Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_6/v9_603.txt

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.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/IYuFJGe00UkV81N049>;
          Wed, 16 Aug 89 03:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 03:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #603

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 603

Today's Topics:
                Re: Satellites
            George Koopman killed
          Re: does this proposal make sense
         Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
    Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)
            Why no Voyager Pluto encounter
         Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion
       Re: NSS Elections, with apologies to non-members
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 89 23:06:56 GMT
From: srcsip!nic.MR.NET!ns![e-mail]  (John Logajan)
Subject: Re: Satellites

[e-mail] (Kendall Auel;685-2425;61-028;;pooter) writes:
>  [e-mail] (Michael Corbin) writes:
> >I have noticed a variety of objects which appear to be the size
> >of a medium star moving in different directions across the sky.
> >Some of them are probably satellites, however there have been a
> >few which pulse or flash very intensely at times and do not seem
> >to be rythmic.  Could anyone enlighten me on what these objects
> >could be?

> I think it is unlikely that what you are seeing are satellites.  What you
> are probably seeing instead are passenger jets passing by at high altitudes.

Why do you not think he is seeing satellites?  They would be especially bright
just after dawn and just before sunrise.  Pulsations could come from tumbling
objects, the periods of which should be very regular (though the best angles
might only occur temporarily -- so it might appeare erratic.)

The other thing that argues against passenger jets is that there are more
satellites in the field of view than high jets, on average.  At North
American latitudes, the most typical orbital track visible would be
northerly or southerly, rather than easterly or westerly.  Passsenger
jets are more likely to be flying easterly or westerly (depending upon
where you live!)  Also, satellites that are moving at a perceptible
rate are probably only on the order of a couple of hundred miles up.



--
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428  -
- [e-mail] / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / [e-mail] -

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

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1989 09:54-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: George Koopman killed

I to wish to express my regrets at the loss of true pioneer and a
fighter for the cause of free enterprise in space. I have known George
for many years, and although not a close friend, he is one of the
people I have most respected.

He will be sorely missed as a counterweight on our board to the
politics-is-beautiful crowd.

I will also miss him as a person who has gone out of his way and spent
his valuable time to do personal favors for me.

I wish AMROC success in their first launch. There could be no more
fitting memorial.

Ad Astra George...

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 22:00:34 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (david Fridley) writes:
-Let Me pull a few numbers out of a hat.  Let's GUESS that a reasonable
-self sufficient space station that will support 35,000 people will cost
-$35,000,000,000.  I know this guess is wrong, maybe its 70 billion or 100,
-but I believe this is within 1 order of magnatude (less than 350 billion).
-
-If we sold apartments, then they would go for $1,000,000 each.  OK, $1 million
-seems like a lot to me, not that it wouldn't be worth it, just that I don't
-know where I could get it.

What you're talking about here is your *home*.  Homes costing that
much are not at all uncommon, especially here in California.
Puts a little different light on it -- if the jobs up there were
sufficiently well paid...

(Remember T.A. Heppenheimer's scheme for time-share condos in space?)
--
Mike Van Pelt               "I hate trolls.  Maybe I could metamorph it into
Headland Technology          something else -- like a ravenous, two-headed,
(Was: Video Seven)           fire-breathing dragon."  -- Willow.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 17:21:10 GMT
From: haven!adm!smoke![e-mail]  (Irving Chidsey )
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

< I understand that the northern and southern hemispheres are more or
< less "isolated" as far as atmospheric circulation is concerned. If
< this is indeed so, then how do the people, who are alarmed at the "hole"
< at the SouthPole, relate same to chemical pollutants in the northern
< hemisphere? And why not the NorthPole? Or do I err, assuming that the
< bulk of these chemicals are made/used/released north of the Equator?
<
< m wooding


The answere is in your "more or less".  In the short term, up to a year, they
are effectively isolated.  Lengthen the time to decades and they are coupled.

I don't know whether the presence of the hole in just the South is due to a
somewhat different production / loss regime because the earth is farther from
the sun during the Northern winter, or due to a different transport regime
because the South pole is in the center of a high plateau surrounded by
ocean but the North pole is in the center of a sea surrounded by continents.
Any meteoroligists in the house?

                        Irv
--
I do not have signature authority.  I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
            Irving L. Chidsey  <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 16:30:00 GMT
From: apollo![e-mail]  (nelson_p)
Subject: Re: Does this proposal make sense? (Was: Space Quest)



>Once there is such a space program which individual investors could put
>their money into, then, and only then, will we see the wealthy
>enthusiasts beating down doors to invest.

