Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_6/V16NO638.ZIP/V16NO638

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Fri, 28 May 93 14:08:58
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #638
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 28 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 638

Today's Topics:
                               Billsats
    Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
                  Detecting planets in other system
                      FSU military space systems
                       Galileo's HGA? (2 msgs)
                  Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
                            Hubble vs Keck
               Impediments to NASA productivity (long)
                              Moon Base
                Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
                    Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
                 Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
             Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF (Russian books)
           Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
                Why is everyone picking on 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: Wed, 26 May 93 23:55:38 CDT
From: jim jaworski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billsats
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Jerry Laplante)  writes:

> TO: [e-mail] (jim jaworski)
> JJ>  > >I can see it now emblazened across the evening sky --
> JJ>  > >                THIS SPACE FOR RENT
>
> How about  "GOOD YEAR, we're not just on Blimps anymore"
>


[e-mail]
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:18:56 GMT
From: Phil Hays <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>      IAU Circular 5801 further discusses the orbital trajectory of the comet,
>> and indicates that it is possible that half of the pieces of the comet may
>> collide with Jupiter over a three day peroid in July 1994.  The surviving
>> pieces may remain as satellites to Jupiter or be thrown closer to the sun on
>> short-period heliocentric orbits.
>
>Is there likely to be any visible effect on Jupiter? (My guess
>is "no" - not even HST will see anything, nucleii prob less than
>mile across=tiny compared to Jupiter).

So how bright might the impact be?  The size of the comet pieces can't be known
very closely:  for discussion take an estimate of about ten miles.  The
density might be rather low.  The speed would be well known,  but I don't know
it yet.  I assume 45,000 MPH.


 E   =  1/2 M V^2 = 6*16000*16000*16000*20000*20000

     =  10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Kg*meters/sec^2

The depth at which this bang happens will determine how much of the energy is
radiated promptly.  Again,  I don't know,  but I assume 10% is radiated over a
10 second time.  This gives a "light bulb" of about:

P    = 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 W

I don't know the exact distance to Jupiter next July,  so I assume 4 AU or
about:

400 000 000 miles.

Light follow the 1/r^2 rule,  so take as a reference a light bulb a mile away:

                                1 000 000 000 000 000 000
 Ratio to Reference light    =  ------------------------- = 600 W
                                      400 000 000 ^2


(I know,  I should work out magnitude)
A 600 W light bulb a mile away would be very noticeable at night,  and might be
visible during the daytime.  These numbers could very easily be off by a factor
of 1000 or more.  Might need a good telescope to see it.  Might be naked eye
visible.


Phil Hays

"Can't go back and can't stand still"

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:08:56 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Anyone considered using Kilometric radiation ? I know we're being bathed in
>it but it shouldn't be too difficult to filter out the near-Earth stuff using
>two sensors (since its coming from close by). Planets with magnetic fields would
>likely be emitting coherent radiation at these wavelengths making the job a
>little easier. What you need is an underwater detector to filter out some of the
>noise, since Kilometric radiation penetrates water a long way down. This would be
>a darn good use for all those nuclear submarines out there. BTW I think the
>military use this wavelength of radiation for communicating with their subs.

Underwater detectors don't seem like a good idea. The terrestrial sources
are many orders of magnitude stronger than any extrasolar sources. The
water would attenuate both equally, but the extrasolar sources, being
many orders of magnitude weaker to begin with, would be lost in the noise.

A better way of shielding against terrestrial emissions is to place the
detectors above the ionosphere. The ionosphere is a good shield against
such frequencies. There is currently a satellite in the works to monitor
the ELF frequencies. It's from the Mexican chapter of AMSAT. It's intended
to detect micrometeors entering the Earth's atmosphere by their plasma
wave emissions. These can't be detected from the ground due to the shielding
of the ionosphere.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 27 May 93 06:28:53 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FSU military space systems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is an interesting item on FSU military space systems. For those
who might wish to follow up, my local files show the address of TsNPO
Kometa as Velozavodskaya ulitsa 5, Moscow, Federation of Russia,
with fax numbers (7095) 274-7330 for Prof. d.t.n. Valeriy G. Bondur
and a general fax number of (7095) 274-0870. The second one seems to be
on only during business hours in Moscow.

Allen Thomson                SAIC, Inc.                  McLean, VA
<standard disclaimer>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Broadcast Information Service Central Eurasia Daily Report
FBIS-SOV-93-093 17 May 1993
'Red Space' Program on Space Defense Systems (LD1505133093)

[Editorial Report] Moscow Ostankino Television First Channel Network in
Russian at 0750 GMT on 15 May broadcasts its 30-minute "Red Space"
program entitled "Secret Space--Part 1," which is about space defense
systems.

