Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v12_5/v12_502.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/Qb:b2Zm00VcJ82OU5R>;
          Sun, 28 Oct 1990 01:46:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 1990 01:45:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #502

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 502

Today's Topics:
           Payload Status for 10/25/90 (Forwarded)
                 UFO Giveaway
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
           Re: "NAVY WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE"
             News From OSCAR-11 24-Oct-90
             Re: Theory for Life
             Re: Theory for Life

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Oct 90 21:11:03 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 10/25/90 (Forwarded)


    Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 10-25-90.


    - STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at Pad-B)

    BBXRT liquid argon servicing will be performed today.
    Experiment monitoring continues.


    - STS-41 Ulysses (at OPF)

    The SSBUV will be removed from the payload bay today.


    - STS-38 DoD MMSE support (at SPIF)

    The canister will be mated to the transporter today.


    - STS-39 AFP-675/IBSS/STP-01 (at CCAFS)

    CITE preps and ground software development will be active
    today.


    - STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C)

    Module closeouts continue along with MVAK training.


    - STS-37 GRO (at PHSF)

    Functional testing will be performed today.


    - STS-42 IML-1 (at O&C)

    Module and experiment staging will continue today.


    - STS-45 Atlas-1 (at O&C)

    Experiment and pallet staging continue.


    - STS-46 TSS-1 (at O&C)

    Experiment and pallet staging will continue today.


    - STS-47 Spacelab-J (at O&C)

    Rack and floor staging continues.


    - STS-67 LITE-1 (at O&C)

    No work is scheduled for today.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 18:15:57 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: UFO Giveaway


>From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!monu1!monu6![e-mail]  (Steve Balogh)
>Subject: Re: UFO on TV in Nevada

>>Something should be done to force these criminals to release these glorious
>>things that belongs to the American people; NOT THE GOD DAMBED NAVY!!!!
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                       THIS ATTITUDE IS SICKENING!!!

>Does the rest of Humanity not exist??

>Steve Balogh (Network Manager) VK3YMY | [e-mail]
>Monash University (Caulfield Campus)  |      52'38.8"S  145 02'42.0"E ...ICBM
>PO Box 197, Caulfield East          |      [phone] Voice (Office)
>Melbourne, AUSTRALIA. 3145          |      [phone] Fax

Tough luck. These are our own imaginary flying saucers. We thought them up
all by ourselves, and we're not about to share. If you want some, you're just
going to have to think them up yourself. So don't come here looking for a
handout.

Of course, if Australia is interested in *buying* some imaginary flying
saucers, we have many fine models to choose from, and some of the British
designs are also very nice.     :-)
      John Roberts
      [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Oct 90 17:54:03 GMT
From: convex!convex.convex.com![e-mail]  (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap

Cheap? Probably not, but we ought to expect it to do something
other than let atronauts take Omnimax movies and measure each others
heartbeats. Scuttle the damn thing until there's a need for a
continuous human presence in orbit.

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

Date: 26 Oct 90 17:23:16 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpcvlx![e-mail]  (Bill Turner)
Subject: Re: "NAVY WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE"

> Wow...as if once wasn't enough, we get a slightly different version of this
> yet *again*!

Worse, it's spreading (now posted in sci.space.shuttle as well, who knows
where else...)

--Bill Turner ([e-mail])
HP Interface Technology Operation

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 02:48:34 GMT
From: ka2qhd![e-mail]  (John Magliacane)
Subject: News From OSCAR-11 24-Oct-90





* UOSAT-2 OBC STATUS INFORMATION *

DIARY OPERATING SYSTEM V3.1 SMH MLJM MSH

 Today's date is 27 /10 /90  (Saturday)
 Time is 1 :31 :54 UTC
 Auto Mode is selected
 Spin Period is - 261
 Z Mag firings  = 0
 + SPIN firings = 24
 - SPIN firings = 31
 SEU count      = 66
 RAM WASH pointer at DBB2
 WOD commenced 27 /10 /90 at 0 :0 :8
 with channels 10 ,11 ,19 ,29 ,
 Last cmnd was 112 to 1 , 0
 Attitude control initiated, mode 1
 Data collection in progress


           **** UoSAT-OSCAR-11 BULLETIN     24 October 1990 ****

                         UoSAT MISSION CONTROL CENTRE
          University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 5XH, England

** AO-13

Command Stations performed magnetorquing procedures near perigee of orbits on
October 15-17.  The new transponder schedule is as follows:

Mode-B : MA 000 to 095
Mode-JL: MA 095 to 125
Mode-LS: MA 125 to 130
Mode-S : MA 130 to 135
Mode-BS: MA 135 to 140
Mode-B : MA 140 to 256
Omnis  : MA 220 to 040

This schedule is expected to continue to 261290.  The spacecraft attitude is:

BLON = 180  and  BLAT = 0


** AO-10

AMSAT-OSCAR-10 appears NOT TO have been receiving sufficient solar panel
illumination to support Mode-B transponder operations.  Both beacon and
transponder signals show signs of FMing.  Until further notice please DO NOT
use AO-10's transponder.  AO-10 may be able to to support Mode-B transponder
operation in November.


