Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_5/V16NO562.ZIP/V16NO562

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Thu, 13 May 93 05:59:57
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #562
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 13 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 562

Today's Topics:
                           <None> (2 msgs)
Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? (3 msgs)
   Getting Landsat pix (was Re: I'd like to see me town from space)
             HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
                            Life on Earth
                            Life on Mars.
         U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
    Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)
        Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) (2 msgs)

    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: 12 May 93 20:02:43 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: <None>
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>You can't tell this from the DC-X photo published in *AvLeak*, but
>>from the *Space News* picture one may infer that at the rollout
>>ceremony McDD was giving out FREE WHITE DC-X FEED CAPS!
>
> Yes indeed. Alas the logo on the front is rather flimsy and comes off
> if not treated gently.

I hope this is not an ill portent for the quality of the rocket itself.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "We'll see you
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | at White Sands in June.
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | You bring your view-graphs,
Internet:       [e-mail]  | and I'll bring my rocketship."
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | --Col. Pete Worden on the DC-X

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 20:14:34 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: <None>
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>> Yes indeed. Alas the logo on the front is rather flimsy and comes off
>> if not treated gently.

>I hope this is not an ill portent for the quality of the rocket itself.

As somebody who has collected a lot of project hats, coffee mugs, and
other stuff I think its a good omen. My experience has been that the
quality of a project is inversely proportional to the quality and
glitziness of the giveaways.

This also holds for project demos BTW, the flashiest demos have the
least substance behind them.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------35 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 12 May 93 18:49:17 GMT
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes in response to my post:
>>Calling shuttle flight characteristics *bizarre* in the same post
>>as touting DC-X is interesting.
>Why?

Because the diagrams of the DC-X flight profile appear more unconventional
than the shuttle's glide and land-it profile.  Doesn't it strike you
as unusual to propose reversing the attitude of large rocket and ignite
its engines while in the atmosphere?  May be you guys trained as students
with this particular picture in mind.  My image of SSTO is more along
the lines of the NASP program (May it R.I.P. 8-) ).
But, igniting engines on DC-Y seems like an unusual thermal problem to solve.

>The DC approach is very tollerent of failure. It also has
>the advantage of far greater reliability do to its reusable nature (Shuttle
>isn't reusable, it's salvagable).

Shuttle is a reusable vehicle.  Yes, it does take significant servicing
(semantics?).  DC-X'ers seem to want to critize the shuttle program in order to
make DC-X look better.  I suggest that we not criticize shuttle
program and instead let you prove that DC-X's concepts are better.  Shuttle
is not your competition, Ariane-Delta-Titan-H2 are your real competition.

>The (DC-X) flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X
>shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change.

This is a pretty significant "if" isn't it?  Has this ever been tried on
any vehicle?

>The final DC-1 will have fully intact abort throughout the entire flight
>envelop. Upon re-entry for example, it can loose about 80% of available
>thrust and still land safely.

Quality data here 8-)!  This looks interesting, tell me more!  But don't
call shuttle or me names (like David Becker's "substandard MD-wanna-be"
line and Phil Fraering's tirades).  Dave and Phil, I am not a sophomore
and I do have a brain.  I suggest taking your tirades to alt.flame.  They
are inappropriate here.

Allen, please give some examples of DC-Y's fault tolerance design.  I am
interested in this aspect and it would be good for the net to see too.

>>As a doctor, I can not error in my diagnosis and treatment recommendations.
>You don't put your patients in conditions where there is no way out. You
>wouldn't for example, give a patient a drug and not monitor them for
>harmful side effects would you?

There are times (usually last ditch efforts) when patients are placed on
ventilators, and we know they don't stand a chance of coming off.  But
malpractice attorneys or familial desires take precedence.  Side
effect monitoring is the standard of care.

My point was (1) that if we understand a system enough,
we will be able to manage its short-comings and
(2) that even with those short-comings, we would not call into question
the greater social impact of that system.

For example, Allen, take the shuttle or penicillin.

Both were the state of the art when they were devised.
Use of penicillin has resulted in the development of large numbers of
penicillin resistant organisms, decreasing the efficacy of penicillin.
That doesn't mean that penicillin wasn't or isn't
a good drug at the right times.  It only means that its window of utility
(if you will) has decreased.  So, our great drug companies have spent
a great deal of money developing newer antibiotics which can fight
penicillin resistant organisms (the market drove the R&D) in order to
reexpand the window.

