Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_0/v15no040.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 04:59:58
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #040
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 27 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 040

Today's Topics:
            Antimatter (was propulsion questions) (2 msgs)
                                Delta
   Imminent demise of comsats predicted (for the dozenth time : -)
                     Methods for meteor avoidance
                    NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc. (2 msgs)
                         Radiative heat loss
         Second Call For Papers - SPIE Optical SETI Symposium
                            Space position
                        Whales (SETI) (2 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 92 07:52:59 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>    Given that one can mix the antimatter-reaction mass ratio to get
>>the Vexhaust one wants, the dangers of standing in the vicinity of the
>>exhaust of an antimatter powered ship could be *identical* to that of
>>standing inthe vicinity of a conventional ship.
>Actually there is one piece of information missing here. In a conventional
>rocket most of the exhaust is being used to push more fuel closer to orbit.
>In an antimatter rocket, you have a much higher payload/fuel ratio, so for
>the same payload, there will be much less exhaust.

But lots more gammas. Not a happy thought for the launch pad.

Gary

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 20:46:19 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Wexler) writes...
>[e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>    Given that one can mix the antimatter-reaction mass ratio to get
>>the Vexhaust one wants, the dangers of standing in the vicinity of the
>>exhaust of an antimatter powered ship could be *identical* to that of
>>standing inthe vicinity of a conventional ship.

>Actually there is one piece of information missing here. In a conventional
>rocket most of the exhaust is being used to push more fuel closer to orbit.
>In an antimatter rocket, you have a much higher payload/fuel ratio, so for
>the same payload, there will be much less exhaust.

Actually, there is one piece of information missing here.  In any
rocket, you need to carry something to throw out the tail of the rocket
at high speed in order to propel the rocket forward.  All the antimatter
does is provide a heat source to produce hot gas from whatever you are
carrying to propel your rocket forward.

So, if anything, since you also need to carry the antimatter reactor and
fuel in addition to the solid or liquid propellent you intend to vent
out the back, the payload/fuel ratio might be worse.

Remember, if you build a rocket which produces zero exhaust, you
will have built a tourist trap, not a space ship.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 13:55:42 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delta
Newsgroups: sci.space

I recorded the Geotail launch on NASA Select on Friday - very impressive.
I'd never seen a Delta II daytime launch before - it's interesting how the
solid rocket boosters "flip off" rather than slowly separate like the
Shuttle SRBs. Performance of the launcher was apparently even better than
had been expected.

One thing I noticed - the SRB nozzles are angled outward, presumably to
reduce interference with the main engines. As a result, the flame diverges
very widely behind the rocket, even near sea level pressure, such that the
flame is double the width of the rocket only a short distance behind it,
perhaps 10-20 feet.

There have been proposals for a heavylift Delta, which as I gather is
essentially a whole batch of Delta rockets (complete with boosters)
strapped together. Given the wide divergence of the flame, how are the
flames of the multiple Deltas to be prevented from interfering with one
another (for instance setting up instabilities in the combustion)? And
given the way the SRBs detach, how are the ones "inside" the cluster of
deltas going to be assured clearance so that they avoid hitting the
structure? (I have a mental image of a huge latticework like the dome of
the Astrodome, imbedded with widely-spaced Deltas, rising up into the sky. :-)

Are these considered solved problems, or is that what the proposed development
funding would be for?

The flight commentary also mentioned that this launch was the last to use
this specific configuration, which has a perfect operational record. Anybody
know what configuration is to be used in the future? (Allen, I'm hoping
you know something about this. :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 07:31:49 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Imminent demise of comsats predicted (for the dozenth time : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>
>>As an aside.  The value (or rather, usefulness) of COMSATs is decreasing, not
>>increasing; also, they are getting more expensive relative to the superior
>>communications offered by fiber optics.
>
>The second point is valid for point-to-point communications, but the
>first is false.  Wall Street is bullish on space communications.
>Comsat stock is near its all-time high, and large amounts of new

I'm in nearly daily contact with Comsat Systems Division of Comsat General,
and they expect to see several parts of their network shutting down in favor
of fiber in the next few years. They are already laying off personnel and
scaling back their launch plans.

