Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_2/v13_208.txt

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/8bn:COq00WBwM4gE5K>;
          Thu, 28 Feb 91 01:30:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 01:30:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #208

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 208

Today's Topics:
            Re: Japanese Space Effort, II
 Re: The Moon => Existance of God...? (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #102)
              Re: HST Guide Star CD-ROMS
    Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D (Really about MSFC)
        Re: Can Mars moons be seen from Mars?
             Re: Terraforming, sun shield
             Re: Terraforming, sun shield
           Freedom redesign nearly complete
                 Re: dynasoar

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 26 Feb 91 19:09:14 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Japanese Space Effort, II


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>  *Autonomous Japanese space station....
>>
>>"Automomous" -- that's certainly not the traditional Western conception
>>of a "space station".> Sounds more like the Fairchild concept which
>>NASA killed in the early 80's for automated microgravity research and
>>production.
>
>Uh, Nick, I think you are letting your prejudices get in your way. :-)
>Almost certainly they are using "autonomous" to mean not "unmanned" but
>"all-Japanese", i.e. not dependent on US launchers.

If this is the same station mentioned in a recent IEEE Spectrum
article on Japanese robotics, they really do mean *autonomous* -- as
in robotic and non-teleoperated...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 26 Feb 91 19:18:51 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!blackbird.afit.af.mil!lonex.radc.af.mil![e-mail]  (Harold G. Andrews II)
Subject: Re: The Moon => Existance of God...? (was Re: SPACE Digest V13 #102)

Okay.  Let's try and put this baby to bed...

Tommy Mac wrote:
>Perhaps the proof of God is our moon. Consider:
> ...
>The moon appears the same size (or nearly so) giving incredible eclipses
>    -which make possible solar corona observations

To which I responded...
>I'm not sure what this has to with the proof of God's existence, but I'll
>humor you.

And Darin Wilkins wrote...
>This fact actually has been used to 'prove' God exists.  Moreover, the
>'proof' was published by the American Institute of Physics!  I'll let
>you decide whether the argument is convincing.
>
[..Irrelevent stuff deleted...]
>
>The authors' argument went roughly as follows:
>
>  We don't know how prevalent the existence of intelligent life is in
>  the universe, but it seems to be an extremely unlikely occurrence.
>
>  The number of solar systems in the universe is unknown, but seems to
>  be very large.  However, it is extremely unlikely that the
>  relationships between the orbits of a planet and its moon, and the
>  sizes of the moon and the sun of the solar system are such that the
>  moon *exactly* hides the sun's disk.
>
>  There is [allegedly :-)] intelligent life on earth.  The earth-moon-sun
>  system does fulfill the extremely improbable eclipse condition.
>
>  The conjunction of the extremely improbable situation of intelligent
>  life with another extremely improbable phenomenon cannot be due
>  to chance, but is an obvious sign given by an Intelligence to the
>  intelligent life here on earth.

To which I now respond:

There was an individual (who shall for now remain nameless, if for no other
reason than I forgot his name) who seemed to think that the existance of
the moon was at the very least "suggestive" of the existance of God.  I offer
my response to his thoughts unto you.

     1) Would God exist if the moon didn't?
     2) Would God exist if the Earth was populated solely by microbes
        that couldn't form thought one, let alone worship God?

If you believe in God, then the answers to these questions are obviously
Yes in both cases.  He doesn't need to hang a moon over us to prove He exists.

These highly improbable events could quite easily be replaced by quite ordinary
and mundane ones.  Would that then disprove the existance of God?  I think
not.

The belief in the existance of God is up to the faith of each individual.
If you need a proof that God exists, then you've completely missed the point
in having *faith* that He does exists.

>One of them noted that the earth-moon distance is time-dependent.
>(Disclaimer:  I don't recall the exact numbers this correspondent
>calculated.  The numbers I use should be considered to reflect the
>'flavor' of his argument only.)  100,000 years ago the moon was too
>close to the earth to exactly hide the sun.  It eclipsed more than just
>the sun's disk.  Since the event which proves God exists did not happen
>before then, obviously God could not have existed prior to that.
>Moreover, since the moon will be too far from the earth to completely
>eclipse the sun 40,000 years from now, God will cease to exist then,
>since there is no more proof that He exists.
[...More stuff deleted that I didn't see as relevent...]

Not to go out and bash the beliefs of others, but:

God always was and always will be.  He is the one thing that will never change.

I hope this puts an end to Mr. Mac's absurd hypothesis.  This is not the
appropriate forum for this kind of discussion.

I bid you peace and pray God be with you...