Penicillin has side effects, which we must watch for, but
that doesn't mean that it's a bad drug either.  No doctor in their right
mind would ever accuse penicillin of being a bad drug.  Its impact in
medicine has been tremendous.  Today, it may not be the
correct drug for a particular use, but blanket criticism would be
fool-hardy.

To continue the analogy,
I don't think shuttle can be attacked as a bad spacecraft or vehicle.
I see shuttle as penicillin is.  A tremendous technical breakthrough
for its time and it deserves respect for the achievement it is.  It is
unwise to couch criticism of the shuttle program in emotional terms.
Instead, let us offer examples of how DC-X can fill those windows of
utility.

My postings on this matter stem from these concerns:
1.  Some are overly critical of the impressive technical achievements
of the shuttle team over the past 20 years.
2.  Some seem optimistic regarding engineering estimates of
hardware in development (this should not be confused with criticism
of the R&D effort in and of itself).
3.  Some DC-X/Y supporters are closing the window of utility on shuttle
before DC-Y can fill the void.

We cannot afford to confuse the US Congress with conflicting signals in
the space community.  Shuttle is manifested for years to come.
(those who are new to this forum should check Ken Hollis' postings from KSC).
We need to at least complete that manifest before the termination of the
shuttle program.  By that time DC-Y could be around to fill the void.

>You are very much in the minority. If the DC series fails to make orbit, it
>will still be a very worthwhile effort. It will show us EXACTLY what we do
>need to do to build SSTO.

Agreed that DC-X is a worthwhile program, but do not use comparisons to
shuttle (and attack shuttle in the process) of obtaining political support.
Shuttle is the only man-capable system in the US.  Attacking shuttle to get
DC-X funded, could leave the US without any manned access to space and the
DC-series failing to make orbit.

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare DC-X to Delta, Titan, and Ariane?
Especially, given that the manned DC-Y seems more second thought that
intent.

>The only way to prove those things is to build it.

Agreed, but don't leave manned space stranded at the cost of trying
SSTO.  We need each other.  Work together and we could get more.

Khayash

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 20:10:10 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1srgrd$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Because the diagrams of the DC-X flight profile appear more unconventional
>than the shuttle's glide and land-it profile.

Not to a helicopter pilot.

>Doesn't it strike you
>as unusual to propose reversing the attitude of large rocket and ignite
>its engines while in the atmosphere?

If and when the DC-X flight tests validate the flip over maneuver, it
will seem very reasonable to me. I think eventually we will see plug
nozzle designs which will make re-entry easier but this approach seems
to be the minimal risk one.

>But, igniting engines on DC-Y seems like an unusual thermal problem to solve.

I'm not sure what you mean here but the vehicle at time of engine ignition
won't be particularly hot (that's what the TPS is for). It will also only
be going a few hundred miles an hour.

>Shuttle is a reusable vehicle.

If you had to take your car to be serviced at a cost equal to 25% the
purchase price every time you drove it, I doubt you would call it
reusable. Did you know it takes about $200 million just to buy the hardware
needed to refly a Shuttle? Yet you could buy a Titan with similar payload
capability for helf that cost.

Shuttles are salvaged, not reused.

>DC-X'ers seem to want to critize the shuttle program in order to
>make DC-X look better.

Sorry but long time readers will know that I was a Shuttle critic LONG
before there was a DC-X program. I critize Shuttle because it costs three
times as much as the alternatives, didn't meet its design goals, and actually
HURTS the manned spacecraft program.

The advantage of DC-X is that is shows that it needn't be expensive.

>I suggest that we not criticize shuttle program

I suggest we not have sacred cows. The goal isn't Shuttle, its low
cost reliable access to space. Shuttle doesn't provide that; DC might.
If DC becomes a boondoggle, I'll drop it so fast your head will spin.

>and instead let you prove that DC-X's concepts are better.  Shuttle
>is not your competition, Ariane-Delta-Titan-H2 are your real competition.

Shuttle consumes about a third of the NASA budget. There are huge amounts
of work which aren't happening because of it. It's very existance gives
amunition to opponents of manned space and helps them oppose us.

