Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v10_3/v10_327.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/QZU:Wg200VcJIHb05w>;
          Sat,  9 Dec 89 01:39:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  9 Dec 89 01:39:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #327

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 327

Today's Topics:
            SPACE Digest V10 #317
         Re: COBE Update 12/1/89 (Forwarded)
         Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)
        Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars
           Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars
         Re: Does life revolve around macho impotency
           Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars
          BRIGHTNESS vs CONTRAST vs MAGNIFICATION ?
               Job Announcement
               multiple copies
               Re: Mars rovers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:        Fri, 08 Dec 89 15:24:59 CST
From: Andy Edeburn <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #317

> 1233 EST, Dec 7, 1972:         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
> last ship sails for the Moon.  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

  I'm sorry Harry, but you're wrong on this time. Apollo 17 was launched
at 0033 EST. It was the first night and last night launch of a Saturn V.

+--------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Andrew G. Edeburn - {CC62@SDSUMUS}   |  SSSSSS DDDDD  SSSSSS U    U |
| University Computing Services        |  S      D    D S      U    U |
| South Dakota State University        |  SSSSSS D    D SSSSSS U    U |
| Brookings, SD  57007                 |       S D    D      S U    U |
| [phone] or [phone]     |  SSSSSS DDDDD  SSSSSS  UUUU  |
+--------------------------------------+------------------------------+
|    "Too many people in this world means not enough M&M's for me"    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 9 Dec 89 01:26:56 GMT
From: cunixc!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu![e-mail]  (Mohib N Durrani)
Subject: Re: COBE Update 12/1/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail](RonBaalke) writes:
>                            COBE UPDATE
> ... The COBE may be viewed by
>the unaided eye, atmospheric conditions permitting, at
>approximately 5:35 p.m. each afternoon as it approaches from the south. ...

 I presume this is for the West Coast.  Where and when (approx) might it be
 visible from the East Coast (say from New York - if it is not polluted (:^)).

Thanks,
Mohib.





 ------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>                          )
  Look For The CRESCENT MOON ( HILAL ),                       )
   It Is One Of THE MOST BEAUTIFUL OF CREATIONS;              ))
    Then Offer An INTENSE PRAYER To The ONE CREATOR,             ))
     All Sincere DEVOTIONS Are Surely ACCEPTED.               ))
      ----------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 )

    Next New Moons  (Not visible):
     (ONLY CRESCENTS ARE VISIBLE)
      1989 Nov 28d 09h 41m    UT
       1989 Dec 28d 03h 20m  UT
        1990 Jan 26d 19h 20mUT

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

Date: 8 Dec 89 21:40:32 GMT
From: thorin!homer![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Not surprisingly, Apollo ended up contributing little to either industry
>or science...

    "Scientists are still unraveling the immense treasure trove of new
     knowledge returned by the Apollo program."
     ...
    "Thus, in less than a decade, science from the Apollo program has
     changed our natural satellite from an unknown and unreachable
     object into a familiar world.  The following paragraphs describe
     the principal scientific results from this remarkably productive
     period of lunar exploration."

    - Dr.  Bevan M.  French, NASA discipline scientist for planetary
    materials research, in _The New Solar System_, chapter _The
    Moon_.

    Dr. French spent years studying Apollo and Luna 16 samples.
Where does your opinion come from, Nick?
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the
      liberal communists?''
    - George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America"

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 08:48:37 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Manned vs Unmanned Mission to Mars

Kieran A. Carroll writes:
>[e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
>>
>> All this talk of which to fund, manned missions or unmanned, reminds
>> me of what Ben Bova called the "Either/Or Fallacy".  Somehow, we
>> have allowed ourselves to be conned (presumably by the people
>> holding the purse strings) that we can't have *both*....
>>
>> "Ah," they say, "but the money for unmanned missions *is* distributed
>> from the same source as manned missions."  That's the problem.  They're
>> forced to compete against each other for the wrong reasons.  Hey, the
>> same source of money also pays for HUD, and we compete with them for
>> funds, why don't I hear unmanned mission folk railing against HUD
>> inefficiency and expenditure?
>
>Bravo! The voice of reason! It almost makes me feel that somebody
>has taken the old maxim, "Divide and conquer", and applied it to
>the space-exploration community...