-Andy

*******************************************************************************
* Harold G. "Andy" Andrews II, 1Lt, USAF  *  "Many the man whose punctuality  *
* [e-mail]              *   serves only to warm his chair." *
* Rome Laboratory/IRRE                    *                                   *
* Griffiss AFB, NY 13441-5700             *   - M. Kabrisky                   *
* [phone]  (AVN Prfx 587)          * (Not an official  USAF viewpoint) *
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 27 Feb 91 14:40:22 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!csd4330a!osl380a![e-mail]  (Ken Ellis)
Subject: Re: HST Guide Star CD-ROMS

Contact the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
390 Ashton Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94112

They have the catalog on CD-ROM for the MAC and PC for ~$50.


_____
\                                      |  Opinions expressed here are solely
 \   ERIM   Ken Ellis                  |  those of the author and do not
 /          [e-mail]     |  necessarily represent those of
/____|                                 |  his employer.

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

Date: 27 Feb 91 18:46:33 GMT
From: shelby!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!samsung!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D (Really about MSFC)

I thought I might mention on the side that Marshall is supposed to be
doing a lot of research on space science itself, such as the Sun
itself and the solar wind. I believe the Solar Max mission was run
from Marshall. I thought _Lewis_ was supposed to be doing the lion's
share of the advanced propulsion research. Could someone please
clarify?

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Feb 91 22:21:56 GMT
From: agate!stew.ssl.berkeley.edu![e-mail]  (Eric J. Korpela)
Subject: Re: Can Mars moons be seen from Mars?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>From the surface of which planet would the most moon's be visible to the unaided
>observer?
>        Earth = 1  (luna)
>        Pluto = 1?
>        Mars  =?
>Venus, Mercury,gas giants =0
>

This may be a trick answer to a simple question, but I believe the record is
held by Mars with three visible moons.  From the surface of Mars an unaided
observer could see both of Mars' moons.  Our moon (luna as you called it)
would also be visible to the unaided observer on Mars.  (Given adequate
angular separation from the Earth that is).

    /\                      [e-mail]              Internet
   /__\  rioch              BKYAST::KORPELA    42215::KORPELA     DecNet
  /    \   of Chaos         korpela%bkyast@ucbjade                Bitnet
 (_____________________     <aka Eric Korpela>

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

Date: 27 Feb 91 22:37:06 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Heidi Hammel) writes:
>... Humanity (in particular Western
>civilization) hasn't yet learned to live on the Earth without destroying
>it; it hardly seems appropriate to move on to the next planet.

On the contrary, I think making our mistakes somewhere *else* would be a
fine idea.  We're not going to be able to learn without mistakes.  And
it's not as if we're going to be destroying existing ecosystems on, say,
Venus.  We could hardly leave it in worse shape than it is now.

>> ... why is it proper for plants and animals to cultivate barren
>> wastelands and not for humans to do likewise?
>
>I guess my answer to your question, Henry, is that those plants and animals
>are cultivating the barren wastelands into a viable ecosystem, with checks
>and balances.  Humanity so far has only demonstrated a marked ability to
>*destroy* stable ecosystems, returning them to barren wastelands.

So which stable ecosystems are we going to be destroying on Venus or Mars?
You haven't answered *my* question at all.

Incidentally, it's quite possible to find cases where plants and animals
have destroyed stable ecosystems, starting with the greatest ecological
disaster in Earth's history:  the evolution of photosynthesis.
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Feb 91 20:54:07 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent![e-mail]  (Brian M. Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Terraforming, sun shield

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Fuller) writes:
-I find the concept that humans find "uninhabited" planets fertile ground
-for cultivation repulsive, ignorant and a propulsion of the status quo.
-
-Without understanding the greater nature of the universe, we propose to
-make a planet habitable inasmuch as sticking some giant terrestrial penis
-into Venus' vagina without understanding in any real sense why
-Venus is there or whether there is something more subtle to be learnt.
-
-We may get older as a (male) race but we certainly don't get any
-smarter.
-
-My opinions are my own.

   No they aren't. You're going to have to learn to share, since I was just
thinking of posting a similar message. :-)

--
--Brian M. Godfrey
  Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
  {uunet|ogicse|tektronix}!sequent!brian -or- [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Feb 91 16:48:50 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Freedom redesign nearly complete

The newest (25 Feb 91) Aviation Week has a progress report on the redesign
of Space Station Freedom.  Since there has been significant discussion on
this subject before, I thought you might be interested...

