Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_3/v9_385.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.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/cYHhJQy00UkZAGtE4J>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 03:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 03:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #385

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 385

Today's Topics:
             take Platygaeanism elsewhere
    Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)
         Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
Multi-colored, artificial cloud to be visible along East Coast (Forwarded)
    Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Apr 89 12:52:02 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: take Platygaeanism elsewhere

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bret Jolly) writes:
}>answer this: what is the actual shape of the earth?
}
}   It would certainly be nice to know the answer to this! The problem
}is that although we can see (as I have shown earlier) that the conventional
}round-earth theories must be rejected on a number of grounds, there are still
}too many flat possibilities. The LA Platygaean Society welcomes attempts
}to refute these theories, so that we can arrive at the truth through a
}process of elimination.

You cannot find out something through elimination unless you have a complete
set to work from.  You are a couple of cans short of a six-pack.

}PS  Please don't lump platygaeanism in with creationism, it makes much
}more sense. Thanx.

It makes almost as much sense, true.

However, since this is talk.origins:

talk.origins            Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!).

And you have said you are not creationism and clearly are not evolution
will you take this sh*t elsewhere?!?!?


suggestions:
talk.bizarre            The unusual, bizarre, curious, and often stupid.
    This sounds like an excellent location for flat earthers

misc.misc               Various discussions not fitting in any other group.
    It reallt DOESN'T fit any rational place.

alt.flame               Alternative, literate, pithy, succinct screaming.
    need I say more?

sci.space               Space, space programs, space related research, etc.
    you seem to try to bring in the shape of space (to compensate for
    your misviews of the shape of the earth).  This would have some
    severe cosmological implications

sci.astro               Astronomy discussions and information.
    ibid.

alt.weemba              Talk & flames about the one & only Weemba.
    nothing else there seems to pertain...

news.groups             Discussions and lists of newsgroups.
    why don't you make one up?

rec.arts.sf-lovers      Science fiction lovers' newsgroup.
    "flat earth" is definitely a science fiction idea at best.

rec.humor               Jokes and the like.  May be somewhat offensive.
    at least it is an offensive joke

sci.misc                Short-lived discussions on subjects in the sciences.
    you seem to try to pretend it is a science, and it does not clearly
    fit in any other science group.  We can hope for short-lived.

sci.physics             Physical laws, properties, etc.
    You will need something to account for the apparent discrepancy
    between physical laws (gravity, light travel paths,...) and your
    absurd theories.

talk.philosophy.misc    Philosophical musings on all topics.
    sounds sort of right...


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"
                    - D. Duck

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

Date: 19 Apr 89 15:54:10 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)

> The "Buffalo News" ran a story about the Stirling a couple of days
> ago; of course, the object wasn't to explain the Stirling, but to defame it
> and then use it to beat Sen. Alfonse D'amato over the head with (he
> initiated substantial funding for Stirling R&D). The whole premise of the
> story was the uselessness of the Stirling and what a waste of taxpayer money
> it is.
>
> Anyone have any comments? Would someone explain the operating
> principle(s)?
>
> -------------
> John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo
> Bitnet  : v131q5cg@ubvmsc
> Internet: [e-mail]
> ----------

* Hm, that question really put a sparkle in my eyes -- I've been tinkering
(on paper, at least) with stirlings off-and-on for a long time.

* The Stirling is an external combustion engine -- one applies heat to one
cylinder that contains a piston; the heated gas expands and drives the piston
for the power stroke; in the compression stroke, the heated gas is passed
through a heat-storage system (or "regenerator") to a second cylinder that
contains a second piston (or "displacer").

In this second cylinder, the heated gas is cooled and then compressed again by
the displacer -- and transferred back (with reheating from the regenerator)
into the power piston for the next cycle.

There are various architectures for stirlings -- in some of them, the two
cylinders are ingeniously "folded" into one cylinder.  (The Stirling engine
that NASA has been working with, I recall, actually has twin opposed stirling
engines in a single module.)

Stirlings are somewhat mechanically complicated (whether they are inerently
more complicated than a normal reciprocating internal-combustion engine I
cannot say) and they have so far shown inferior power-to-weight ratios (though
that may be true only because they have had less development than other
engines).