BS! The voice of confusion!  The days of "manned vs unmanned" as a
generic issue have been over for quite a while.  Virtually all of the
people who have been arguing against Henry's pro-manned attitude are
doing so NOT on the basis that manned missions per se are to be avoided --
rather they correctly perceive that Henry's main reason for advocating
manned activity is that he finds it psychologically appealing.

There are lots of phoney "space policy" issues to debate:  manned vs
unmanned, Moon vs Mars, expendable vs reuseable, etc.  The real
problem is not that we are divided on these issues but that we
are debating them at ALL without FIRST resolving the more fundamental
policy issue of what the private sector's role should be.  Under the
present non-policy, giving NASA more money will result in regression from
our ultimate goal -- the growth of economically and, ultimately,
physically self-supporting living systems beyond earth.  THAT'S why
I focus my efforts at the Science, Space and Technology Committee
level, rather than at the level of HUD.  Once NASA is predisposed
to spend money in a productive, rather than destructive, manner --
I will be happy to join with the current cadre of space nerds and
nerdettes in yelling at HUD at the top of my lungs to allocate
more money to NASA.


---
Typical RESEARCH grant:
$
Typical DEVELOPMENT contract:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

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

Date: 9 Dec 89 03:10:46 GMT
From: norge![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 322
>>
>>...large scale colonization of the solar system... [is] fundamentally what we
>>all want to accomplish in manned space anyway.
>>John L. McKernan.
>
> The
>repeated use of "we" where "I" would be more appropriate suggests

I think the use of we was appropriate because I qualified it by refering
to the fundamental goal of manned space. Ie. one, long term goal among
many other possible, though less fundamental goals.

>Their assumption that all people share their desire to plotz all over
>nature in the form of large scale colonies,

It's unclear what you're critisizing here. If by "nature" you mean Earth's
biosphere, my posting clearly stated that I believe there are serious
problems with the large scale colonizations of previously unoccupied areas
of the Earth. If you're suggesting that the large scale colonization of the
solar system, assuming that was possible, is a bad idea, then your opinion
is flat wrong. Ie. it is not only my opinion that your opinion is
incorrect, your opinion is incorrect in an absolute sense.

> is symptomatic of advanced suburbocentrism.
>         Dale M. Greer

I deny that I'm a suburbocentrist! Just so I can double check though,
perhaps you can direct me to a reference with a definition for that word. 8+]

On a more personal note: the insulting tone of your posting suggests that
if you are concerned about personality problems, you should look closer
to home.

John L. McKernan.                                                  [e-mail]
Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 8 Dec 89 06:07:23 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax![e-mail]  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Does life revolve around macho impotency

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:


>        Well, to cut my crap short, before i bore your guts out. I agree

Too late.

>        I'm not a prude, macho, chobinist or whatever they call us. I'm
                                 ^^^^^^^^^
>just a computer engineer who loves hi-tech, spcae and related. I'm sure
                                             ^^^^^     related what?
>woomen don't become involved in space flights, because there are more
 ^^^^^^
>males in the crew than females.   Come on life is too short. And there is
>to much BLA BLA and no aparent momentum.
 ^^                     ^^^^^^^
>
>     Your's
>     ^^^^^^
>      Douglas Sargent
>      D5OMTP1009@UTFSM

Wud yu by a computur frum this gui?  Softwear maybee?

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

(Yes, I spell poorly, but I know it, and spend a lot of time trying to
 make up for it, because I love English...)

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 09:49:04 PST
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars

>SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 322
>
>...large scale colonization of the solar system... [is] fundamentally what we
>all want to accomplish in manned space anyway.
>
>Note to those still trying to find excuses not to go into space:
>   Guys, there is just no substitute. Political and ecological factors make
>   new places on the Earth untenable for large scale colonization (Nukes in
>   the power supply? OH NO we can't have THAT!!, etc., etc.)
>
>John L. McKernan.