Shuttle isn't competiton for DC-X now but that's not the point. Shuttle
fails on its own merrit.

>>The (DC-X) flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X
>>shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change.

>This is a pretty significant "if" isn't it?  Has this ever been tried on
>any vehicle?

That's why they built DC-X.

>>The final DC-1 will have fully intact abort throughout the entire flight
>>envelop. Upon re-entry for example, it can loose about 80% of available
>>thrust and still land safely.

>Quality data here 8-)!  This looks interesting, tell me more!

Think about it. A DC-1 will have about 1.4 million pounds of thruse
available. When the engines are lit for landing, it will only weigh
about 120K pounds (80K for the airframe, 20K for payload, and 20K for
fuel).

>Allen, please give some examples of DC-Y's fault tolerance design.  I am
>interested in this aspect and it would be good for the net to see too.

Most have already been covered. The main thing is that it is fully
reusable. A DC-1 will work this time because it worked last time. Same
as an airplane: it didn't crash getting to you so it should still work.

I have a writeup on this I can mail to you.

>>wouldn't for example, give a patient a drug and not monitor them for
>>harmful side effects would you?

>Side effect monitoring is the standard of care.

Exactly. You would never give a patient a drug without looking for side
effects since it might kill him. In other words, you treat and monitor
the treatment so you can back out. With Shuttle however, there are lots
of ways where you can't back out. There are large parts of the Shuttle
flight profile where small malfunctions aren't survivable.

>My point was (1) that if we understand a system enough,
>we will be able to manage its short-comings and

Perhaps but I very much doubt we understand Shuttle to anywhere
that degree.

>(2) that even with those short-comings, we would not call into question
>the greater social impact of that system.

I am concerned with total impact. The Shuttle simply doesn't meet its
original design goals and isn't very cost effective. We can blame congress,
NASA, or anybody you want (there's plenty to go around) but that doesn't
alter the conclusion.

>I don't think shuttle can be attacked as a bad spacecraft or vehicle.
>I see shuttle as penicillin is.

Penicillin provided an important tool at a reasonable price. That's
can't be said for Shuttle.

>My postings on this matter stem from these concerns:
>2.  Some seem optimistic regarding engineering estimates of
>hardware in development (this should not be confused with criticism
>of the R&D effort in and of itself).

Not overly optimistic. It may well not work, but it is the best game
in town and they do seem to have learned from the mistakes of the past.
Those are VERY good omens.

>We cannot afford to confuse the US Congress with conflicting signals in
>the space community.  Shuttle is manifested for years to come.

Nobody is calling for an end to Shuttle. I wouldn't weep if it happened
but I pick my fights.

>We need to at least complete that manifest before the termination of the
>shuttle program.  By that time DC-Y could be around to fill the void.

Why?

>Shuttle is the only man-capable system in the US.

Shuttle HURTS the manned space program. It doesn't help it. Your support
for a hugely expensive vehicle which doesn't work all that well only
tells our opponents that they are correct when they say that manned space
is too expensive.

>Attacking shuttle to get DC-X funded

DC-X is already funded. Besides, as has been pointed out, this is a
strawman. I agree Shuttle should stand or fall on its own merit (as
DC should as well).

>Wouldn't it make more sense to compare DC-X to Delta, Titan, and Ariane?
>Especially, given that the manned DC-Y seems more second thought that
>intent.

Well SOMEBODY spent a lot of effort to put that upper deck crew module
into the DC-Y. Crewed operation was part of the design from the start.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------35 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 19:59:51 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1srgrd$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>with this particular picture in mind.  My image of SSTO is more along
>the lines of the NASP program (May it R.I.P. 8-) ).
>But, igniting engines on DC-Y seems like an unusual thermal problem to solve.

Igniting and running a rocket is easier than keeping the supersonic
flame front of a scramjet burning evenly. The former is a solved
problem. The latter is not.



> [the shuttle needs "servicing"]
>(semantics?).

No, not semantics. Aircraft are serviced after a flight. This does NOT
include replacing and rebuilding the engines after every flight, like
Shuttle. This fact alone means that the Shuttle requires more than
what is usually meant by "servicing". Rebuilding is more accurate.