The program begins in the Kometa Central Science Production Association,
a space research center. A variety of unidentified equipment is shown.

Academician Anatoliy Savin, the general designer and general director of
the center, is interviewed and explains that for the past 30 years he
has been working in the sphere of rocket guided weapons and space
surveillance systems. These have now become most important from the
point of view of supporting the strategic balance and thus preventing
nuclear war, he said.

The program flashes back briefly over the growth of the nuclear threat
in recent decades. The scientists who are interviewed during the program
are then flashed up in succession, together with captions. Some
scientists are shown at work, more apparatus is shown.

The program recaps the accumulation of weapons in the Cold War years,
showing archive pictures. It says that in spite of the recent changes in
strategy, the quantity and power of existing weapons is still great, and
the nuclear danger remains. So surveillance and monitoring of all these
matters is still very much on the agenda. Unique global surveillance
systems have been developed in Russia to envisage all situations and
enemy actions and warn of a nuclear strike.

The narrator says that five global systems form the basis of resources
for supporting the strategic balance: the first is a global system of
constant surveillance over missile dangerous areas of the earth's
surface. The video shows explanatory diagrams, and pictures of equipment
for receiving satellite data. Chief designer Konstantin Vlasko-Vlasov
explains the system in general terms, while the video shows aerial
pictures and pictures of satellite equipment.

The second system, the narrator continues, is a system for detecting
falling warheads, guiding anti-ballistic missiles toward them and
destroying them. An example is the American Patriot system, or Russia's
S300 missiles. The video shows these systems in action.

The narrator then describes various aspects of a single global
surveillance system, designed to monitor surface, naval, and air sites.
A system for monitoring the sea from space allows the world's oceans to
be surveyed in all conditions, the narrator says. This is carried out by
a remote control satellite apparatus. A second system monitors dangerous
underwater areas. Chief designer of this system Sergey Mishukov explains
the principle of this system, adding that it has great possibilities for
peaceful application as well. The video shows aerial pictures and shots
of equipment and personnel receiving satellite data, as well as various
archive pictures of naval facilities.

The narrator says that new methods for detecting anomalous underwater
phenomena have important applications in oceanography and ecology as
well. Professor Valeriy Bondur, a chief designer in the Kometa
Association, shows the new equipment in action, and the video shows
scientists studying computer data gathered by the new system. The
narrator also adds that economic difficulties have prevented the
underwater surveillance system from being properly implemented so far.

A system for monitoring strategic aviation aircraft, the narrator says,
is also being held back by economic difficulties. He explains briefly
the use of detailed land surveillance systems, including photographic,
optical, and electronic, and radio technical satellites. The video shows
a variety of receiving equipment.

A system for influencing space installations has been developed and is
functioning, the narrator continues. Its purpose is to detect and strike
[porazheniye] military installations in space. The video shows diagrams
of how the system works. It is the first of its kind.

The fifth and final system, the narrator says, is intended for action in
conditions of war. It should monitor the consequences of the direct use
of weapons of mass destruction. Its technical resources also allow the
detection of radioactivity levels and effects of chemical and
bacteriological weapons. In peacetime the system can be used to solve
ecological problems and monitor emergencies. The video shows aerial
pictures of craters and scientists analyzing radiation levels and
working from computer data.

Over archive military pictures and more pictures of scientists, the
narrator poses the question of whether all this equipment is still
needed in the new world situation. Chief system designer Leonid Legezov
says the effective use of space systems during the war in Iraq indicated
that it is. He says the role of space research would have to change. In
particular there are interesting ideas connected with removal of
dangerous debris from space. The narrator adds that ecological projects
are already being developed under the Sirius Program. He goes on to
outline a number of other conversion applications, and chief designer of
the sea monitoring system Gleb Zotov explains other economic
applications of this system. The program ends with reflections on
Russia's changing role in the world, over assorted archive military
pictures and news clips.

The process of rapprochement with the West is irreversible, the narrator
says, however, opposition to this remains on both sides, obstructing
genuine legal parity. Ukraine refuses to ratify START I and give up its
nuclear weapons. The present Russian Parliament will not ratify START
II. However, moves toward consensus and peace continue, the program
concludes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 27 May 1993 12:15:14 GMT
From: Chuck Shotton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's HGA?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) wrote:

[Original questions]

> At the present time, the Galileo mission is being planned using the Low Gain
> Antenna.  Attempts to open the High Gain Antenna (HGA) have not been abandoned,
> and will continue though not as aggressively as in the past.  The HGA is
> partially open, and a High Gain uplink test was performed a couple of months
> ago to characterize the HGA.  The results of this test were, shall we
> say, very interesting.

