Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_422.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/QYNy81i00UkZNSHk4e>;
          Wed, 10 May 89 03:17:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 10 May 89 03:17:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #422

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 422

Today's Topics:
           Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLE
          Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
             more 747 drop tests?
            Re: Meme me up, Scotty
            Re: Meme me up, Scotty
           Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
           Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
            Re: Citizens in Space
            Re: Citizens in Space
      Apollo 11 Crew 20th Anniversary Press Conference Scheduled
          Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
            Re: Meme me up, Scotty
           Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 May 89 19:02:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Final Frontier June 1989....EXCELLE


/* Written  4:56 pm  May  6, 1989 by [e-mail] in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */

Ah, but the question is did the *public* (who influence the government
that pays for such things) know that? IMHO McAuliffe would probably have
been very disappointed that the accident did as much damage to the space
program as it did. The public (for reasons I don't profess to understand)
seems to accept the deaths of "professionals" doing dangerous things much
more than "amueters" - r.e., when a test plane crashes and the _professional_
test pilot is killed, there is no large outcry. Put a private citizen on
a B-1 and have a fatal crash, and watch the plane testing program shut
down. And of course, it is far easier in this country to win a lawsuit which
the surviving relatives are guaranteed to file if the "victim" wasn't
a "professional". I personally believe in individual responsibility, but
that's unusual these days in the U.S. of A.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
[e-mail]           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

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

Date: 8 May 89 17:29:49 GMT
From: grits![e-mail]  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
> Discovery lands after highly successful mission.  NASA had hoped to
> conclude the mission with a crosswind landing, but the winds didn't
> cooperate and NASA instead used the concrete runway at Edwards so
> that hard-surface braking tests could be run.  [Radical, innovative
> thought:  if they want landing and braking tests, why not dust off
> Enterprise and run some more 747 drop tests?  Nah, too simple and
> effective.]  NASA says the orbiter is in good shape, with tile damage

The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is
used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC.  Currently, there is
only one such specially modified 747 in existence.  It is therefore
one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system.
Without it, shuttles don't get ferried and the system stops.
I hope NASA uses it only for missions that it alone can carry out.
Since there is at least a possibility of doing crosswind landings
and/or hard surface braking tests each time the orbiters land, without
risking the 747, it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until
a second ferry vehicle is available.


                                  |     ___  ___         ___ ___  __   ___
Doug Davey                        |    /__/ /__ /   /   /   /  / /__> /__
bellcore!rruxi!ddavey             |   /__/ /__ /__ /__ /__ /__/ /  \ /__
                                  |

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

Date: 9 May 89 01:43:23 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: more 747 drop tests?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Davey) writes:
>The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is
>used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC.  Currently, there is
>only one such specially modified 747 in existence.  It is therefore
>one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system.
>... it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until
>a second ferry vehicle is available.

One will be as soon as NASA gets around to it.  The aircraft has already
been bought and is in storage (!) awaiting the modifications.  Getting it
going wouldn't be a problem if there was a specific reason.  Dusting
off Enterprise and making it flight-ready, with up-to-date landing gear
and brakes, would probably take longer.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 May 89 03:43:36 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

from "Memetics, the Science of Information Viruses" _Whole Earth Review_,
Winter '87.  (An edited reprint of the Memetics article in Analog, Aug. '87

"Meme is similar to "idea," but not all ideas are memes.  A passing idea which
you do not communicate to others, or one which fails to take root in others,
falls short of being a meme.  The important part of the "meme about memes" is
that memes are subject to adaptive evolutionary forces very similar to those
that select for genes.  That is, their variation is subject to selection in
the environment provided by human minds, communications channels, and the vast
collection of cooperating and competing memes that make up human culture."
Keith Henson ([e-mail])

PS I have an unpublished manuscript, "Memes, Meta-Memes and Politics" that
I could mail out (60k?) or post to the net if anyone knows where it should
go. HKH

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

Date: 8 May 89 04:20:19 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

[e-mail] (Ken Arromdee) after giving a reasonable definition
of meme, voices two objections:
---------
>I don't see anything wrong with this concept itself, but I am skeptical of
>over-applying it because it is often used in ad-hominem attacks:

>"So many people hold opinions disagreeing with me not because they have
>examined the facts and came to a different conclusion, but rather because
>the opposing opinion is a meme which spreads easily."

