And we've ignored the question of atmosphere.

>For a real Dyson sphere, you have to give up the idea of living on it
>- it's no different than a _really_ big space station. In fact, as
>Henry Spencer pointed out, Dyson's original proposal was equivalent to
>an orbitally coordinated swarm of O'Neil colonies. You put enough of
>them in staggered orbital planes and you'll capture effectively all of
>the starlight.

I don't see how this saves you any mass.  If you're going to collect all of the
star's light, the O'Neil colonies are going to have to approximate a sphere
aren't they?  Worse, since some of the colonies are going to be overlapping at
any given time, you'd probably need more mass to collect the same amount of
light.  The only thing the swarm solves is structural difficulties, which I had
graciously ignored anyway.

>Niven proposed a different form of this which was sort of neat.
>Instead of multiple O'Neil colonies, you just build one that's
>extensible. You extend it until it wraps all the way around. If it's
>thin enough (say, ~10km with a 1AU radius) the rotation stresses are
>negligible. So you can spin it for gravity. As you need more power,
>you either build another or just keep extending. Eventually you cover
>the star like the string in yarn ball.

I saw a vaguely similar proposal in Analog's latest science fact article,
except that it was designed mainly for planets.  It wasn't exactly the most
factual article I've ever seen - it was filled with the kind of things
physicists call "non-trivial."

>--
>Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
>Epoch Development Team
>Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
     The views expresed above do not necessarily reflect those of
ISDS, UIUC, NSS, IBM FSC, NCSA, NMSU, AIAA or the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Acronymphomaniacs

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 23:15:53 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Math programs with arbitrary precision for the Mac?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Jones) writes:
>Millard Edgerton ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>
>You're missing the point, guys.  The exploration of pi's digits as an
>end in itself is taken from Carl Sagan's "Contact" in which there are
i
    Actually the research into pi has been going on LONG before
Dr. Sagan wrote "Contact".  As has been pointed out, it is obviously not
for "practical" reasons.  Five or six sig figs are more than engh for
anything you're likely to come across.

    So why calculate it to over 2 BILLION decimal places?  There
are several reasons, mostly related to higher levels of math.  For
one thing it can be a good test of both ne algorithms and new computers.
But it can also help in some large number theories and in transcendental
number theory.  Consider this, there are more transcendental numbers
than non-transcendental numbers, but there is no simple algorithm for
determining them.  The two most commonly known are e and pi.  After that
*I* can't think of any.

    For any interesting article on pi, look in one of the back
issues of New Yorker (I think Feb 1992, this year at any rate).  There
is a biography of two russion brothers who hold the world record for
the most digits calculated.

>supposed to be messages from "the creators" hidden in transcendental
>numbers like pi, e etc.  At the end of the novel, the heroine finds a
>digital picture of a circle out in the jillionth place or so, indicating
>that there is indeed intelligence behind the structure of the universe,
>and that looking further will yield still more info.
>
>Of course, since pi has infinite digits, every sequence imaginable will
>occur there somewhere.  A significant sequence is one which is very unlikely
>given the number of digits computed so far.  8 consecutive 8's (10^8:1
>against) is not very significant given a couple million digits computed
>(which was the event mentioned in the show, I believe).
>
>--
>||)) There is no truth to the rumor that:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
>||)) Lotus are suing Apple for copying the look and feel of their lawsuits )|
>||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
>||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 21:08:45 GMT
From: john_weatherly <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nuclear Power / FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

Howdy!

  Could someone e-mail me the FAQ file, or at least the section on
how nuclear power is generated and used on various spacecraft.

Exactly how is it generated?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Weatherly                |"Cousin MacAdder and I are as dissimilar as
[e-mail] | two totally dissimilar things in a pod."
Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences |
University of Illinois        |                   -- E. Blackadder
at Urbana-Champaign           |

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 23:39:00 GMT
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nuclear Power / FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (john_weatherly) writes...
>Howdy!

Howdy,
>
>  Could someone e-mail me the FAQ file, or at least the section on
>how nuclear power is generated and used on various spacecraft.
>
>Exactly how is it generated?

Nuclear power is to heat some fluid in order to get something out of it.
How to heat it up ? put a lots of fissile materials all together so that
the neutron population increases exponentially, the heat comes from the
energy given away by the nucleus that is splitting ( fission process).
In order for this reaction to occur more than once, one has to reach the critical
mass.. the main problem is to control this neutron population, if it is not
done one has a bomb...


Nuclear power in space is used for two different purposes.
The first one is to generate heat for thermal management purpose. It acts
the same way as it is used on earth in nuclear power plant, the core is there
to heat up some fluid which is whether converted into electricity or directly
used to heat the spacecraft ( SP100 and TOPAZ reactors).
The second one is related to the propulsion itself
( see the NERVA project in the
70's ) where the core is still heating some fluid, but here the fluid is
 hydrogen and its flows through the core then through the exit nozzle of the
engine. Then again if you look at the now declassified last part of the NERVA
report you'll find out why they never tried again in the atmosphere... seems
a lots of debris from the core were carried away by the fluid out of the engine.
OOPS......