** AO-16 PACSAT

The microsat BBS has been tested on the ground engineering unit, and is now
ready for uploading to AO-16.  The satellite BBS software was written by Jeff
Ward, G0/K8KA, at UoSAT and was ported to the microsats by NK6K.  The porting
was easily achieved, as there are only 10 lines of code that are different
between the UoSAT version and the Microsat version.  A lot of effort went into
the design of the BBS, operating system, and other support code to make that
possible.  Once complete, the following elements will be available:

256k file system:

This is just half of one of the four available banks of bank switched memory.
The more complete file system using all four banks and the 6MB mass memory
will be uploaded after more testing.

FTL0 file server:

This implements the protocol described in the FTL0 document, available on CIS,
the 9th ARRL Networking Conference proceedings, and elsewhere. It allows file
uploading, downloading, and a simple directory display.  It requires the use
of software at the groundstation: a simple version, called "PG" has been
written by Jeff and will be on CIS soon.

Broadcast server:

This implements the broadcast protocol as described along with FTL0 and has
been running for several weeks on UO-14, and a few people have rolled their
own receive program, at least one written in BASIC.  A simple version, called
"KISSUI" has been written by Jeff and will be on CIS soon.

After this is loaded, the following separate programs will be running on
AO-16:

Kernel - Operating system - NK6K/Quadron
AX25   - AX25 driver - NK6K/WB6YMH/Quadron, pd on a KA9Q AX25 implementation.
PHT    - Spacecraft control, power management & program loader - N4HY/NK6K
AARTD  - AART driver - NK6K/WB6YMH
MFILE  - File system - G0/K8KA/UoSAT
FTL0   - File upload/download - G0/K8KA/UoSAT
PBP    - File broadcaster - G0/K8KA/UoSAT


** $BID **
Please use BID $UOSAT.1024 for PR BBS use.

--
John A. Magliacane                 FAX  : [phone]
Electronics Technology Department  AMPR : KD2BD @ NN2Z.NJ.USA.NA
Brookdale Community College        UUCP : ...!rutgers!ka2qhd!kd2bd
Lincroft, NJ  07738  USA           VOICE: [phone] ext 607

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 03:42:34 GMT
From: unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!topgun!mustang!nntp-server.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Theory for Life

[e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:


>    Our genetic material is based on a double strand of DNA, with each strand
...
>conditions, it is possible that life might evolve with a three-copy genetic
>material, in which the information is redundantly stored in three strands (a
...
>     Higher organisms on earth are usually bilaterally symmetrical.  This
>probably is a result of the inherent bilateral nature of 1 cell dividing into
>two adjacent cells.  With triple stranded genetic material, a cell might divide
>not into two cells, but into three cells.  This would bring up the interesting
>idea that extraterrestrial life might be trilaterally symmetrical.  The body

Bilateral symmetry is not the result of cells dividing into pairs.
(IMHO).  If that were so, you would expect lower creatures to be
bilaterally symmetric as well, being more raw, crude, and closer to
their original cells (so to speak.)  Instead, the more developed an
animal is, the fewer symmetries it has (very roughly).

The lowest animals are roughly spherically symmetric, with symmetry
about any plane passing through their center.  Higher animals, such as
sea cucumbers, pine trees (not an animal, strictly speaking, but this
is pop-science, rigor is anathema) sea urchins, worms, etc. are
radially symmetric, symmetric about any plane containing the axis of
the creature.  Then we get to the highest levels, including people,
CFAs (cute furry animals), slugs, flatworms, and politicians.
These creatures are symmetric about only a single plane.

Obviously, the next step in evolution is to shed symmetry altogether.

--
        David Palmer
        [e-mail]
        ...rutgers!cit-vax!gap.cco.caltech.edu!palmer
    I have the power to cloud men's minds -- or at least my own.

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 04:54:45 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!quads.uchicago.edu![e-mail]  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Theory for Life

In article <1050400042@cdp> [e-mail] writes:
>This is a reply to a posting from Daniel Mocsny on the subject
>of THEORIES NEEDED FOR LIFE.  I would like to add a couple of
>points.
>
>1st: in order to develop technology, the creature must have the
>ability to store information external to its brain, or
>equivalent, in a nonperishable form.  While "pixel-addressable
>pigment cells" is a wonderfully creative idea, an alphabet and
>printing are more useful.

    Actually, information storage does not absolutely have to be external,
as long as it is sufficiently non-perishable to support the development of a
technological civilization.

>2nd: the creature must be a predator, otherwise it's species will
>spend too much time avoiding being something else's supper.  This
>will not leave any time for rocketry.