What does "very interesting" mean? Were they able to transfer data? I would
have thought a downlink test would have been more valuable to perform
first, since it would give an idea if any useable bandwidth was available
for science data return, etc. Was there some fear of cranking up
transmitters on a partially deployed antenna?

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

Date: 27 May 93 10:36:57 EDT
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's HGA?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Chuck Shotton) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) wrote:
>[Original questions]
>>The HGA is
>>partially open, and a High Gain uplink test was performed a couple of months
>>ago to characterize the HGA.  The results of this test were, shall we
>>say, very interesting.
>What does "very interesting" mean? Were they able to transfer data? I would
>have thought a downlink test would have been more valuable to perform
>first, since it would give an idea if any useable bandwidth was available
>for science data return, etc. Was there some fear of cranking up
>transmitters on a partially deployed antenna?

Antennas have a property called "reciprocity"; they function exactly as well
receiving as transmitting.  Therefore, they could certainly obtain some
characterization of the antenna by having it receive.  Since Galileo's
receivers are probably not as good as those on the ground, it would, indeed,
be a less accurate test than transmitting, but they probably did fear damaging
the transmitter with an antenna whose impedance could be any random value.
If "very interesting" means something like "hey, it looks like it has a
noticable major lobe in a useful direction (rather than pointing at a solar
panel, say), and probably is open enough that it isn't too far off the design
impedance", then they may figure it is safe and useful to use the transmitter
to gain a more accurate characterization.  Let's all keep our fingers crossed.

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:28:30 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1u0p1g$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>If i wanted to be very narrow in my estimate i could have said
>128? LDEF trays,  50 Some  SPaceLab  Racks,  and appx 100 GAS Cans.
>
>No matter what, it's ascathing condemnation of the SHuttles mass return
>capacity.

No, it's not a scathing condemnation of Shuttle's mass return capacity.
If Eastern Airlines decided to dead head DC-10s from LA to Atlanta,
would that be a condemnation of DC-10s, or would it be a condemnation
of Eastern's lack of marketing skill?

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 26 May 93 14:34:36 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hubble vs Keck
Newsgroups: sci.space

Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620
Lines: 36
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>it would probably be cheaper to build another Hubble. Or to simply
>>write off the Hubble program entirely and build 2.5 more Keck
>>Interferometers. (Which could be done for the cost of fixing
>>Hubble).
>
> It wouldn't give you Hubble's UV or faint-object capabilities, even
> assuming that the Keck Interferometer works as well as projected.  The
> extent to which the new ground-based telescopes can (probably) equal
> or surpass Hubble is exaggerated; they do so in only one of several
> dimensions.


Henry, I'm not sure what you mean here by HSTs 'faint object capabilities'. A
10m telescope gathers an awful lot more light than a 2.5m, so can get fainter
in that sense, whilst in the optical the background from the earth isn't too
much of a problem, so the higher spatial resolution df HST doesn't win back
this factor. The short integration times on one target (45 mins I think)
necessetated by HSTs low oprbit also are a problem on faint sources as you have
to cope with rather more read out noise than one 10 hour exposure, say, with
Keck would. The FOC, I think, has low readout noise, but this has a very
limited FoV.

Dave

> --
> SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry
--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:54:32 GMT
From: "joseph.l.nastasi" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity (long)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

This a response to Ken Jenks tour de force on improving things
at NASA.  I am reading it a couple of weeks after it is written
and I usually don't bother responding to something so dated, but
this is different.

The organization that Ken describes is very similar to many US
corporations.  I work, as a consultant, at AT&T.  A few years ago
your description of NASA applied to AT&T.  I am not one for "being
one of the gang" or "rah-rah company man", BUT I am amazed at the
environment here.  It has been totally transformed.

AT&T management had to admit to itself that the status quo was not
working.  Part of the solution was to get rid of dead wood.  And
I am sure that AT&T lost a many good people as part of that process,
but it *had* to be done.

Then there was a definition of Vision, Mission and Values.  This was
started by the GBCS division (the PBX folks) and, at first glance,
appears too good to be true, but I can assure you that it is really
an daily way of life.  I list these items below, each followed by
a comment of how this relates to NASA.


Vision: To be Partners with Customers and be Dedicated to their Success.

    The American people are, as Ken put it, NASA's customers.  For
    NASA to succeed, that fact must be pounded into everyone's head.

Mission: To be the World-Wide Leader in providing the Highest Quality
     Business Communications Solutions.