>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Weatherly                |"Cousin MacAdder and I are as dissimilar as
>[e-mail] | two totally dissimilar things in a pod."
>Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences |
>University of Illinois        |                   -- E. Blackadder
>at Urbana-Champaign           |





Igor
Department of Nuclear Engineering,
Texas A&M University

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 00:01:11 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nuclear Power / FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> Nuclear power is to heat some fluid in order to get something out of
> it.  How to heat it up ? put a lots of fissile materials all together
> so that the neutron population increases exponentially, the heat comes
> from the energy given away by the nucleus that is splitting ( fission
> process).  In order for this reaction to occur more than once, one has
> to reach the critical mass.. the main problem is to control this
> neutron population, if it is not done one has a bomb...


Am I the only one who feels nausea when this sort of cutsy, wrong
answer is given?

Perhaps folks should refrain from answering questions they don't
know the answer to.

"IGOR" should look up "radioisotope thermal generator", and
"thermoelectric generator", when he has a chance.  I suppose
electrons in a semiconductor could count as a fluid, but RTGs
don't involve any fission chain reaction.

There aren't *any* operating reactors in space right now, are
there?

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Oct 92 01:26:13 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nuclear Power / FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>There aren't *any* operating reactors in space right now, are
>there?

Not at present.  (The Compton astronomers would be letting us know, in no
uncertain terms, if there were... :-))
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 18 Oct 92 01:36:37 CST
From: norman <[e-mail]>
Subject: OPEDIUS Sounding Rocket Experiment
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am to attend a lecture on the OPEDIUS Sounding Rocket Research.  I know
nothing of this project and was wondering if someone could fill me as to
its particulars.
Thankyou.

Norman Paterson
PATERSON AEROSPACE CO.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada [phone]

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 15:23:10 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Pres Debate & military spending
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Ricci - CATS) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Actually the Federal government is in better shape than most consumers.
>>They spend 35% of their income servicing the debt. How many of you
>>spend less than 35% of your incomes on house notes, car notes, and
>>consumer debt? The US government owes four times it's annual income.
>>How many of you living in $200,000 houses and driving $40,000 cars
>>can say you owe less?
>
>Correction: the government spends our income servicing the debt. And that debt,
>unlike my mortgage, is increasing every single minute.  Do the math for paying
>off $4 trillion.  It's bloody scary.

Well let's see, the US adopts Islamic financial law, interest is illegal,
and then pays the debt off in 12 years using the amount of revenue now
devoted to paying the interest. Simple. :-)

We also automatically get a balanced budget in the bargain because no
one will loan the government new money interest free.

Gary

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 15:34:38 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Pres Debate & military spending
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Unfortunately, the aerospace industry is ill equipped to operate when
>>separated from the government teat. There's little consumer demand for
>>$800 toilet seats, or $120 million dollar ex-ballistic missiles.
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>> A much reduced Boeing might survive on airliner
>>sales, but have you looked at the airline industry lately? They aren't
>>in a position to be buying a lot of airplanes.
>
>Is it my imagination, or does Boeing have a multiyear backlog of aircracft
>orders?  I probably would have mentioned Boeing as the example of a company
>that was doing fine, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, that's why I said Boeing might survive, they have a large backlog
of airliner orders. But once that's worked off, and with only three US
airlines still solvent new domestic orders are going to be scarce, they're
going to have to *really* hustle to *stay* in business at present levels of
employment, depending mostly on foreign flag sales, where bribery, a crime
under US law, is the normal mode of business.

>>>When you have a $400 billion deficit and a $4 trillion debt, there is no
>>>peace dividend, just bills due.
>
>>Actually the Federal government is in better shape than most consumers.
>>They spend 35% of their income servicing the debt. How many of you
>>spend less than 35% of your incomes on house notes, car notes, and
>>consumer debt? The US government owes four times it's annual income.
>>How many of you living in $200,000 houses and driving $40,000 cars
>>can say you owe less?
>
>I don't own a Lexus or an estate, and neither do any of the people on the net
>that I know.  It seems to me to be a little silly to compare the federal
>government to a particularly endebted group of people and then say the feds are
>doing okay.

You haven't priced a tract house in Sillycon Valley I guess. :-)
Or a second hand BMW.

There are a lot of yuppies out here in the world who are in debt so deep
they're almost assured of becoming madmoppies. (Middle Aged Downwardly
MObile Professionals) :-(

Gary

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

Date: 18 Oct 92 19:42:27 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pres Debate & military spending
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Yeah, that's why I said Boeing might survive, they have a large backlog
>of airliner orders. But once that's worked off, and with only three US
>airlines still solvent new domestic orders are going to be scarce, they're
>going to have to *really* hustle to *stay* in business at present levels of
>employment, depending mostly on foreign flag sales, where bribery, a crime
>under US law, is the normal mode of business.

