Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_439.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/oYPyQ8W00UkZRlWk4N>;
          Tue, 16 May 89 05:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 16 May 89 05:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #439

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 439

Today's Topics:
       UFOs and other bunk (getting tiring, isn't it?)
           Long Duration Exposure Facility
         Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
         Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility
               heavy launchers
         Re: citizens in space -- risk silli
       Re: Enterprise: will it ever fly,like Columbia ?
            Re: flames about my signature
Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
         Re: Private funding of space science
           Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?
            Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 May 89 15:08 CST
From: I am Beatrice <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFOs and other bunk (getting tiring, isn't it?)
Original_To:  BITNET%"[e-mail]"

}From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
}> Nope, gotta put in my two bits here, Mark. Blowing up the sun and mining
}> asteroids are two things that are possible, but we haven't got the ability
}
}The same person who thinks blowing up the sun is possible says:
}
}>         UFOs, though, are not proven to exist. There is absolutely no firm
}> ground to base their existence on. Just because the universe is so huge
}> that life MUST have evolved elsewhere has nothing to do with whether or
}> [e-mail]
}There are some important things to consider, with regard to ET's.  We must
}have a plan for dealing with them NOW, before it happens;  otherwise we will
}follow our instincts or an ad hoc plan, and screw everything up.

Think they're gonna stop and ask permission to land unless they are peaceful?
And I don't THINK blowing up the sun is possible, I KNOW it is. Give me
all the extra-sun mass in the solar system, and time to get it accelerated
to a decent speed, and I'll get rid of that nasty sun. There is a basic
difference that I'm trying to get at - we've reason to believe that the
sun operates on nuclear fusion, and if we can add enough energy to it, it
will go out of "control" (as if its in control:{), and explode.

}Note that the Apollo astronauts were subjected to quarantine on return to
}Earth.  Obviously NASA takes ET contact very seriously.

I don't believe the Apollo astronauts ever came into contact with ETs.

}Could an alien virus or bacteria infect us?  Or could one of ours infect
}them?  I would not want to be responsible for the kind of plagues which
}occurred following contact between Old World explorers and the natives
}of the New World.

Seriously, if the Indians had known that we carried smallpox, etc, what
could they have done? Kindly asked us to leave, because we are dangerous
to them?

}I would certainly be very hesitant to release yeast on the planet of
}the potato-heads.

Sure, but I was arguing against US worrying about ETs landing here, not
US landing elsewhere.

}But there is one kind of virus which can infect any form of intelligent
}life.  I am speaking, of course, about memes.  Imagine the kind of
}destruction we would be causing if we exposed a peaceful, traditional
}society to Marxism or the Bible (or both).  Imagine the kind of destruction
}they could cause if they infected us with a super-UFO-Nazi religion.
}
}"Have you accepted Zzyzzybalubah as your personal saviour?  If not,
}you're facing the fires of hell.  We've come to your planet to carry
}the message of the Lord to you, so you may share in the glorious
}afterlife in dimension 5 that Zzyzzybalubah has prepared for you.
}And if you don't get the message, we're going to roast the whole planet."

So, what should we do? Anyone who can roast the whole planet obviously isn't
going to stop when we send up a couple hundred measly warheads, which we
cannot even do. And any preparations would probably backfire - "Uh, sir,
they seem to have weapons trained on us. Can I get rid of them?"

I guess I'm getting a bit tired of this. I personally am heavily into sci-fi.
I'd be very happy to have the aliens come tomorrow and save us from ourselves.
But realistically, I don't think its going to happen. More than likely,
any aliens that run across us would be tremendously advanced, and they should
have figured out some of the problems. Thats about the only chance we have.

The original settlers of America didn't come to destroy a millenia old culture,
(on both sides of the Atlantic), but they did nonetheless. And they knew more
about what was happening than the Indians ( and later, Negroes) did. But
they went ahead with it. I firmly believe that we don't have the ability
to detect and guard against anything subtle that aliens might bring. We
cannot even get rid of the common cold, which we've had thousands of years
to work with. As for psychological effects, we aren't even sure how seperate
peoples on the Earth relate to each other, much less advanced outsiders.
My opinion is that first WE ( western culture) should stop the changes we
are working (sometimes forcibly) in other cultures all over the world, before
we start worrying about problems with aliens changing us. Maybe we'll be
told that the Indians had it all right, and that there is going to be a
Galactic weeding out of all non-believers:-) This is just as valid as anything
else I've heard about aliens.

