Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v08/v8_313.txt

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/andrew.cmu.edu.8667.0.0>;
          Wed,  3 Aug 88 22:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.22f7c841.17021da>;
          Wed,  3 Aug 88 22:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA08661> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 3 Aug 88 22:12:06 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01429; Wed, 3 Aug 88 19:04:31 PDT
    id AA01429; Wed, 3 Aug 88 19:04:31 PDT
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 19:04:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #313

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 313

Today's Topics:
        Re: ET phone home? (SETI)   RESPONSES
                  Re: (none)
             Re: Libertarian space policy
             Re: Libertarian space policy
             Re: Libertarian space policy
          Re: Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures
           Solar max; also soviets and solar flares
              Space Station Name chosen
             Re: Born classified
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 88 20:51:58 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: ET phone home? (SETI)   RESPONSES

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Wales) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]>
}[e-mail] (Elwood) writes:
}
}    I was wondering if it is true, as I heard, that only the
}    carrier wave from TV signals is able to reach beyond the
}    atmosphere -- i.e., no aliens out there are examining TV
}    pictures from Earth.
}
}I believe this is more or less correct.


I believe that the "less" is more accurate than the "more".

For instance - communications satellites.  The uplink is not all that
powerful (a "bad guy" overpowered one with a breadboard setup) and it
obviously reaches above the atmosphere.  As for ordinary tv, maybe a
sci.space individual could cast some light...


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
[e-mail] 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

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

Date: 26 Jul 88 18:51:59 GMT
From: att!alberta!auvax![e-mail]  (Ralph Hand)
Subject: Re: (none)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("OK, IS THIS BETTER?") writes:
> + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shari Landes (mind![e-mail]):
>
>
** old article deleted **

 >of light, would you be able to see yourself before you left?
>
> This is a very intriguing question but I'm afraid the answer is disappointingly
> simple:  If time travel were possible, wouldn't someone have told us by now?
> Think about it..
>
> q:)

I realize that you were not really serious, but no someone would not have
told us by now.  Would not doing so alter their own history thereby
putting their own existance into doubt.  There is a potential for a paradox
here.  The people of the future would have to decide not to let us know if
they desired to continue to exist themselves.

Other than that it is a nice theory.


Ralph

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

Date: 26 Jul 88 15:56:46 GMT
From: n3dmc!gronk![e-mail]  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matt) writes:
> If you would like to see an analagous situation, look at Antarctica.
> The goal of international control for the benefit of humankind was
> corrupted by attaching property "rights" to any sort of presence, in
> fact, specifically to 'scientific' presence.

The only reason the 'corrupted' situation in Antarctica exists is
because it is a compromise between the two extremes.  A treaty has
to consider the views and interests of all concerned parties.
"International control for the benefit of Mankind" may be a nice
idea to some people, but in its idealogically pure form, it isn't
a practical basis for a treaty.  The reason for the acceptance of
the current treaty was the perceived uselessness of Anarctica.
If someone discovers valuable mineral deposits, the current treaty
may not last very long.

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

Date: 26 Jul 88 14:53:40 GMT
From: l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matt) writes:
> ======> flame to follow
>
>  Re: Moon Treaty, Private development of space resources, and Libertarians:
>  . . .

So you want an international body to decide what is good for us?  I will
admit that I do not know what is good for us--I have a few ideas.  But one
thing which is not good for us is to have us decide what is good for us.
We do not know, and we will never know, so we must have people with initiative
try things out.

Of the administrators and bureaucrats I have known, industrial, academic, and
governmental, many seem to have their intelligence severely reduced by the mere
installment in the administrative position.  I refer to those who operate "by
the book", to those who feel that they were put in the position as a reward
and can use that position to obstruct, and those who feel that they know what
is best.  That latter category, which seems to be those to whom Matt would
entrust space, is especially bad.

The best earth governments can do in regard to space is to try to suppress
monopolies.  How many governments are doing it in their own countries?  I
do not think that suppressing monopolies is particularly important in
Monaco or San Marino, but Luxembourg is already getting there.  Try to
get a reasonable education in the US with the present establishment in
power.