>"The two sides of this position have approximately equal validity; after
>all, they're both memes.  So you can't say your position is better." [usually
>not used too soon after the previous one, of course]

I would be interested in seeing an ad-hominem attack example, but you have
missed the additional concept of a meta-meme.  A meta-meme is a meme which
exerts selective pressure on other memes.  The primary example would be the
scientific method.  Keith Henson
.

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

Date: 8 May 89 21:47:33 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Myers) writes:
}>>>>"Should NASA resume its program to take ordinary citizens on the shuttle?"
}>...simply too blinkin' expensive to be able to justify a joy ride for an
}>"ordinary citizen", even if we had a system which was 100% safe (which we
}>most certainly do NOT have at present)...
}
}Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
}the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
}offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
}not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
}How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
}but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens?  This argument
}appears totally bogus.

I am inclined to believe that those flying understood the risks.
I am also inclined to believe (based upon court cases) that those left
behind do not.

Until they both do, can it.



The above was test data, and not the responsibility of any organization.

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

Date: 8 May 89 19:51:28 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com![e-mail]  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

Could someone with the technical know-how build a
>useful satellite out of components bought at the local Radio Shack
>and hardware store?
>(Remember, for the purposes of this exercise, you aren't NASA, you
>are J.Doe, building your own space probe. We'll leave aside for
>the moment the problems and costs of actually launching the thing)
>Jeremy Edward
>7-MAY-89
>EDWARDJ@RMC

Something like this has been done on the various OSCAR amateur radio
satellites.  I don't know much details, but those interested could call up the
ARRL (a national amateur radio club) in Newington, CT  203-666-1541 and they
should be able to direct you to knowledgable people.
73 de WA2ISE

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

Date: 8 May 89 03:24:53 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (H Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space


Andrew D. Williams| [e-mail] responding to earlier posts:
Now for my two cents worth.  (BTW I goofed and forgot to include Matt's
article where he describes his reasons.)  I am in the ROTC at Cornell and
one of the things they stress here is our professionallism.  I was appaled
at the Challenger incident.  First because it happened at all but more
importantly at the fact that the family of the officers were sueing the
government.  I am sorry but that is wrong.  <reasons deleted>
-----------
While I agree that there is a certain amount of reason to your arguments,
the fact that NASA management over ruled engineers who were pleading for
them to wait for warmer weather takes the Challenger out of the "accident"
category, and I think opened the door to a suit.  Keith Henson

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

Date: 9 May 89 01:24:32 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Citizens in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (H Keith Henson) writes:
>While I agree that there is a certain amount of reason to your arguments,
>the fact that NASA management over ruled engineers who were pleading for
>them to wait for warmer weather takes the Challenger out of the "accident"
>category, and I think opened the door to a suit.  Keith Henson

Point of fact: The management in question, which overruled the
engineers, was Moron Fireball management, not NASA.  In phone
conference with NASA, the engineers said no-go, the MT management said
"Hold just a minute", put the speakerphone on hold, chased all the
engineers out of the room, then got back on the line and said
"Everything is fine."

True, maybe NASA should have smelled a rat.  And there were other
places where NASA was to blame.  But NASA did not have the information
that the engineers opposed the launch.
--
"I hate trolls.  Maybe I could metamorph it into    | Mike Van Pelt
 something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed,     | Video 7
 fire-breathing dragon."  -- Willow.                | ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

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

Date: 8 May 89 16:46:42 GMT
From: ccnysci![e-mail]  (Patt Haring)
Subject: Apollo 11 Crew 20th Anniversary Press Conference Scheduled

Ported to USENET from UNITEX NETWORK via
  The Rutgers FidoGATEway
  UNITEX BBS: 201-795-0733

We want ** your ** news bulletins:
  (FAX: [phone] : Attention: James Waldron, Ph.D.)
or ...!rutgers!rubbs!107!501!James.Waldron
or [e-mail]
or [e-mail]

*APOLLO 11 CREW 20TH ANNIVERSARY PRESS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED

     In preparation for the upcoming 20th anniversary of the
first manned lunar landing, the Apollo 11 astronauts will
participate in a press conference in Wash., D.C., May 26, 1989.