It is very hard to scientifically study something without the benifit of
a subject. We've gotten to watch supernovae and novae in many other galaxies,
and thus we can theorise about them. And to check up on our theories, we
wait until another happens somewhere. But with aliens, we have no subject
matter, and we have no idea where to look for them.

If there are aliens that come to Earth, I would greet them with open arms. But
until then, my plan is to be the alien coming to another's planet. Then
I'll worry about problems that I could cause them to have. If they are use
anerobic processes to survive, I won't try to up the oxygen content of their
atmosphere. If their atmosphere is a two to one mix of H and O, I won't
light my cigaretts:-)

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

Date: 13 May 89 07:57:35 GMT
From: blake![e-mail]  (sealion)
Subject: Long Duration Exposure Facility

With the current backlog in payloads for the shuttle system, are
there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility?

Thanks.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't
 believe this to be a coincidence." || - Jeremy S. Anderson   12/15/88

#include <disclaimer.h>                       [e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: 13 May 89 20:28:19 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (sealion) writes:
>With the current backlog in payloads for the shuttle system, are
>there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility?

Yes.  NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.
--
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: 14 May 89 05:53:39 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Yes.  NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab,
>and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter.

Just a silly question...  How much different is the orbit of LDEF to that
which the shuttle took to launch Magellan?  Would it have been possible
to retrieve LDEF on the shuttle after it launched Magellan?

-charles

--
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]              {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 May 89 20:14:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: heavy launchers

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
>>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????
>
>We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
>built rocket that was thrown away after every use...

This is a fairly circular statement.  The Saturn V was expensive, hand-built,
and non-recoverable because of the decision in the mid-60s to throw it away!
When Congress capped Saturn V production at 15, (a) all hopes of reducing
cost through volume went away, (b) it was no longer worth mechanizing the
production process as had been planned, and (c) all work on making Saturn V
stages recoverable stopped because it would never be done.  The original
plans for the Saturn V envisioned mechanized volume production and possible
recovery of at least the first stage in the long run.  This was when the
Saturn V was going to be NASA's heavy launcher well into the 1980s, launching
lunar missions, a space station or three, heavy planetary probes, and so on.

Blaming the NASA of the 70s for throwing away the Saturn V is pretty much
a mistake.  The real culprit is the Congress of the 60s.
--
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: 13 May 89 20:18:08 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silli

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>    Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the
>engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity
>and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers
>promoted.

Pretty much so.  A few of the managers retired a little early on fat
pensions.  And NASA got billions to fix the problems, and passed on a
fair bit of it to Morton Thiokol.  M-T also had its monopoly on shuttle
boosters extended for several years.

Killing astronauts is good for business.
--
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: 13 May 89 20:27:36 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Enterprise: will it ever fly,like Columbia ?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>I'm sorry, stupid, but curious. Could somebody tell me the purpose
>that Enterprise is used for and include a history of it ?
>Please include why it doesn't fly like the other shuttles.

Enterprise was the first "real" orbiter to be built, and was used for the
approach-and-landing tests (dropped by 747) before the first space flights.
Enterprise was originally meant to be refitted for spaceflight (or at least
this was the official position), but the eventual decision was that it
was too far below the standard set by the later orbiters and the refit
wasn't worth it.  Instead, the structural "test article" was tested a bit
less severely than planned and was refitted to become Challenger.  The
Enterprise was used for various forms of ground testing and occasional
public display, and was ultimately donated to the Smithsonian.

Enterprise's original tentative name is said to have been Constitution.
It was renamed after a write-in campaign by Star Trek fans.  I think it was
after that that NASA decided a coherent naming policy was in order, and
laid down the rule that orbiters were to be named after historically
noteworthy explorer ships.
--
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: 14 May 89 04:31:43 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh![e-mail]  (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: flames about my signature

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
] I've heard that there has been some more flaming about my dreadful anti-
] American signature, although I haven't seen much of it myself.  I would
    I haven't been flaming you, I've just had my .signature set to
# welcome, to mars, eh, hosers!  Have a brew and some donuts, eh?