- Freedom will be a continuously evolving station -- it will never be "complete"
- First Element Launch still set for 1995
- Less housekeeping power is required; 30 kW will be available for experiments
- Truss will be reduced to four 45-ft. sections containing avionics, thermal
  control, and solar arrays already attached
- Freedom will contain 1/3 fewer onboard computers, and maximum data transfer
  rate will be reduced from 300 to 50 Mbaud
- It will use a Ku band antenna instead of developing a new one
- Stress will now be on weight per flight, not on weight per work package
- Annual operations costs reduced by 20%
- Mainenance EVA's now 1 every 3 or 4 weeks
- Construction will require only one 6-hr. EVA by two crewmen per flight
- U. S. Lab will be one 27-ft. module with 24 experiment racks
- Man-tended capability will be achieved in late 1996
- Permanently Manned Capability will be reached about the year 2000
- Two or three 16-28 day missions per year for man-tended operations
- First four flights will be pre-integrated truss
- 5th flight will carry node already filled with computers, etc.
- 6th flight will carry fully loaded U.S. Lab if ASRMs are available
- Theoretically, Freedom can still grow into facility NASA previously
  envisioned

The article is upbeat and encouraging.  Freedom is now being considered a
facility instead of a project.  Work beyond PMC is being put off since
technological and budget considerations will change so much by then, but the
hope is to expand into free-flyers and construction facilities, etc.  Let's
hope Congress goes along...

Michael Kent                                       [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Feb 91 15:37:31 GMT
From: hpfcso!hplvec![e-mail]  (Greg Goebel)
Subject: Re: dynasoar





The Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar

   IEEE SPECTRUM  / AUG 89 / P 18

* Of the 31 experimental US aircraft known as the X-planes -- in which men
first flew faster than the speed of sound and above 100,000 feet -- the X-20
was one of the most ambitious and influential.  Between 1952 and 1963, studies,
plans, and tests for the X-20 project produced aerodynamic data that would
prove invaluable years later to the designers of the space shuttle.  In fact,
designers of the proposed X-30 hypersonic, transatmospheric test plane still
examine the data today.

Like many other X-planes, the X-20 had roots in German aerospace projects of
World War II:  It was inspired by the work of rocket engineers Eugen Sanger
and Irene Bredt.  After the war, a research paper by Sanger and Bredt surfaced
in the US aerospace community and led to several programs in the early and mid
1950s under the auspices of the USAF and the National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics [ED:  NACA, the predecessor to NASA].  In 1957, three of those
programs -- RoBo (for "rocket-bomber" [ED: which was Sanger's original
proposal]), Hywards (for "hypersonic weapons research and development
supporting system"), and Brass Bell were merged into a single project named
Dyna-Soar (for "dynamic soaring").  The official designation, X-20, came five
years later from USAF headquarters.

Nine companies submitted formal proposals to build Dyna-Soar, and in November
1959 the Air Force chose Boeing as the prime contractor.

Choosing a contractor, though, was to prove much easier than getting the
interested agencies to agree on the proposed vehicle's mission, features, or
capabilities.  By late 1959, defense and civilian officials had agreed on a
reusable rocket-boosted lifting body that would carry a single crew member at
least to the edge of space, and then return for an unpowered landing on a
runway.

But many critical decisions regarding scope and objectives still had not been
made.  Such indecision would eventually lead to the X-20's downfall; the
various groups backing the X-20 repeatedly disagreed on whether the craft
should be built for reconnaissance, bombardment, or studies on the reentry of a
maneuverable (and not merely ballistic) craft.  There was also debate over the
merits of making the X-20 an unpowered glider, versus giving it small rocket
engines of its own.

That option would have made the X-20 a versatile test bed for hypersonic
research; with suitable thrusters, the X-20 would have had rocket
maneuverability in orbit, aerodynamic maneuverability in the atmosphere, and a
combination of the two for the "bridge area" in between.
.PAGE_BREAK
                                                                             92


By the early 1960s, however, the X-20 program was being overshadowed by the
widely publicized successes of the civilian space program.  Mercury and Gemini
astronauts were being lofted to suborbital heights or put into low orbits
before re-entering on ballistic trajectories -- a much simpler routine than had
been envisioned for the maneuvering X-20.  But the civilian programs were
supplying a much needed response to Soviet successes in space.

"When the Soviets put up a man, it was pretty obvious that the Americans had to
do the fastest thing possible, and that pretty much killed the X-20," said Paul
Ceruzzi, an associate curator at the National Air & Space Museum of the
Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.

In May, Ceruzzi put a wind-tunnel model of the X-20 on display in the
Smithsonian.  The model is one of the few surviving pieces of hardware created
by the Dyna-Soar project, although an inertial guidance system built for the
X-20 was used briefly in the famed X-15 high-altitude hypersonic aircraft.

[<>]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #208
*******************