  I must have missed something in the earlier postings.

  I can see why someone might invest in space ventures that
  could have some commercial value such as communication
  satellites or orbital factories.   But why would someone
  invest in something that is just done for the sake of science
  like a manned mission to Mars, an observatory on the 'back'
  of the moon, or a deep space probe?   Obviously you MIGHT
  find something of commercial value with these ventures but
  there's little reason to assume it, certainly not enough to
  attract investors.

                                                 --Peter

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 19:34:17 GMT
From: frooz![e-mail]  (Doug Mink, OIR)
Subject: Why no Voyager Pluto encounter

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(J. Michael Butters):
>
> Way back in December, 1970, National Geographic had an article in their
> monthly magazine entitled "Voyage to the Planets" which discussed the
> missions of the Voyager spacecrafts and their planned trajectories
> to ALL the planets of the solar system.  One of the crafts was to pass
> well under the planet Saturn which would send it at an angle up to the
> planet Pluto.  I never did learn why this plan was rejected and Pluto
> left out of the mission.

The real "Grand Tour" was rejected because of the cost of guaranteeing
reliable operation of components for the full duration of the flight, which
had to be launched by 1976.  A book, entitled "Beyond Jupiter: The Worlds of
Tomorrow", by Arthur C. Clarke and Chesley Bonestell (Little Brown, 1972)
tells the story of what might have been, ending with a Bonestell painting of
the Grand Tour spacecraft passing Pluto.  According to the endpaper drawings,
there would have been two spacecraft, one to Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune,
the other to Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto.

Clarke's final paragraphs can serve as earth-bound epitaphs for Voyager 1
and Voyager 2 (after August 25):

    "Sometime in the twenty-first century, at some indefinite distance
from the Sun, we will lose contact as the power of their signals weakens--
though occasionally, when some giant new telescope is brought into operation,
they may be momentarily reaquired.  But one day their transmitters will fail,
and they will be lost forever.
    "Or perhaps not; there are two other possibilities.  As our space-faring
powers develop, we may overtake them with the vehicles of a later age and
bring them back to our museums, as relics of the early days before men
ventured beyond Mars.  And if we do not find them, others may.
    "We should therefore build them well, for one day they may be the only
evidence that the human race ever existed.  All the works of man on his own
world are ephemeral, seen from the viewpoint of geoligical time.  The winds
and rains which have destroyed mountains will make short work of the pyramids,
those recent experiments in immortality,  The most enduring monuments we have
yet created stand on the Moon, or circle the Sun; but even these will not last
forever.
    "For when the sun dies, it will not end with a whimper.  In its final
paroxysm, it will melt the inner planets to slag, and set the frozen outer
planets erupting in geysers wider than the continents of Earth.  Nothing will
be left, on or even near the world where he was born, of man and his works.
    "But hundreds--thousands--of light-years outward from Earth, some of the
most exquisite masterpieces of his hand and brain will still be drifting down
the corridors of stars.  The energies that powered them will have been dead
for eons, and no trace will remain of the patterns of logic that once pulsed
through the crystal labyrinths of their minds.
    "Yet they will still be recognizable, while the Universe endures, as
the work of beings who wondered about it long ago, and sought to fathom
its secrets."

--------------------------------------------------
Doug Mink
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Internet:  [e-mail]
SPAN:      cfa::mink
BITNET:    mink@cfa
Phone:     [phone]
FTS:       830-7408
USMail:    CfA, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 21:13:19 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Request for more info on ozone depletion

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John E Van Deusen III) writes:
> I read today in my home-town paper that "scientists" had presented
> "evidence" that the antarctic ozone hole might be "related to" increased
> incidence of skin cancer in southern Australia and New Zealand.  Does
> anyone know anything about this "study"?  It defies logic for a number
> of reasons and is apparently the "first" study to make such a claim.

There have been some studies (hearsay...) that some chemicals, including
nitrosamines found in beers may have some bearing on increasing the
likelihood of developing skin cancers in humans.

In any case, there's lots of screaming about the "ozone hole" (not that
it doesn't exist) and "our ozone layer being destroyed" (which it might
well be) and "we're all gonna die 'cause all the UV will get through"
(which is not at all certain).