     The press conference with Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and
Michael Collins will begin at 10:30 a.m. EDT in the NASA
Headquarters 6th floor auditorium, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

     Due to the limited time available, it will not be possible
to schedule individual media requests for interviews with the
crew.  However, an audio and video tape of interviews will be
prepared by NASA where the most anticipated questions will be
asked.  These tapes will be available by June 9.  A transcript of
the press conference will be available by June 5.

     This material will be available to bonafide news media
representatives by calling or writing:

         Audio Visual material:
              Broadcast and Audio Visual Branch - LMD
              NASA Headquarters, Wash., D.C.  20546
              (Phone:  [phone])

         Transcript:
              News and Information Branch - LM
              NASA Headquarters, Wash., D.C.  20546
              (Phone:  [phone])

 * Origin: UNITEX --> Toward a United Species (1:107/501)

--
unitex - via FidoNet node 1:107/520
UUCP: ...!rutgers!rubbs!unitex
ARPA: [e-mail]

--
Patt Haring                  | My other site is a  Public Access UN*X
rutgers!cmcl2!ccnysci!patth  | system: The Big Electric Cat
[e-mail]         | 1-212-879-9031  [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 May 89 15:26:33 GMT
From: ecsvax![e-mail]  (Charles J. Lord)
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

Henry made two interesting observations in his capsulation of the
3/27 AvLeak that merit further discussion.

First off, the suggestion to use Enterprise for further braking
and crosswind tests is invalid - if my understanding of the
differences between the designs is correct.  The Enterprise was
a design that was improved upon in the competing configuration that
became the Columbia/Challenger/Discovery/Atlantis series.  There
are too many structural (and I believe aerodynamic) differences
between the two - enough to make the conversion of Enterprise to
a functional shuttle.  For these reasons, it is my guess that the
craft would not fly exactly the same nor have the same hard braking
response in drop tests.  Otherwise, it is an intriguing thought...

If they were hard up enough to do drop tests, why not drop one of the
flying shuttles?  (Other than that it would delay the turnaround
to flight readyness at KSC)

Second... Now, I agree that a 68030 in orbit is nicer than an 80386,
but really, Henry - isn't a '386 better than the 8088 that was in
the old GRIDs they *were* using? ;-)
--
 *  Charles Lord               ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl  Usenet (old) *
 *  Cary, NC                   [e-mail]            Usenet (new) *
 *  #include <std.disclamers>  [e-mail]          Bitnet       *
 *  #include <cutsey.quote>    [e-mail]      Internet     *

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

Date: 9 May 89 01:21:38 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Meme me up, Scotty

Okay, so from mail and followups the consensus seems to be that a
"meme" is an idea that gets passed around as opposed to expiring
quietly in the author's cranium.  I am less than certain that this
is a distinction that required a new word (much less a new "discipline")
but that's in the eye of the beholder I guess.

I apologize for dragging this into sci.space.  Now can we get back
to UFO's and comparing forms of government? <wink>

--
Tom Neff                UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 May 89 13:06:22 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silliness

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
}Leaving aside the debate about whether this use of a shuttle seat is worth
}the money, I've always been puzzled by the "but it's not safe" bullpucky
}offered as an argument against private citizens in space.  Of course it's
}not safe; so what?  Don't you think Christa McAuliffe understood that?
}How can the thing be safe enough to fly (volunteer) government employees
}but not safe enough to fly (volunteer) private citizens?  This argument
}appears totally bogus.

Especially in view of the fact that very few of the other "teacher in space"
candidates withdrew after Challenger.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
            Disclaimer? I claimed something?
    You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #422
*******************