And you would turn things over to something like the UN?  More than 80% of
the countries have no idea of individual freedom or individual initiative.
From your posting, I would have to conclude that you do not believe in
individual freedom or initiative when it comes to space.

Even the countries which claim to have individual freedoms are reducing their
extent.  The nations of the world, including the US, have largely interfered
with attempts to gain freedom for oppressed "right-wingers" and have supported
socialists.

The right to space should belong to those with the courage, drive, ability,
resources, and luch to got out there and live there.  A secondary right
should go to those who can use the above to exploit it.  Now many, if not
most, people do not believe that these efforts are worthwhile.  They need
not support these efforts, and can only expect to receive the spinoffs from
those who do.

If you look at the damage from Love Canal and Johns Manville, you will find it
pales in comparison to the damage done by the statists.  If you expect an
industrial organization, private individual, or government to be responsible
for every totally unexpected consequence of their actions, you are saying that
we can do nothing.  You complain about pollution and environmental damage by
industry; what about that due to overpopulation?  And most governments are
actively encouraging overpopulation, and the ones that are attempting to
control it are doing so by totalitarian or stupid means.

To expect even one of our present governments to do anything to establishing
free people in space is wishful thinking.  To expect an international organiza-
tion, composed of nations which would eliminate freedom of the press (seriously
proposed by the "third world" nations) to allow it is fatuous.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

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

Date: 26 Jul 88 15:07:17 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Libertarian space policy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matt) writes:
> ... the attitude that international control of
> space resources is "sick" is misguided...
> True international control, ala law of the sea treaty, could allow for
> commercial development of space without either militarization or
> space pollution...

[beginSarcasm]  As shown by the many successful ocean-mining projects? [endS]

"International control" in practice means Third World control, and that means
mama-knows-best socialism in its worst form.

> But private or national interests will never choose
> action with the good of the commonweal first...

Nor will Third World governments (or Second or First World governments, for
that matter).  Nations are just collections of private interests.  Inter-
national bodies are just collections of nations.  The word "international"
does not magically bestow goodness and light.

> I can hardly wait to see the outer space equivalent of Love Canal...

Don't forget that Hooker, the dirty commercial owners of Love Canal, didn't
want to sell it to the local government, on the grounds that it was unsafe.
When coerced into selling, by the benevolent government which had everyone's
best interests at heart, they insisted that the bill of sale warn of the
toxic chemicals present.  Said benevolent government proceeded to ignore
the warnings and opened the area for development.
--
MSDOS is not dead, it just     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
smells that way.               | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Jul 88 14:31:59 GMT
From: ecsvax![e-mail]  (D Gary Grady)
Subject: Re: Trust Fund Proposed for Space Ventures

In article <22e73cc1@ralf> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:
>}[Typical of N.J. reps; "I'm in favor of the space program, if you can
>}build an interstate to orbit."]
>
>Hmm, I wonder if the Launch Loop would apeal to him....
>

Only if you put toll booths every few kilometers.  :-)
--
D Gary Grady
[phone]
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
BITNET:  [e-mail]

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

Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 88 16:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jul 88 13:25:00 CDT
From: "Pat Reiff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar max; also soviets and solar flares
To: "ota" <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Reply-To: "Pat Reiff" <[e-mail]>

In SD 292, Mike Smithwick <[e-mail]> says:
>Oh, by the way. The solar max mission was a demonstration flight among other
>things. If we didn't have a real satillite to repair, surely a dummy would
>have been flown to practice with.

Wrong.  I was on the Committee for Solar-Terrestrial Research, a National
Academy of Sciences committee overseeing (guess what) the U.S. Solar-
Terrestrial Research progam, and we had long discussions on whether to
repair solar max.  The argument went that it was important, unreplaceable
science, and it was cost effective (see below).  The fact that it
demonstrated the capability of repair was (at least to our committee) of
secondary importance. (Incidentally, Solar Max was one of the first
spacecraft to see Supernova 1987A!)