>capital are going into mobile-communications ventures like American
>Mobile Satellite Corp., Alpha Lyracom, European/Loral Globalstar,
>Motorolla/Lockheed Iridium, Orbital Sciences Corp. Orbcomm, and even
>more $billions are going into foreign ventures.  The mobile and broadcast
>functions of comsats are not being replaced by fiber, and are expanding
>far faster than the point-to-point market is moving to fiber.  The

This isn't the whole story. There's a number of *proposed* direct broadcast
and mobile applications for satellites in the US, but no major system is
operational. Nor is it likely that many of them ever will be. Wall Street
was in love with other high technology stocks a few years ago, like biotech,
but after their promise didn't deliver large profits, and investors took a
bath, Wall Street became very shy of further investments in them. With
ordinary stocks only posting mediocre gains in the current market, Wall
Street is once again taking a speculative flyer on high tech, but it's
likely to take another bath as well. With the explosion of cellular users,
the completion of the terrestrial cellular network in the US, and the advent
of the microcell to offload the increasing demand on ordinary cellular,
there is no niche left for systems like Iridium in the US market. The
market among Columbian drug lords is too small to support a 77 satellite
constellation. With the necessarily large cell size of an orbiting satellite,
the constellation would be unable to handle much volume, meaning the cost
to users would have to be extraordinarily high to support such a large
number of satellites. The market is not there. Nor are the agreements there
with the world's telecom administrations to allow such a system to operate.
Though the recent WARC did allocate a narrow bit of spectrum at UHF for
smallsat usage and a bit of SHF for digital audio broadcasting. Unfortunately
many administrations reserved the right to disagree on these allocations
and negotiations will be required with over 100 countries to resolve a
worldwide chunk of spectrum for these services. The US and the EC disagree
on the basic modulation method and channel allocation scheme for DAB.
That issue won't be resolved any easier than their disagreement over
HDTV standards and channel allocations which is still in dispute after
nearly ten years of wrangling, not to mention the totally different
implementations of cellular and microcellular systems. Satellite systems
such as Iridium need global agreement on standards and allocations.

Similarly for broadcast satellites, the networks plan to move to terrestrial
fiber for distribution, cable has a 90% market penetration, and the other
shoe has now dropped with the FCC approving video on demand service from
the regional Bell operating companies. The window of opportunity for direct
to home satellite broadcasting is rapidly closing. The rural market unserved
by cable is small, less than 10%, and the Bell companies will be able to
offer even them video on demand soon. People accustomed to 50 channels
are no longer impressed by three channel pay per view systems that require
unsightly antennas.

>"unused capacity" Gary keeps harping on has always been a normal part
>of the comsat business; backups are necessary because of the unreliable
>nature of launch services.  Both the builders and operators are making
>money despite that constraint, but costs would come down even farther,
>and the market expand more quickly, by making launchers more reliable.

The unused capacity is *same* satellite unused capacity. Since all 24
channels of the satellite share the same TWT and go up on the same
launcher, this is not "backup" capacity. Transponder time is currently
going begging at the rate of $400 an hour, or $50 for five minutes.
We are able to pick up an ad hoc transponder even during peak usage
for news backfeeds, and at bargain rates below those quoted. The real
costs are now on the ground for uplink trucks ($750,000) or teleports
($1,200,000) or even professional RO systems ($8,000). The amortization
on our uplink vehicles is higher than our transponder rental bill.
Comsat General is still making money only because of their service
contracts for NBC teleports. And that will be gone before 1996 as
the network goes to fiber.

>For a successful, $multi-billion space program that pays for itself,
>comsats sure get dismissed a lot. In my more derogatory moments, I start
>thinking that some fans of other parts of the space program can't
>stand success.  :-)

Comsats had their window of opportunity, but now it's closing for most
services. They'll still be needed for a while for news uplinks from
the uplink trucks, but even the sports backfeeds are returning to
terrestrial links as the phone company pulls fiber into all of the
stadiums. Comsats will hold onto market share, and even gain some
penetration, in the third world for some time to come because their
terrestrial infrastructure is so poor. But usage in developed countries
is slated for a sharp decline in the decade ahead.

Gary

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

Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 07:11:33 GMT
From: Bernd Felsche <[e-mail]>
Subject: Methods for meteor avoidance
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brendan Woithe) writes:
>>After the meteor from last year passed withinn 4 minutes of the earth (the
>>large one), I was wondering if we have any system of avoiding these
>>large beasts??!! ...
>>With a problem like this, surely there must be some defence!!!

>There has been discussion of this, both in the past and recently.  The big
>problem is detecting them far enough in advance.  Given adequate advance
>warning, one could use large nuclear bombs to destroy or deflect the incoming
>rock, in principle.  There is a practical problem in that the US currently
>has no launcher adequate to the job; there are some things for which there
>is no substitute for a Saturn V or equivalent.

Since it's a global problem, we can resort to global
resources. I'm sure that the Russians would not object to
some of their spare boosters being used to save their butt
too!

I believe that current capabilities would require very long
range detection so that the minor deflection which could be
imposed using a deliverable load would be significant enough
to prevent large particles entering the atmosphere. Major
unknowns are the velocity and mass of the threatening
meteor, so the kinetic energy required cannot be easily
determined.

If the blast could be "focused", then the size of the
explosion can be reduced, as the imposed velocity component
can be at the optimum direction to prevent collision with
the Earth, as well as avoiding dangerous proximity of large
meteors.

