Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_6/v13_694.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-23 | 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/ccNM=7a00WBw87mk4F>;
          Mon, 24 Jun 91 01:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 01:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #694

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 694

Today's Topics:
             Re: United Space Federation
            Re: Fred Vote Thursday
         ASRM (Was: Re: More on Freedom Vote)
         Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?
                 earth's day
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??
           Last post for a couple months...
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

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: 5 Jun 91 01:13:54 GMT
From: dweasel![e-mail]  (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: United Space Federation

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>In SPACE Digest V13 #587,
>vax5.cit.cornell.edu![e-mail] (Rick Dobson) writes:
:
::         WHY IS A WORLD SPACE ORGANIZATION NEEDED ?!?
::...
::One -  Companies, Industries and Economies that where
::created and supported by the now crumbling era of war
::economies, are coming apart at the seams.  This is creating
::large amounts of unemployed and HUNGRY! people around the
::world.   A new  type of economy is needed to replace this
::old form; or industrial and technological nations will have
::no choice but to create new and imaginary threats, to
::satisfy their hunger and need to expand.

:If you want to know why people create imaginary threats and wage war,
:look into some books by the German author Alice Miller, specifically
:_For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of
:Violence_ and _The Drama of the Gifted Child_.

:Also, concerning this war economy stuff, military trade is a relatively
:small fraction of the weapons producing countries' economies.  On the other
:hand, military spending is a relatively large fraction of spending for
:many of the countries which don't produce weapons.  So if this war economy
:falls, then the rich countries might be hurt a little in the short term,
:while the poor countries would benefit greatly, especially in the long
:term.  Besides, at best, weapons are merely useless, a drag on the world
:economy; at worst, when they are actually put to use, weapons destroy
:productive capacity, so it is't as though the demise of the war economy
:would hurt the world as a whole.

    Whatever is to be said about this thesis, I'm not quite sure
it's relevant to sci.space.

    Demilitarization would be a VERY good idea, but it can only be
done cooperatively. Expecting A to disarm while B remains armed, or
vice versa, will get nowhere. I am satisfied that the Soviet
leadership has shown some sense over the past couple years; one only
hopes that they do more. They have a long way to go, but they've at
least been willing to give up Eastern Europe. I am rather disappointed
that the Bush Administration has not been willing to promote
demilitarization and democracy in Latin America. There are still
places that could use some of that. And the Administration has been
lamentably lax in trying to round up support for limiting arms sales
to the Middle East and other such troublesome areas. Is all that Bush
knows how to be some great war hero?

:There may be good reaons to have a world space organization, but this
:isn't one of them, and it only hurts your main thesis to use this argument.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: [e-mail]

Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:

[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 12:39:53 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Fred Vote Thursday

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:

>By the way, the current vote count puts it nip and tuck.  Fred has
>just enough votes to tie if the House majority whip's stats are correct.
>Fred has 140 Republicans and 77 Democrats.

This is incorrect, 217 is enough to win by one vote. At the moment there
are only 432 members in the House (three seats are vacant due to death,
resignation, ect). Also note that a tie is a win since the VP gets the
tiebreaking vote.

The momentum is also on Freedoms side. Last Freday there where only 70
votes in favor of the amendment to restore Freedom funding.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 20:19:03 GMT
From: agate!headcrash.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: ASRM (Was: Re: More on Freedom Vote)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Killing the ASRM is NOT the same as killing the shuttle. The ASRM is
>an all new replacement for the existing SRM. The main reason for
>building the ASRM is to put Thiokol out of the SRM business. Secondary
>reasons for building the ASRM are to bring the shuttles payload up to
>spec and to put a big aerospace manufacturing plant in the back woods
>of the Great State of Mississippi.

    The main reason for building the ASRM is that the SRM, even the
redesigned one, isn't very safe.  Pushing the payload up a bit is nice too.
As for the claim of putting Thiokol out of business or putting a plant
in the back woods of Missippi:
    A. Thiokol could have bid on the ASRM; they had a design, and it was
technically OK from what I saw, but they wanted out of the business.
    B. Mississipi is no worse a place to build rocket engines than Utah.
If the motor has to be shipped over 5 miles, it's pretty much the same set
of problems (though more cost due to per-mile costs).