Their absolute beauty is that they are, as I said, _external_ combustion
engines -- you can run 'em off anything: gasoline, jet fuel, wood, coal,
solar power, cowflops, you name it.  Their most practical application right
now is as a motive source for underveloped areas where their ability to
operate off of rice hulls and the like is valuable.

They are conceptually elegant.  Their future potential is an open question.

* I wrote all this off the top of my head; I have notes at home, and I've
been wanting to assemble them into something more coherent for a long time.
If anyone's interest, let me know, I'll cook it up and post it.

    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Greg Goebel                                                         |
    | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
    | [phone]                                                      |
    | INTERNET: cwo_online@hp-pcd                                         |
    | HP DESK:  CWO ONLINE / HP3900 / 20                                  |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

            Wednesday, 19 April 1989 08:47:37 AM PDT

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

Date: 20 Apr 89 04:50:16 GMT
From: att!kitty![e-mail]  (Larry Lippman)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rick Kawala) writes:
> > I have received requests for the citation which covers the
> > illegal aspects of man-ET encounters.  I am quoting here from the
> > enigmatic KRILL document previously posted here.
> >
> > "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
> > citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
> > Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
> > 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code
> > specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine.  The NASA
> > authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET
> > exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be
> > broken, even by court order."
>
> I called a friend of mine who's a paralegal and asked him to look
> this thing up. He told me that it citation was incomplete, that
> one has to say "Code of Federal Regulations", <subsection>, Title 14,
> Section 1211, where <subsection> can be replaced with things like
> "Coast Guard Regulations" or something. Otherwise, you're faced
> with too many books to look through.

    Your paralegal friend should go back to school; the citation is
quite complete.

    "14 CFR Part 1211" does IN FACT pertain to "extraterrestrial
exposure" (the CFR term used).

    14 CFR 1211 derives its authority from U. S. Code Title 18,
Section 799, "Violation of regulations of National Aeronautics and
Space Administration", which states:

    "Whoever willfully shall violate, attempt to violate, or conspire
to violate any regulation or order promulgated by the Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the protection or
security of any laboratory, station, base or other facility, or part
thereof, or any aircraft, missile, spacecraft, or similar vehicle,
or part thereof, or other property or equipment in custody of the
Administration, or any real or personal property or equipment in the
custody of any contractor under any contract with the Administration
or any subcontrator of any such contractor, shall be fined not more
than $ 5,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

    While my organization library has the full text of the U. S.
Code, we have comparatively few CFR sections (the full CFR is hundreds
of volumes), so I do not have the explicit text of 14 CFR 1211.  However,
I do have the CFR index which clearly states that the above section does
in fact pertain to "extraterrestrial exposure".

    I find it somewhat difficult to believe, however, that the cited
CFR section "can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be broken,
even by court order."  Any law is subject to judicial review, and it is
clearly unconstitutional to create a law which could not be subject to
judicial review or otherwise mitigated by "court order".  In general,
any detention pursuant to law of a living person (under the circumstances
I have to add this "qualifier") can be subject to judicial review through
a special proceeding of habeas corpus (or possibly mandamus, depending upon
the circumstances).

    I suspect, however, that this CFR section has yet to be tested
through judicial review. :-)

    My curiosity is now piqued, so if I have a chance in the next
few days, I may swing by the SUNY at Buffalo Law Library and look up the
actual section.

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<>  UUCP:  {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  VOICE: 716/688-1231, 716/773-1700        {att|hplabs|utzoo}!/
<>  FAX:   [phone]      "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

Date: 20 Apr 89 18:23:43 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Multi-colored, artificial cloud to be visible along East Coast (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

Joyce B. Milliner
GSFC/Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va.


RELEASE:  89-55

MULTI-COLORED, ARTIFICIAL CLOUD TO BE VISIBLE ALONG EAST COAST


     A rocketborne scientific experiment, programmed to create an
artificial cloud at high altitudes, is scheduled for launch
Sunday evening, April 23, from NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center's
Wallops Flight Facility on Virginia's Eastern Shore.

     A three-stage suborbital rocket, the Black-Brant X will
carry two canisters of barium to be ejected 90 seconds apart at
an altitude of about 300 statute miles.  The barium will create
an artificial greenish-purple cloud which can be visible for
approximately 20 minutes to residents, using binoculars, along
the U.S. East Coast from Canada to Florida and as far west as
Ohio.