>DC-X'ers seem to want to critize the shuttle program in order to
>make DC-X look better.  I suggest that we not criticize shuttle

Why not criticize Shuttle? If it had had more criticism 20 years ago
we'd have a better system now. Not criticizing it now does not mean
that its problems will magically disappear.




>>The final DC-1 will have fully intact abort throughout the entire flight
>>envelop. Upon re-entry for example, it can loose about 80% of available
>>thrust and still land safely.

>Quality data here 8-)!  This looks interesting, tell me more!

That's an easy one. Consider: at least 80% of the takeoff weight is
fuel. Coming back down it can thus lose 80% of its thrust and still land
safely because it burnt most of that fuel on the way up and so weighs
80% less!




>My point was (1) that if we understand a system enough,
>we will be able to manage its short-comings and
>(2) that even with those short-comings, we would not call into question
>the greater social impact of that system.

Your attitude is mystifying. Few here advocate scrapping shuttle now.
Why turn a blind eye to its faults?

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

Date: 12 May 93 14:52:02 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting Landsat pix (was Re: I'd like to see me town from space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chuck Rose) writes:
> Are there graphical images available for anonymous
> ftp of pictures of areas of the earth taken from
> space.  I know that there must be some images, but
> I'd like to find ones of the Barnegat Bay NJ area
> where I'm from.  Do any of the images get this specific?

Yes. You can get hardcopy Landsat pictures or aerial photography from
the good folks at

EROS Data Center
U.S. Geological Survey
User Services Unit
10th and Dakota Ave.
Sioux Falls, SD 57198
[phone]

(No, despite the name, they don't distribute dirty pictures.) I just
phoned and asked Pat Johnson about obtaining pictures.  We can
probably use this in our FAQ list.

Tell them either the latitude and longitude of a center point, or the
town name and zipcode, and they'll send you an index of available
data and price information.  (Oops, I forgot to ask what people
outside the U.S. should do.  Sorry.)

Aerial photos come in a variety of sizes.  They range from $6 for a
9-by-9-inch black-and-white photo to $65 for a 36x36 color infrared
one.

Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS) images are black-and-white only,
and are $18 for a film negative, $12 for a positive, and $200 for a
digital tape.

If you have a lot of use for satellite images, you might ask USGS
about their Global Land Information System, software which runs on a
PC and enables you to query 26 datasets.  I don't want to start a
stampede, but you can telnet to glis.cr.usgs.gov and look at this too.

For up-to-date, post-Reagan-era images (that is, after the Landsats
were commercialized), including the fancier Thematic Mapper data, you
have to go to Eosat, which will cost you a couple of kilobucks.  Or
call Spotimage, the French competition.  You probably don't want to do
this, but I'll throw in their addresses anyway.

EARTH OBSERVATION SATELLITE COMPANY (EOSAT)
7500 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD

SPOT IMAGE CORPORATION
    1857 Preston White Drive,
    Reston, VA 22091
    (FAX) (703)-648-1813    (703)-620-2200

Hope you find this helpful.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 93 17:24:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kenneth Ng) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]: [e-mail] (Dieter Kreuer) writes:
> :In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
> :Stallcup) wrote:
> :> Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
> :> : |If it has no propulsion system, how does it maneuver itself?
> :> : Gyros.
> :>   Reaction Wheels
> :Then, how are the Reaction Wheels desaturated?
>
> Don't quote me, but I believe there is an electromagnet inside that allows
> one to use the earth's magnetic field as something to dump the reaction
> wheel energy onto.
>
On the UARS satellite, 'magnetic tourquers' are used to unload the
reaction wheels.

MK Sexton

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 16:58:00 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Earth
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Murphy 462-) writes:

>   [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

>>In article <C6u1Ir.H2z,[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>>>
>>>Sorry.  The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where
>>>life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well.  And we're it.

>>         Evolution isn't a directed process and doesn't proceed towards
>>a specific goal.

>Darwin's non-directed evolution is just one of twenty or more theories of
>evolution.  There are a few theories(no, not creationism) that are based on
>organisms evolving towards a specific end result; even if brainy" humans
>might not know what that goal is.

Perhaps, but I don't buy Gaean Theology as science, either.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 18:57:33 GMT
From: Loren Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>The MESUR spacecraft's landing system consists of an aeroshell, parachute and
>air bags.  The aeroshell will absorb the heat from atmospheric entry and
>slow the lander from 14,000 to 560 mph.  The parachute will then pop out
>and further slow down the descent rate to 78 mph.  At 1 second prior to
>impact, air bags will inflate to cushion the landing.  The air bags can
>absorb energies up to 35 meters/second.