Here's something that appeared on the net a while back (sorry, I don't
have record of who submitted the information...) relating to some
actual experiments relating to real, observable effects:

*!* Abstract:  Science, February 12, 1988, vol. 239, pp. 762-4.
*!*
*!* Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation:
*!* Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974 to 1985
*!* J. Scotto et. al.
*!*
*!* "Recent reports of stratospheric ozone depletion have prompted
*!* concerns about the levels of solar ultraviolet radiation that reach
*!* the earth's surface.  Since 1974 a network of ground monitoring
*!* stations in the United States has tracked measurements of biologically
*!* effective ultraviolet radiation (UVB, 290 to 330 nanometers).  The
*!* fact that no increases of UVB have been detected at ground levels from
*!* 1974 to 1985 suggests that meteorological, climatic, and environmental
*!* factors in the troposphere may play a greater role in attenuating UVB
*!* radiation than was previously suspected."
*!*
*!* The data in the paper actually show a 0.7% DECREASE per year.  Perhaps,
*!* before we panic and replace clorinated fluorocarbons with something that
*!* could be MORE dangerous, we should calm down and look at ALL the data.

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

Date: 31 Jul 89 13:27:45 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Re: NSS Elections, with apologies to non-members

In article <[e-mail]>, yamauchi@cs (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>I just received my ballot for the NSS Board of Directors Election.
>              Does anyone have any comments (pro or con)
>about:

Here are one active member's opinions, with my recommended votes.  A
thousand apologies to non-NSS members on the network.

>Ben Bova
Represents the NSS status quo.  If you think the NSS is an effective
organization, elect him.  Vote NO.

>Andrew Cutler
The most active member of the pro-space community I have ever met.  The
driving force behind HR2674, the space Transportation Services Purchase
Act.  The only petition candidate whose name did not appear on a
petition circulated by Mark Hopkins.  The only candidate whose campaign
statement was edited.  The Nominations Committee removed the following
lines from his statement:

    I am running against Mark Hopkins.  The most important thing
    you can do this election is vote NO on Mark Hopkins.  Write the
    word NO by his name as permitted by NSS bylaws.

    The nominating committee will not permit me to say anything bad
    about Mark in this statement.  Call the chapters (see your April
    Ad Astra, page 40) to find out why you should vote NO on Mark
    Hopkins.

    I demand a full and public accounting of the L5, SpacePAC and
    SpaceCause accounts where Mark Hopkins has sole signature
    authority before NSS give SpacePAC or SpaceCause any more money.

    Vote for me.  Vote NO on Mark Hopkins.

The NSS headquarters thinks he is dangerous to them, and they are
correct. Things will not remain the same if he is elected.  Vote YES.

>K. Eric Drexler.
Nanotechnology.  Vote NO.

>Nathan Goldman
At the Meet the Candidates Forum at the NSS conference in Chicago, he
stated that as Chapters Coordinator his first priority should be to
foster direct inter-chapter communications.  Vote YES.

>Mark Hopkins
The most important NO vote.  There are many suspicions about the
financial relations between Hopkins and the NSS.  These could be cleared
up immediately by an open accounting for the funds under his control.
He has consistently refused.  Last year he was caught rigging the
Nominations Committee elections (only they are allowed to endorse
candidates).  He was later in charge of the group responsible for making
election rule changes for this election (in which he is a candidate).
Vote NO.

>John Logsdon
See the June issue (I think) of _Spacelines_, the newsletter from the
midwest chapters.  Galesburg L5 puts it out.  They printed a letter he
wrote in response to a paper by A. Cutler and J. Bowery which was heavy
with fascist overtones. (No, sadly I am not kidding)  But credit where
credit is due:  he was the only member of the Board of Directors decent
enough to respond.

>Margaret Jordan
>Richard Puckett
>Terry Savage
These three are product of the OASIS chapter in Los Angeles, and are
associated with the California Space Development Council, CSDC.  The
claim to fame for CSDC is that they coined the phrase "To create a
spacefaring civilization that will establish communities beyond the
Earth."  They say they are a strong regional group with lots of
accomplishments.  This is nonsense.  I was a member of one of their
chapters.  They are an emotional support group for people who are
burning out from doing nothing but talking about space.  Anybody who
thinks that they are an active pro-space organization is seriously
deluded.  Terry Savage specifically promised to bring the same level of
(in)activity to the Board of Directors.  Vote NO.

>Joseph Redfield
Supports HR2674 and chapters.  Vote YES.  (See how easy I am to please!)

The other candidates seem irrelevant to this active member.  On that
basis I would recommend a NO vote.  If significant change does not take
place in this election (i.e. election of Cutler, defeat of Hopkins) all
hope of NSS actually becoming a space activist organization is probably
lost, if it is not already.

----

William Baxter

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #603
*******************