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 13:47:14 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Moonbase movie *Plymouth* to air Sunday?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>The one thing that fasinated me was the way they attempted to get around
>>the "moonwalk" problem. In a TV show, especially one with a large cast,
>>the problem of simulating a walking gait other than Earth normal is
>>horrendous.

[description of Apollo hop deleted]

That wasn't what I was talking about, though people who watched the
Apollo astronauts would expect such a gait outside.  What I was thinking
about was the fact that, inside a base, you would still have Earth normal
inertia while facing only 1/6 G resistance. Your normal gait under those
conditions should resemble that of an ice skater to some degree. You
would tend to take long gliding steps and be very conscious of quick
stops. That's very difficult to simulate on film for an entire cast.

Gary

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 09:39:31 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!demon![e-mail]  (Ian Stirling)
Subject: earth's day


>Now, all electrical energy consumed is eventually converted back to
>heat, so there is essentially no net effect on the amount of heat
>generated. Likewise, the fact that the energy is being converted to
>electricity first instead of heat will have no effect of the
>inevitable slowdown of the earth's rotation; it is neither enhanced
>nor reduced. Eventually, the earth day will be equal to the lunar
>month.


Wouldn't the moon slowly fall out of orbit,due to the `drag' first?
What happens to an orbiting body if it's slowed down over a long
period(long enough not to cause it to go into an epeliptical orbit)?
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
Mail to either                            |PLEASE do not send large
[e-mail]                      |(>20K)mail messages as
[e-mail]                   |I get charged for them.
[e-mail]                           |
one of these may work                     |

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 03:59:40 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

[e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

> Humans are less reliable than machines?  When was the last time your joints
> froze because of a temperature change, or the wires in your head became
> disconnected, or your balance mechanism got fried, or you forgot where your
> home was?

Humans also get diseases, cancer, physical problems, psychological problems,
etc.  Humans get bored, which leads to carelessness or other dangers (Hey,
let's build a still!), which leads to further problems.

> Healthy humans are generally self-repairing...machines aren't.

Actually, some are, at least to some extent.  Even the old systems on the
Voyager probes were "healed", though by human intervention.  I think the
military is putting a fair bit of money into redundant, self-checking and
self-correcting circuitry.  It would be hard to make some items self-repairing
(like transmitter tubes), but even those can be replaced with better technology
(arrays of lower-power transistors that can fail gradually).

> As for 'long trips', the discussion has been geared more towards earth orbit
> and inner solar system discussions than towards things like Neptune probes,
> which is why I didn't comment on that scenario.  For things within the
> asteroid belt, there's nothing better than the man on the scene.

The point is that robotics and related technologies can be used in Earth orbit,
far from Earth orbit, on Earth, inside the Earth and anywhere else you can
think of.  Thus the investment in R&D is almost certain to provide huge
economic--and standard of living--returns.  That is why I favour investment in
that over inventment in a manned space station.

A manned space station would lead to improvements that could allow humans to
travel to Neptune or wherever.  However, it would take a very long time before
it becomes practical and even longer before it becomes economical.

> Mechanical devices will likely *never* be so reliable that you can routinely
> trust them with valuable instruments in space.

We disagree on this point.

> The Voyager probe is in no honest sense a robot; it doesn't manipulate its
> environment in any way.

My dictionary defines "robot" as a mechanism guided by automatic controls.
I've been using the term "robotics and related technologies" because there is a
whole range involved.  Manipulation of the environment is not necessary: many
robotic arms are used to guide sensors, without touching anything.

> The Voyager team showed that you could do amazing things from a distance, but
> it only has marginal relevance to the issue at hand.

Not marginal at all: the Voyager experience merely hints at the possibilities.
It's those possibilities that I'm discussing.