    Does not follow.  Perhaps avoiding being someone else's supper might
be a strong selection for intelligence and the development of technology (to
be used against whomever was trying to make supper out of the technological
species).  This doesn't seem to have been the primary selective force for the
development of intelligence and technology on Earth, but that doesn't mean it
couldn't be.

>                                       It must be at or very near
>the top of the trophic web not only for its niche, but also for
>the planet.

    Why?  See above.

>             Given the interstellar nature of DNA building
>blocks, its meals must be the products of concentrated protien
>and other nutrients from intermediate steps in the food chain.

    Silicate grains seem to be a pretty common interstellar material.
Maybe these are someone's building blocks.  Note:  I am NOT talking about
using silicon as an analog of carbon.  It has been shown that that will not
work.  What I am talking about is the use of polysilicates and their
derivatives (silicones, which are very stable, for instance) as a basis for
building blocks.  Also, some uses of organic chemistry to form things other
than amino acids and nucleic acids are a possibility.

    An aside here:  not only do people trying to imagine life on other
worlds have the problem of their imagination tending to be channeled towards
things such as exist on Earth, their imagination tends to be channeled towards
the very small subset of Earth life that they know of.  The great majority of
science fiction and serious science (-: well, they try anyway :-) imagination
of life on other worlds imagines things homologous to what most of us see:
plants, animals eating either plant or animal matter, and occasionally fungi.
Mention of microorganisms is generally restricted to diseases, if they are
mentioned at all -- and then often the more serious thought assumes that none
of these would be able to eat anything from Earth, which is likely wrong given
the extraordinary variety of substances that microorganisms can metabolize --
I mean, we really have to do a considerable amount of work to make completely
unmetabolizable organic compounds, and a significant number of inorganic
compounds can serve as food for various organisms.  Even among life using only
biochemical pathways found on Earth (almost certainly less diverse than the
biochemical pathways which actually exist on Earth) a staggering variety of
ways to live exists, and an environment different from that which we live in
(but similar to some environments found on Earth) could conceivably select for
a planet-dominating organism very different from us and the organisms we know
with respect to the TYPE of food chain it is in, let alone the position.  Such
organisms may have not developed high-order multicellularity and/or
intelligence on Earth simply because their environments are too restricted.
(Actually, one possible such environment we do not know the nature of is the
hydrothermal environment beneath the surface of the mid-ocean ridges, which
take up a substantial fraction of the surface area of our planet -- I forgot
what the number is, but I am pretty sure it is up in the 10% - 20% range.
Maybe a Lovecraftian mass of slime is brooding down there, waiting. . . :-))

>3rd: assuming carbon-based life, sensory organs must be seated as
>close as possible to the brain in order to provide the shortest
>possible response time between reception of input and reaction to
>it.  See predator concept above.

    For some environments, a factor other than response time might
dominate the placement of sensors relative to the brain.  For example, imagine
an organism in a very treacherous and abusive environment.  If the organism
could regenerate parts, it could deal with repeated loss of sensors, but even
with regeneration major brain damage would be majorly bad news for retaining
memories needed for civilization.  Therefore, it would make sense to either
have the brain as far away as practical (and behind as much shielding as
practical) from all of the common types of abuse, or to have a distributed
redundant form of memory storage so that even a drastically mangled organism
would have a good chance of containing at least one complete copy of its
memories.

>5th: from what we know of the processing power of our own brains,
>there is a trade off of energy expended between physical
>coordination or limbs and manipulation of abstract concepts.
>This suggests that a creature with four arms or eight elephant
>like trunks might spend all its time worrying about where the
>parts of its body were and what to do with them, and less time
>about its future as a life form or the meaning thereof.

    Our own brains should not be taken as ultimate examples -- that is, we
should not assume that they represent the full range of what can be done with
a nervous system.  To be sure, an organism with more limbs would probably need
a somewhat bigger brain to use them all as well as an organism with fewer
limbs and equal intelligence and equal efficiency of utilization of brain
weight and space, but this does not mean that that is impossible.  Also, no
reason exists why a multi-limbed organism could not evolve so as to be able to
choose at will whether to distribute its motor coordination to all limbs or
concentrate most of it on a few so that less brain weight would be required to
control them.  As a matter of fact, we can do this to some extent.

>6th: the creature must have the ability to develop abstract
>thinking [see #1 above on storage of information] else it will
>fail to develop methods for organizing information, and thus fail
>to develop technology.  This suggests a protective shell of some
>kind for the brain or equivalent, else the creature will never
>have its mental abilities survive long enough to get the
>abstractions built much less communicated.  [. . .]

    A protective shell would certainly be useful for this, but not the
only means of making memory non-perishable.  Having distributed redundant
memory would also work; if suitable high-data-rate communication were a
biological feature of an organism, memory and even thought could be
distributed over multiple physical individuals, so that logical individuals
need not correspond to physical individuals (-: brains like a Sequent :-).

--
|   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #502
*******************