    It had better.  35 meters/second is 78.29 mph.


        Loren Carpenter
        [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 May 1993 18:27:30 GMT
From: Gregory McColm <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee Story) writes:
>[Of the above groups, I read only misc.education.]
>
>In article <1sm53c$[e-mail]> [e-mail]. (Gregory McColm) writes:
>
>   I must give way to temptation ...
>
>   1.  Science nowadays is BIG science, and I mean bigness far beyond
>   subsidizing ocean voyages like that of HMS Beagle.
>
>The contrast between the current crop of experimental particle physicists
>and Gauss or Darwin is very striking, but it's also an unfair
>comparison.  Consider Erd\:os or Gel'fand or Hawking (sp?) or Watson or Dawkins...
>

There was a fun foodfight in sci.math over who was the "greatest"
living mathematician.  The major contestants were Erdos (combinatorics
and number theory) and Grothendieck (analysis and topology).  The
striking thing about the debate was the absence of explicit criteria.
I thought it was very revealing, in that it should what kind of mathe-
matics different mathematicians valued.  In particular, it showed how
strong Nicholas Bourbaki still is on the fashion scene.

Anyway, let's start a foodfight over who the greatest living scientists
are!  In order to start it off, I proclaim:
   i)  John Watson, being highly overrated, is not in the running (for
extensive argument on this point, see CMFair's discussion in The Dying
Self), and,
   ii)  Out of respect to sci.math, we are taking about people at least
as good as Erdos or Grothendieck, and,
   iii)  People like Cousteau, Dawkins, MGardner, etc, are not in the
running unless they, like EOWilson or SJGould, have done "original"
work.
Participants in this foodfight should bring their own blueberry pies.

>[...] we are winning the Nobel prizes while Japan is making the money.
>
>But neither is particularly relevant to scientific achievement, but rather to
>    career and economic advancement, so what's the point?
>
>   2.  Continuing in this line, CMFair has suggested that the 20th
>   century is the Silver Age in science, while the 19th was the Golden
>   Age:  the idea is that we are running on inertia.  I posted this
>   suggestion in sci.math, and got some chewing out --- but I still get
>   the feeling that for mathematics at least, there is an uncomfortable
>   amount of truth in this (the decline seems more noticeable in the
>   visual arts, music, literature, and philosophy).
>
>While I wouldn't claim that post-Wittgenstein academic "sects" of
>philosophy are particularly exciting, it seems that the combined
>work of Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein himself, the Positivists, the
>Existentialists, etc. etc.  forms as solid a contribution as any
>century has provided.  Though I admit that the major advance since the
>Ancients, separating philosophy (esp. ontology) from religious
>superstition, occurred primarily in the 19th Century (but continues in
>the 20th).
>

The greatest philosopher since Aristotle was Immanuel Kant.  I do get
the impression that much of 19th century philosophy was composed by
neo-neo-neo-Kantians that were apparently high on something.  As for
the separation of philosophy from religious superstition, well, are
you talking about the apparent triumph of analysis (shudder) and
materialism (whatever that is)?  Personally, I find the philosophers
of science the most interesting, and you must admit that there are
some definitely non-materialist influences there.

>As far as the supposed inferiority of 20th Century art, music and
>literature go, the Mr. McColm must have a very sketchy familiarity
>with these areas or fiercely conservative (and very bad) taste.  Oh
>well..."De gustibus non disputandum."
>
>But spend a week (and I do mean a week) with Schoenberg's piano
>pieces, Mr McColm.  Or with a few of Giacommetti's sculptures.  Or
>take a month off and read some Joyce and Proust and Mann and Brecht
>and Tanizaki and Faulkner and ... (then see some plays, read some
>poetry, listen to some jazz; review the best of American film, the French
>and Italian and German and Japanese cinema ...)  Bah!