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 00:57:15 GMT
From: pacbell.com!tandem!netcomsv![e-mail]  (Tim Richardson)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
=Also sprach [e-mail] (Gene Gross)
=}BTW, I have a copy of the original NASA photo showing the "Face."  It
=}is rather grainy, but I simply don't see how you can miss the "Face."
=}It is nothing like the Kermit face that someone said they saw on Mars,
=}nor is it anything like the face in the moon.  This thing is so
=}distinct that it will capture your attention immediately.
=
=Do you have the facilities/time/inclination to scan the picture and
=distribute it to the net (preferably in gif format)? I'd be interested
=in seeing it, and I suspect others would be.
=

I have the 2 frames, both in "raw" and in a filtered version which was done
by Loren Carpenter formerly of PIXAR.

I have just posted this to alt.pictures, including Loren's original comments.
--
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET"
email: [e-mail]   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 02:56:54 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!pc.usl.edu![e-mail]  (Phil Fraering)
Subject: Last post for a couple months...

Well, due to the fact that 1) I have some work to do that will
eat up all available space in my quota, 2) The computer systems
here will be being worked on (replaced with some Suns, although
I don't know whether they'll be running 4.1.1 or upgraded to 3.5 :-),
3) I have a lot of work to do, and 4) Because I don't stay up until
1:00 studying Mechanics so some computer science people can tell me
why anything besides their pet scheme will work because of 'fundamental
limits in both physics and economics.'

I'd like to close on the following:

1. Comment re: the current situation with station funding: Oi Vey.

2. Re: refuelling sattelites: It's probably more cost-effective to build
a better propulsion system.

3. I think there would be a great deal of crossposting between a
sci.space group and talk.politics.space. What do you expect when
space projects receive most of their funding from the government?

4. Re: unmanned vs. manned vs. other things: keep in mind that on
manned and unmanned craft, different science is being done. In total
"amount" (as if there's an "amount!") of "science" (which I was unaware
of being a measurable quantity) done, Magellan is more cost-effective
than Mir, but even a relatively small probe like Magellan (which was
scaled down from the VOIR and built from other probes' spare parts)
costs more than a Keck Telescope (the largest ever built) and I do
think more Keck Telescopes are needed (I also think Magellan was a
good idea). The answer to this is: Keck is meant to do galactic and
extragalactic astronomy, while Magellan is doing astrogeology. They do
different things. The same could be said of the various proposed space
stations.

And I wonder: A bystander reading this group would see many people
criticizing Fred, and a small group of people criticizing space
stations in particular. Based on the average traffic, it looks like
people are more strongly _against_ space projects (even on sci.space!)
than for them. I don't think this is too good.

It probably isn't neccesary in order to convince people that you have
a good idea to make blanket statements about how brain-damaged all other
ideas are.

Space activists out there: if you have some ideas you _like_, post
about them. Maybe that will help.

Finally: can anyone out there suggest a good news reader for SunOS 4.1?

Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Possibly soon to be on bss.usl.edu (not a new system)

Snailmail address:
2408 Blue Haven Dr.
New Iberia, La.    <-- I work and study in Lafayette; sometimes it seems
70560                  I just come here to sleep :-(

YellNet: 318/365-5418

P.S.: to Henry: Thanks for helping to make the news software, and therefore
all this, possible. (Along with several other people whose names I don't
know :-( ) May the Source be with you.

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 08:51:47 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu![e-mail]  (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Allen) writes...
>     ParaNet  has received information that Richard C.  Hoagland,
>the  noted author of The Monuments of Mars - a book  detailing  a
>possible  surface anomaly on the planet,

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Hoagland is noted mainly for being a zealot who's rediscovered the fact that if
>you take enough random data, you'll be able to find a correlation with
>something in it.  I've been able to spot SEVERAL humanoid faces in the
>acoustical tile on my ceiling.

This is true, this is so true.  I had a very similar experience ... oh ...
about 25 years ago.  On the side of this hill (I think it was somewhere in
South Dakota, I was only 1 or 2), you could make out what distinctly looked
like human faces, 4 of them too!

Incredibly enough, if you looked closely enough, a couple of them even bore
resemblances to the images you see on the $1 and $5 currency notes!!  Go
figger.

You sorta wonder why National Enquirer doesn't have a field day with those
incredible formations...

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #694
*******************