     The objective of this launch is to investigate Nobel prize
winner Dr. Hannes Alfven's critical velocity effect theory, which
has been used to explain details in the early formation of the
solar system.  In 1954, Alfven, University of California, San
Diego, proposed that if an element in a nearly neutral plasma
became ionized when it attained a flow velocity which depended on
its ionization potential, then several facets of the structure of
the solar system could be explained.  This could explain the
differing chemical compositions of the planets and whether they
were formed during a gaseous or plasma transition.

     The launch is scheduled about 9:40 p.m. EDT from Wallops
Island, Va., during a launch window that opens April 24 and
extends through May 6.  Since the data will be obtained
optically, clear weather conditions are required at the ground
observing sites in Virginia, Massachusetts and North Carolina.
Delays could occur due to operational constraints or cloud cover
at the ground-based camera sites so the launch will be scheduled
on a day-to-day basis.

     The two canisters of barium will be ejected and detonated --
one as the payload ascends and one as it descends -- thus
creating two separate jets of gas near the apogee altitude of 300
miles.

     The explosives will simulate the fast-moving gas during the
formation of the solar system.  Sensors on-board the payload will
record characteristics of the heated plasma in the neutral jet.
Researchers from the ground, by using low-light-level television
cameras, will determine injection extent, velocity profile and
percentage of ionization.  Radar will measure ionospheric
parameters prior to and during the experiments.

     Dr. Roy Torbert, principal investigator from the University
of Alabama, Huntsville, said, "We conducted a similar flight from
Wallops in 1986.  However, this launch will allow for a higher
ambient plasma than occurred during the early morning flight in
1986."

     Other researchers include Gerhard Haerendel and Arnoldo
Valenzuela, Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics,
Munich, West Germany; Gene Wescott and Hans Nielson, University
of Alaska-Fairbanks; Jason Providakes and Mike Kelley, Cornell
University; John Foster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Kay Baker, Utah State University; Fritz Primdahl, Danish Space
Research Institute; and C.G. Falthammar and V. Brenning, Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden.  The NASA Wallops payload
manager is Paul Buchanan and project engineer is Debra Frostrom.

     This scientific mission is part of the overall NASA Sounding
Rocket Program managed at Wallops.  This program consists of
approximately 40 sounding rockets launched each year from various
worldwide locations.

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

Date: 20 Apr 89 09:08:18 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <[e-mail]>, yamauchi@cs (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>>full funding of the Space Station and protection of the Space Shuttle
>>program from cuts would require elimination of every other increase over
>>FY 1988.          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>What does "would require" mean -- that Boland isn't willing to increase
>funding for the entire space program

The committee recommended an increase of $1.7 billion over the FY 1988
NASA budget.  Even with this handsome increase, the choices mentioned
were necessary.  The "cuts" are taken from the proposed funding levels.

What do you think Fletcher thinks of the "cuts" the committee mentioned:

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Some of the problems that led to the [Challenger]
accident were caused by this continual pressure, downward pressure on
the budget over the years.  We are trying to make up for some of the
testing, for example, in the Space Shuttle that was missing in the early
days.  ...

  Mr. BOLAND.  Dr. Fletcher, you don't contend that the accident
occurred as a result of budget pressure, do you?  Did you just say that?

  Dr. FLETCHER.  It did occur because cuts were made, apparently over
the years, in testing of some of the components of the Space Shuttle.
Part of the problems [sic] that we are facing now were due to lack of
testing in the early days of the Space Shuttle program.

  Mr. BOLAND.  I have a feeling the accident happened not because of
budget pressures but because somebody along the line was not listening.

  Mr. GREEN.  That is plainly the case.  Plenty of people in NASA knew
of the problem with the O rings and yet they didn't so much as tell
your Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel there was a problem that ought to
be looked at.  So it is not as much a lack of tests didn't [sic]
disclose the problem, the problem was known to a large number of people
who didn't tell anyone.

  Dr. FLETCHER.  Before we get too far down this road, Mr. Chairman, I
want to way the cuts in NASA budget in those early years were not make
by this Committee.  They were made by OMB.  We signed up to it.  So I am
not blaming Congress for this.  This was done by us, but it was done, I
think in retrospect, carelessly.  Testing that should have been done was
not done.  New we are saying yes, we had better do it now if we want to
have a viable shuttle program.

---------

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

How would Eastern Airlines do if the federal government took it over?

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #385
*******************