This is a prime example of the accute egocentrism from which most of
the boys contributing to the Space Digest seem to be suffering.  The
repeated use of "we" where "I" would be more appropriate suggests
that perhaps they need to put down their sci-fi books once in a while,
get away from their computers occasionally, go out and meet some people,
try to meet some girls.

Their assumption that all people share their desire to plotz all over
nature in the form of large scale colonies, and (elsewhere in Space Digest)
their assumption that people can't be happy without pioneering, high-tech,
macho displays, or what have you, is symptomatic of advanced suburbocentrism.

This disorder is curable by some of the methods described above, with
additional requirements of occasional travel to nonsuburban populated areas,
frequent perusal of magazines such as National Geographic, frequent viewing
of public television shows about the people of other cultures, reading of
books other than sci-fi, and a general thoughtfulness about the human
condition and the really important things in life.

--------Doublethought of the Day---------
"...that flag is a symbol of something    |         Dale M. Greer
      greater than just the rights    |   Center for Space Sciences
             in this country."        | University of Texas at Dallas
     Rep. Lawrence J. Smith of Florida    | UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::GREER

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

Date: 9 Dec 89 03:26:17 GMT
From: cunixc!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu![e-mail]  (Mohib N Durrani)
Subject: BRIGHTNESS vs CONTRAST vs MAGNIFICATION ?

How are the following related to each other ?
1. BRIGHTNESS    2. CONTRAST    3. MAGNIFICATION

What are the effects on Brightness and Contrast by:
a. Twilight    b. Dark-adapted eyes   c. Atmospheric clarity
d. Atmospheric scattering   e. Atmospheric dispersion

How are they changed with magnification ?

If possible, please give references to equations/books.  Thanks.

Mohib.

 ------------ >>>>>>>>>>>>>                          )
  Look For The CRESCENT MOON ( HILAL ),                       )
   It Is One Of THE MOST BEAUTIFUL OF CREATIONS;              ))
    Then Offer An INTENSE PRAYER To The ONE CREATOR,             ))
     All Sincere DEVOTIONS Are Surely ACCEPTED.               ))
      ----------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 )

    Next New Moons  (Not visible):
     (ONLY CRESCENTS ARE VISIBLE)
      1989 Nov 28d 09h 41m    UT
       1989 Dec 28d 03h 20m  UT
        1990 Jan 26d 19h 20mUT

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 11:56:12 MST
From: [e-mail] (Don Anderson)
Subject: Job Announcement

    System engineer wanted immediately for long-term NASA space
flight project.  Must have working knowledge of VMS and be fluent
in FORTRAN and C languages.  Background in the sciences (geology,
geophysics, astrophysics) and experience in image
processing/remote sensing techniques are desirable.  Salary open.

Send letter of interest, resume, and names of three references to:
Dr. Ronald Greeley, Department of Geology, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ  85287-1404.  Arizona State University is an
Equal Opportunity Employer.

e-mail can be sent to: [e-mail]

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

Date:    Fri, 8 Dec 1989 10:12:03 EST
From: [e-mail]   (SPAN SECURITY MGR. [phone])
Subject: multiple copies
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"[e-mail]",TENCATI


I have gotten 6 copies of part 5 of the hearings on HR2674.  Please check
your mailer to see if anything is broken.

Thank you,

Ron Tencati
[e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Dec 89 20:54:28 GMT
From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Mars rovers

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

> I submit that this is not really necessary. There is a very simple solution
> to the control problem: SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN, to the point at which control
> by contemporary techniques is possible. Even a rover which moves only a
> fraction of a mile per day can cover a considerable distance over the
> course of a several-year mission.

Sorry, no go.  Suppose one could scan 1 square mile in a day.  Then the
state of Delaware would require years.  At one mile/day, it would take
two years to travel from Chicago to New York.

But one mile a day is about 3.7 feet/minute.  When there is a 20-minute
delay, this is more than 70 feet.  This is still too far.  Even the 20
feet at conjunction is a long distance for a stupid machine.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #327
*******************