] As for "Canada: 0 tries" and the like, note that Canada is an associate
] member of the European Space Agency (didn't realize we were a European
] country, did you? :-)) and small Canadian participation in future ESA

Oh, well, it was time for a new .signature anyway ...  Maybe

# Russkies 0/2 Yanks 0/0 Hosers 0/0, real soon now ...

        Naah ...
--
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
    # also found at 201-271-4712 tarpon.att.com!wcs
# But the treaty says we have to give Panama back to the Panamanians!
#    Don't worry - we'll think of something.  Corruption?  Yeah, that's it!

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

Date: 14 May 89 04:42:35 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh![e-mail]  (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs)
Subject: Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick) writes:
] [various authors and comments deleted
]<>>(Other than economics.  I know NASA is cheap).
]<Right!  NASA is *expensive*, not cheap!
]NASA's not cheap, congress is cheap.
    Excuse me there - that's my money you're asking them not to be
    cheap with.  If they weren't busy spending it all on
    invading small countries and buying large useless missles,
    maybe I'd have some of it around to invest in Space, Inc...

    Besides, it's *Congress* that's expensive, not cheap ...

][disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
    So are they taking taxation-stolen money away from the space
    program for you to read netnews with ( 1/2 :-)?) Admittedly,
    my employer is a large defense contractor as well, so I'm
    hardly in a position to talk.
--
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs
    # also found at 201-271-4712 tarpon.att.com!wcs
# But the treaty says we have to give Panama back to the Panamanians!
#    Don't worry - we'll think of something.  Corruption?  Yeah, that's it!

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

Date: 14 May 89 07:24:37 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: Private funding of space science

In article <[e-mail]>, jmckerna@polyslo (Dr. Dereference) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] writes:
>>The government is the best source of support for research NOT development
>>  [a whole lot deleted]
>In order to do a lot of R&D hardware needs to be developed (ie if you want to
>explore the planets, you have to develop space probes). While the governemnt
>certainly should not do the development itself, it still needs to fund the
>development of hardware for R&D that will not be done privately.

We don't really need to develop new technology or hardware.  We need to
build and launch hardware.  The Soviets have adequately demonstrated
that refinement of existing technology will serve quite well.

Every time NASA introduces a new, large program they claim that it will
involve development of new technology.  This is a *problem*.  While new
technology may be sexy, it is almost never cost effective.

William Baxter

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

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

Date: 13 May 89 04:27:43 GMT
From: haven!umbc3!tron![e-mail]  (Dana Carson)
Subject: Re: DO IT YOURSELF SPACE-PROBES?

From todays fridaygram (inhouse newsletter) the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics has announced a competition to bring about
the launch of at least three solar sail vechiles: the Columbus 500 Space
Sail Cup 1992.  The craft representing the Americas, Europe and Asia
will journey from high Earth orbit to the Moon and possibly Mars.  The
event will commerate the 500th anniversary fo Columbus' discovery of the
New World.
   Last December the Columbus Quincntenary Jubilee commission,
established by Congress, approved the cup for 92.
   Project goals include expanding the frontiers of space explorarion
for all peoples and fostering scientific achievments to benifit Earths
civilazation.  Both corperate and acedemic communities are expected to
join forces in devloping a successful solar sail entry.
  Followed with a contact number for Westinghouse employees interested
in getting involved in design, building or contributing experiments.

Dana Carson
Westinghouse Electronic Systems Group  Mail Stop 1615
UUCP:[e-mail]
     [e-mail]
     ...!netsys!umbc3!tron!carson
AT&T: [phone]
WIN: 285-3513

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

Date: Sun, 14 May 89 13:58:46 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!garcon!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Andrew Higgins) writes:

>According to CNN, NASA has announced that the Challenger replacement orbiter
>will be named Endeavour.  Note the English spelling with the "-our" (which is
>fine with me, Anglophile that I am).

According to _Ad Astra_, "Endeavor" will be an alternate spelling.  I'm not sure
whether this means that they will be given equal time in press releases, or
whether one name will be painted on one side and one on the other, or why on
earth they felt it necessary to use non-American spelling at all...

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #439
*******************