    As Ken stated, just what the hell is NASA's mission?  I, a long-
    time admirer of the space program, haven't a flaming clue!

Values: Respect for Individuals

    Dedication to helping Customers

    Highest standards of Integrity

    Innovation

    Teamwork

    Accountability

    Excellence


    These values must be internalized and LIVED by all in the
    organization.  All of these values are drilled into our hearts
    and heads.  And the buy-in to this is amazing.  Of all the
    Values stated above, NASA, IMHO, is severely lacking in
    Accounability.   Accountability, is a two-way street.  It means
    that 1. the decision making process is pushed down to all levels
    in an organization and 2. the person making that decision is
    held accountable for it.  It's called empowerment.  AT&T is
    constantly enabling ALL associates to make 100% of the decisions
    required in their job.  What do the managers do?  They make
    sure that the environment is correct for the associates to do
    their job, they orchestrate, they coach.

    The Civil Servant/Contractor situation at NASA is a joke. I have
    been a consultant here for almost seven years and I am treated
    as an associate of the company.   I even attend meetings where
    benefits and company confidential items are discussed.

    Training!!!  Ken's one day a month is a very good approach.
    GBCS had a stated policy that all associates receive two weeks
    of training per year.  That just changed to three weeks!


    GBCS uses the PQMI method of management.  Quality (effeciency,
    etc) has to be MEASURED before it can be improved.  Ken's
    list of steps is basically correct.  PQMI states:

    1. Establish associate responsibilities
    2. Define the current process and customer requirements
    3. Define and establish metrics
    4. Access conformance to customer requirements
    5. Investigate improvement opportunities
    6. Prioritize opportunities based on max-potential for improvement
    7. Modify the process

    You then go to step 4 and repeat the cycle FOREVER!  It never
    stops.  None of this fire-fighting, tiger team crap.  Actually,
    PQMI states that you do visit steps 2 and 3 at regular intervals
    because customer requirements can change and better metric
    methods do surface.


    And Ken again nails a BIG issue:  Multi-year funding is the ONLY
    way to go.  Just think how much time and effort is required
    to kiss rear in Washington every year to make sure funding is
    at the required levels!  The money spent on that effort could
    be spent on actual work.

I am just as skeptical as Ken Jenks as to how much NASA can change.
However, I never thought I would see the day when an organization like
GBCS and AT&T could turn so completely around.  I watch IBM flounder
and sputter and say "Hmm... that was us five years ago".

When I first discovered this news group, I was sooo excited.  I thought
I would get all sorts of technical info; stuff I used to fly down to
Washington for a day to look up in the Air and Space museum's library!
I wade through scores of posts that have one common theme: NASA stinks!
But, until Ken's posting, there was NEVER any real attempt to outline
the basic change in thinking that is REQUIRED to turn NASA (or any
other large organization) around.  Things like DC-X and Pegasus are
very cool, BUT the chances of getting these to real day-in, day-out
operational status are very slim, unless there is a clear national
Vison, Mission and Values ideology for space exploration and utilization.

This space stuff is not very exciting anymore.  Sad.  God, I'm depressed.
NASA, either stand your ground and do it right or get the flying hell
out of the business!  Congress, figure out what the rank and file
American wants out of NASA and fund it seriously or put the money to
work someplace else (like less than 1% of the budget is gonna make a
difference someplace else).

I'm sick of political discussions!  I wanna talk about EVA, hardware,
technical procedures, etc.  I want to design a Get-Away Special...

Oh well,
Joe Nastasi
Consultant for AT&T
Middletown, NJ
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 12:37:26 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>
>    I think Mr. Coffman may have forgotten one cost of long
>transit times. *Someone* will have money tied up for the duration
>of delivery. That money had better pay back at better than bank
>interest rates would or the investors are potentially  losing
>money. That is going to effect pricing. A naive calculation
>indicates that if the bank rate is 5%, and the cargo takes
>14 months to arrive (from the asteroid belt), then the banks
>would have paid about $1.06 for every dollar tied up in the
>cargo for that time. If someone else can deliver the same
>product in less time, that aspect of costs will be less.

James, *any* product delivered in space with only a 6% markup
for transit is a major improvement over the current state of
the art. Transport costs are the dominant factor in materials
cost in space. If longer transit times yield sharply lowered
transport costs, then the time cost of money is overwhelmed
by the savings. If time costs were dominant, we'd fly oil
back from the Middle East instead of using slow tankers.