I grant you Schoenberg (although not as much as you would like), but
not his more notorious student, Mr Cage.  I have read some of these
others (not Tanizaki, though), but, other than Faulkner (who really is
first rate) I would put the others (especially Brecht!) below Twain,
Melville, the Bronte sisters, Sterne, etc.  And yes, I have read
poetry, listened to jazz, etc.  One comment.  At any time, in any
field, there seem to be some people in that field that are regarded
very highly by people in that field, but not by outsiders (ie, the
mob);  such people often are not remembered.  The popularity of
people like Gertrude Stein, Virginia Wolf, Jackson Pollack, etc,
seem to be based on an unusual amount of elitism:  the yokels and
people of bad taste don't get this, which only shows how dull they
are.  Mozart and Dickens needed no such elitist assistance.  Don't
get me wrong:  I got flamed in sci.math for suggesting that there
was a similar phenomenon in modern mathematics.

>[...]
>    Comparisons?
>
>Why bother.  It's absurd.  The most accurate and elegant physical and
>biological theories to date are all (not surprisingly) 20th Century
>inventions.  Possible exceptions: Maxwell's electromagnetism (updated
>by QED), Darwin's evolution (updated by Dawkins, Gould, Eldridge, etc.
>etc.), and maybe Lyell's tectonics.  People probably haven't gotten
>more clever, but they haven't gotten stupider, either.
>

JJThompson was a 19th century figure, as was Hamilton.  So were Stokes
and Heaviside.  Gibbs and Poincare are often regarded as turn-of-the-
century people.  Most of the foundation upon which modern physics
rests is a 19th century construct, and most of the mathematics used
by physicists are 19th century innovations.  As for biology, Mendel
was 19th century, and his popularizer (de Vries) a turn-of-the-century
figure.  Freud's greatest work (A Study in Hysteria) was published
circa 1890.  The 19th century began with Fourier and Carnot (heat)
and Gauss (you name it), etc, and ended with special relativity.  I
think there is much to be said for the view that much of 20th century
science consists of commentary on the accomplishments of the 19th.

>[...]

-----Greg McColm

PS:  It is my impression that as avante garde literature in the
West gets worse, the literature in the Third World, and indeed
in Western genres, are getting better.  There are modern sci-fi
and mystery writers better than Verne and Doyle.  Comments or
disagreements?

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 20:22:28 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Indeed, "man-rating" is a holdover from a time when people
were converting ICBMs into spacecraft launchers. These
were multimillion dollar assets that were supposed to destroy
themselves in use! Do people "man-rate" commercial aircraft?
No. Ships? No. One does not want to design a 10 to 100 million
dollar capital asset that has a 10% chance of destroying itself
on each use. "Man-rating" a reusable launcher is (or should be)
irrelevant.

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

Date: 12 May 93 17:57:18 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Me, I'm hoping that they'll be flying out of Love Field here in
Dallas, Midway in Chicago, Dane County Municipal in Madison (near
the Universtity), etc.

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 18:04:09 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Seriously, would White Sands become an operations area for the space-capable
>>versions of the DC series?

>I'm not sure anybody's planned that far ahead in detail,

I have seen slide presentations about Spaceport New Mexico but those
are to gain political support. I suspect White Sands will be the place
where any followons (including orbital ones) are flown from.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------35 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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


          id aa09494; 12 May 93 23:07:12 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:62224 sci.bio:12240
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!pitt.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Life on Mars.
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 May 93 17:35:36 GMT
References: <1sk847$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gord Wait S-MOS Systems Vancouver Design Center) writes...
>
>Here is a potentially dumb question: What prevents the martian landers
>themselves from "polluting" the martian environment with earth based
>critters? Is the long trip in cold radiation bathed space enough to
>completely sterilize the landers?

NASA has followed strict procedures to ensure that any Mars landers or
orbiters do not contaminate Mars with Earth organisms.  For example, the
Viking landers were sterilized by heating them in an oven at 113 C for
40 hours.  There is an international agreement that requires the probability
of an accidental impact of a spacecraft on Mars before 2009 must be less
than 0.0001.  The agreement also requires that the probability of impact
of a spacecraft on Mars between 2009 and 2039 be less than 0.05.  Mars
Observer, which is due to arrive at Mars on August 24, will be place in
an orbit to meet these requirements.  The Soviets have also sterlized their
Mars landers, but the effectiveness of their sterilization methods has been
questioned since they've never disclosed what methods were used.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Once a year, go someplace
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you've never been before.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 562
------------------------------