>And wrt Phil's comment about the mission
>costing more than a replacment satillite. I believe that the SMM cost around
>$150 million. A replacement would likely cost more due to inflation and take
>years to get on line, not to mention a dedicated shuttle mission just to
>launch it. So with the experience gained, the time saved, I think it was
>worth it. (not to mention the neato TV that was returned).

We agree....The cost to repair that we heard was about $50 million.


On another topic, (whether the U.S. warns the USSR of solar proton events),
I received the following reply from my friends at the World Data Center
(edited slightly):
.......................
First, we don't put out alerts or messages on SPAN (at least
yet).  We do have a bulletin board you can call - 303-497-5000.
It updates once/day and includes the daily forecasts and reports
of activity and parameters.  It is slanted toward ham radio
operators.  We also broadcast a simple message over WWV (5, 10,
15, 20 MHz) at 18 min past each hour.  It is updated every 3
hours.  The same message is put on a tape recorder for dial-up.
The number is [phone].  If you get really interested,
there is a satellite broadcast deal you can buy into.  We
basically rebroadcast a lot of our data (including GOES x-rays and
protons at 1-min resolution and also the geosync mag field data)
over a commercial link.  You can pick it up and save it or just
plug it into a PC and have it ring bells if we broadcast an alert.
Finally, just call the SESC when you want information - 303-497-3171.  We
are in business 24 hr/day (although the operators may get busy if
conditions are active).
     Now - the proton event.  We had one on 30 June but it was puny.  There
was an M9/2B flare 30/0906 UT and the event began 30/1055 UT.  It maxed at
1135 UT at 21 protons per cm2 etc. and ended at 30/1825.  (Our threshold is
10 at greater than 10 MeV energies measured on GOES).  We always call NASA
when we get an event, and if a shuttle mission is in progress then we call
them 3 times/day anyway (and more under event conditions).  Many of your
questions regarding doses and historical events can be answered by the SRAG
(Solar Radiation Analysis Group) at JSC.   We also send a 'courtesy
message' to Moscow when we get proton events.  There is no official
requirement to do so, but we routinely exchange messages daily anyway as
part of the IUWDS network.

     Here is a recent reference on doses at DMSP altitudes -
Gussenhoven et al., IEEE Trans. on Nucl. Sci., Vol NS-34, no. 3,
pg 676, June 1987.  Sample - the accumulated dose behind .5
gm/cm2 of aluminum between Apr 77 and Apr 78 was about 3 krad.
DMSP is at 840 km, and the SAA is ordinarily the big contributor.
They also say that a 3-day mission at high inclination during
moderately large solar particle events could lead to a dose
deposition of 30 rad or more behind minimal s/c skin (enough
to damage the ocular nerve).
     The October 1987 issue of Aerospace America had an article
on the radiation hazards in space by people mostly from the Naval
Research Lab.

     I hope this covers most of your questions.

..............................
P.S.  I did find the data books on the August 1972 flares, if anyone wants
esoteric data (it's World Data Center A Report UAG-28)....P.R.
------
From the First Space Physics Department (celebrating its 25th anniversary):
                                                    :
     Patricia H. Reiff                              :  Not only are my
     Department of Space Physics and Astronomy      :  opinions solely my
     Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892        :  own, I reserve the
     internet:  [e-mail]     :  right to change my
     SPAN:      RICE::REIFF                         :  mind occasionally!
                                                    :
------
------

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

Date: 27 Jul 88 18:15:19 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space Station Name chosen

From Aviation Week, July 25, p 34:

President Reagan last week named the NASA/International
space station "Freedom". The name was selected from
more than 700 suggestions sent to NASA by its employees,
contractors, international partners and the public. It
was nominated by Adam Gruen, who works in NASA's space
station history office.

-----------------------------------------------------
They have a space station history office already??

The same issue has an article about Dukakis'
opposition to the station in its present form.




- Jonathan McDowell

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

Date: 27 Jul 88 18:55:46 GMT
From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Born classified

Please move this discussion out of space into one of the legal
newsgroups.  It is diverging.  Why ask space nuts who know nothing
about law? 8-)  {I won't take this one to our space lawyers.}
And if you read this on BITNET or the ARPA Internet and don't have a
Usenet system, go get a Unix system and read on one of those.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #313
*******************