Note that I understand that these costs can't be ignored,
but you have to treat them properly. This time cost is not
incurred by *every* shipment, only by the first. It's like
a pipeline with it's long lead time before a return is
seen. Once the product is flowing, the material is fungible
with product entering the pipeline indistinguishable from
product exiting. This means that time of transit cost no
longer exists under ordinary accounting rules. Normally,
the first item cost is smoothed over all succeeding product
via depreciation, but that smoothing interval only starts
once, at project startup, not at the instant of each bit
of product insertion into the system.

>    Also, turning *off* the pipeline (In the event that
>the market for the product crashes, for example) takes time.
>If product x is arriving every week in the 14 month example,
>that means there are 56 cargos of product x that *will* arrive,
>after production stops. There's a certain inflexibility to
>'Leinster-style' pipe-lines, which may worry investors.

Pipeline style shipping is only suitable for large volume
commodities. A collapse of the market would mean a collapse
of large scale space activities. This would be similar to
the case if everyone stopped driving cars tommorrow. There'd
be a similar collapse in the oil market, but bankers and
investors would have more serious problems to worry about
than some oil in the pipe. The entire financial structure
would collapse due to the lack of economic activity. Or,
as another analogy, suppose the demand for drinking water
in NYC stopped tommorrow. The holders of water bonds would
be unhappy, but the fact that everyone in NYC would be dead
would take overwhelming priority on the stock market.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:17:54 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>Get this: a man murdered a Japanese exchange student in BR and
>was acquitted. A great miscarriage of justice. But he got away
>with it, and the student wasn't even shooting at a Martian.

Get this: a man responded with deadly force to a percieved attacker
who refused to halt his advance when warned. A jury found he had
acted the way a reasonable person would in interptreting the victim's
actions as placing him in fear of his life. That the victim wasn't
really attacking him is irrelevant under law. Hindsight is 20/20.
It should be equally sad if the perceived attacker had really intended
to harm him and *had* because he didn't fire in time. The man had
been victimized four times previously.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 27 May 1993 10:01:54 -0400
From: Peter Webb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

: The route to intelligence used by humans is still hotly debated by
: anthropologists.
: 1) expanded brain required to maintain social structures.
: 2) expanded brain required for speech and cooperation
: 3) expanded brain driven by increasing tool use requirements for fine
:     manipulation
: 4) large brain required for primate binocular color vision
:

Another explaination appears in William Calvin's wonderful book _The River
that Flows Uphill_.  He postulates that the primates with larger brains could
hurl projectiles (spears, rocks) more accurately, and were thus better able
to kill prey animals for food.  His is the first argument I've seen that places
a strong survival value on a larger brain.


--
Peter Webb                     [e-mail]
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.        Voice: 401-727-4200
1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860        FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 12:51:10 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bill nelson) writes:
>[e-mail] () writes:
>:
>: logically cool one at that.  Initially, I think space advertising will
>: appeal to a lot of people simply due to its novelty.  Maybe it will
>: proliferate, but I think it will go the way of Burma-Shave signs and
>: highway billboards.  Who really reads billboards anyways?
>
>Unfortunately, the only place highway billboards have gone away is where
>they have been legislated out of existance. Even then, the advertisers
>try to find ways around the bans.

I miss the Burma Shave signs. They broke the monotony of long trips
between interminable boring stretches of featureless pine forests.
No more counting the "See Rock City" signs, no more "Visit the Jungle"
signs. The highways are now bland and boring affairs crawling along
under artificially reduced speed limits. Now we are reduced to playing
trolling for tailights with our radar detector testers to stay alert.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 27 May 1993 10:36:58 GMT
From: Ted B Samsel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF (Russian books)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

John Calvin Batchelor (great name..author of THE RISE AND FALL
OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF ANTARCTICA, AMERICAN FALLS, and the
2 "CAT" books) has recently come out with a fictional account
of the "first" Soviet moon landing. Should be entertaining.
--
Ted....

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

Date: 27 May 1993 10:30:20 GMT
From: Ted B Samsel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

  A friend of mine's father was a NASA engineer until the early
shuttle trials and his opinion was that Wolfe was right on the
money in his portrayal of those times. (At least from his
vantage point).
--
Ted....

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 93 15:25:39 BST
From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> Henry Spencer writes:
>The way I read Sagan is that maybe ten years ago, he decided that
>prevent nuclear war was his *highest* priority and everything else
>was secondary. Out of that flowed most everything he's done since
>(well, in the popular eye anyway -- he is still doing planetary science
>now and then).
  So what we are saying here, is like every other charlatan, faker or
fanatic, he sacrificed truth at the altar of belief ..
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
[e-mail] or     : Vici
[e-mail] : Veni

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 638
------------------------------