Boeing MIGHT survive?  Are we talking about the same Boeing here?  The one I
refer to has a market share of 60% of the world's commercial transport orders.
It is the nation's largest exporter.  It competes head to head against three
of the largest governments in Europe and wins.  If only every American company
did that good.

(And, yes, there is a bit of envy in my voice when I say that.  :)  )

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 01:26:41 -0700
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[e-mail]>
Subject: Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 Address too long

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (5.63/1.43)
    id AA01335; Wed, 14 Oct 92 01:26:41 -0700
Received: from USENET by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
    (contact [e-mail] if you have questions)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:09:28 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nickh@u,
        berkeley.edu@cbvax  (Nick Haines)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Subject: Re: SETI positive?
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (thomas.vandoren) writes:

   [about SETI range]

      I assume what you were saying is that random radio or TV emissions could
   be detected within a 100 light year range?  Thats not too bad, how many
   systems are there in that range?  Maybe 20 ?

Stars within 100ly? Several thousand (I used to have this kind of
figure to hand). Of which several hundred are reasonable targets for
SETI (single yellow stars).

Nick

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

Date: Sun, 18 Oct 92 04:38:17 -0700
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[e-mail]>
Subject: Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 Address too long

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (5.63/1.43)
    id AA26682; Sun, 18 Oct 92 04:38:17 -0700
Received: from USENET by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU with netnews
    for [e-mail] ([e-mail])
    (contact [e-mail] if you have questions)
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:38:25 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!n,
        [e-mail]  (Nick Haines)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Subject: Re: HRMS/SETI Answers
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ian Taylor) writes:

   Why can't HRMS detect a current earth-like technology leakage at
   interstellar distances? Isn't this the most likely case?

Why is this the most likely case? We can't assign any probabilities to
levels of technology or power use by ETs. If we just look at human
history, we've been putting out _any_ signals for less than 100 years
and current levels for only a few decades. Any guesses on what powers
we'll be putting out (and at what frequencies) in 2092? 2992? 11992?
How directional will our signals be? What about our interstellar
probes?

I guess the reason HRMS wouldn't pick up BBC1 at 4 light-years is the
same reason why it won't spot a dim light-bulb at 4 gigaparsecs:
money.

(and it _would_ pick up military radar at ~5 light-years).

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 00:05:43 GMT
From: Tom A Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI functional grammer
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>[e-mail] (Tom A Baker) writes:
>
>>2) If there is only radio contact, as the "right hand rule" messages are
>>   talking about, then ... fo"explaining left and right" until it
>>   becomes relevant.  When it is relevant, whenever that happens to happen,
>>   you'll probably have a reference by then.
>
>The point was that to explain something as "simple" as right or left becomes
>very complex when you can't assume anything.  Then the question becomes "what
>can you talk about until you know enough to explain X?"

I'm going to have to talk to this system's administrators.  I *DID*
type in a correct response to the question, but they changed the
communications parameters this week and I had to wrestle with the
editor.  I refreshed the screen so many times, I thought I had worn
control-L out ---- and I was 90% certain that the posting was correct
but the 'fo"explaining' was a screen abberation.  Sorry.  There was
a couple of lines between the 'fo' and the 'explaining'.

Once more ... When there is *NOTHING AT ALL* that you can initially
agree on to differentiate between left/and/right, then you have absolutely
no hook to start the discussion on.  A true "chicken-and-egg" problem
with no chicken and no egg.

There are indeed asymmetries in quantum mechanics that you may try
to take advantage of (although someone pointed out that antimatter
planets would experience them backwards), but these are pretty
darn hard to talk about when you are at the point of defining
basic terms.

My suggestion, then, was that, if the difference between right and
left is indescribable in the initial stages, perhaps it is best to
assume that it doesn't matter.  By the time it does matter, perhaps
when you get around to talking about quantum mechanics, then describing
the left/right concept might be obvious.


And, by the way, ...

Again, if they are on this side of Galactic Center, then using the
astronomical landmarks I mentioned still will do the job.

tombaker

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

Date: Sun, 18 Oct 92 14:53:52 MET
From: Theo Jurriens <[e-mail]>
Subject: subsribe

Please subscribe me to sci.space list.

Thanks in advance
--
Theo Jurriens            |   Private:
Kapteyn Astronomical Institute    |   Aquamarijnstraat 295
P.O. Box 800            |   9743 PH Groningen
9700 AV Groningen        |
[phone]        |   [phone]
[phone] (fax)        |
===============================================================

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

Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1992 20:30:01 -0400
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Newsgroups: sci.space

I *HAVE* the physical evidence from the Roswell Incident. I have
reassembled the space ship and hidden it away in my garage. One of the
aliens survived the crash; hshe (third gender) now lives in my basement.
We play Casino on Thursday nights, and on weekends it sleeps with my
daughter-in-law. I am sending this message by telepathy through the
agency of alien symbols.

If you want to see these things, collect $10,000 and await further
instructions.

-Lorenzo

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 325
------------------------------