For very large meteors, it may actually be more practical to
subtly change our own orbit (not through nuclear explosions!),
though the environmental impact of doing this is mind-blowing.
In the event, it'll be a question of our survival in a
changed world vs. extinction and destruction of the planet.

How we change the orbit is left as an exercise for the student. :-)
--
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _--_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /      \ [e-mail]
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.--._/         Fax: [phone]
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: [phone]

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 07:56:32 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I heard a rumor the congress is considering canceling NASP, SSTO and a few
>other launch systems and dumping most of the money into NLS.  Does anyone
>know if there is any truth to this rumor?

That's what the Clinton platform says anyway.

Gary

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 15:55:34 GMT
From: Jim Bowery <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics

Gary Coffman writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:
>>I heard a rumor the congress is considering canceling NASP, SSTO and a few

>>other launch systems and dumping most of the money into NLS.  Does anyone
>>know if there is any truth to this rumor?
>
>That's what the Clinton platform says anyway.

I'm disappointed in Clinton.  I thought he was just a national socialist.
I didn't realize he had gone all the way to being a communist.

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 07:45:24 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Radiative heat loss
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>-From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
>
>-The latent heat of the atmosphere is roughly 5.3E20 kWh. Radiative
>-loss to maintain current equilibrium is 1.28E14 kW. That would require
>-1.1E3 days to drop the temperature to 0 Kelvin, or 2.12 years to drop the
>-average temperature to the liquification temperature of nitrogen, if
>-radiative loss remained constant. Of course it does not. It varies with
>-the square of the black body temperature.
>
>The *square*? Please double-check.

Fourth power, not a linear relationship in any event.

Gary

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 16:34:54 GMT
From: Stuart A Kingsley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Second Call For Papers - SPIE Optical SETI Symposium
Newsgroups: sci.space,private.radobs

                FIRST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON OPTICAL SETI

                            SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS

                    New Abstract Due Date: August 15, 1992


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 * NOTICE TO STUDENTS, FACULTY AND SCIENTIFIC/ENGINEERING ESTABLISHMENTS:  *
 *                                                                         *
 * Please make a hardcopy of this "Call for Papers" and post to the notice *
 * boards in your Physics, Astronomy, Engineering, and Biological Sciences *
 * faculties.  You are also encouraged to remail this material to anyone   *
 * you know who has an interest in the scientific activity called SETI.    *
 * Members of Congress and the printed/electronic media are encouraged to  *
 * send representatives to attend this symposium, so that they can become  *
 * better informed about all aspects of the electromagnetic search for     *
 * extraterrestrial intelligence.                                          *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Dear Colleague,

I would like to invite your participation in the SPIE (Society of
Photographic & Instrumentation Engineers) Free-Space Laser Communications
Symposium V that will include a special one day session devoted to THE
SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI) IN THE OPTICAL SPECTRUM,
otherwise known as OPTICAL SETI.

Some of you will have been contacted by me previously and have been sent a
PC-compatible diskette with an ASCII version of my 138-page January EJASA
(ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC) article on
Optical SETI.  From this article, you will be aware that for about two years
now I have been "lobbying" the scientific community to reconsider the merits
of the optical approach to SETI.  Because SETI has been claimed by radio
astronomers and scientists and not by optical astronomers and optoelectronic
engineers, we have a dichotomy within the Space Program.  One branch of NASA
declares that free-space laser communications is the desirable form of
communications for the next generation of deep-space probes, while the other
branch wants us to believe that ETIs would not use this technology for
interstellar communications!

As a result of this marketing of the optical approach to SETI, I have been
asked by Dr. David Begley (Ball Aerospace Corporation and chairman of
previous SPIE Free-Space Laser Communications Symposiums) to organize the
first Optical SETI session for an SPIE symposium.  This will also be the
first conference ever on just this subject for laser communication
scientists and engineers.  It is fitting that the first professional
discussion of optical interstellar communications with ETIs should be at a
symposium previously known for promoting more down to earth terrene
communications!  A provisional program of Optical SETI presentations follow.

Noted author, Arthur C. Clarke (with whom I have an association going back
twenty years), has agreed to participate in this conference.  Unfortunately,
due to his poor health, it is not possible for him to travel extensively
these days.  So we will try to arrange an Intelsat link in order that Arthur
can give his keynote address live from Sri Lanka.  At a minimum, Arthur C.
Clarke will participate via video-tape message and telephone.

The OE/LASE '93 Free-Space Laser Communications V Symposium, will be held on
16-23 January 1993 in Los Angeles.  The Optical SETI session will be held at
the Hilton Airport Hotel, probably on Friday, January 22.  Although the
advertized OE/LASE '93 abstract due date is June 29, because of the late
decision to host such the Optical SETI session and this being the vacation
season, the due date for the Optical SETI abstract is now August 15.  The
manuscript due date is still December 21.  The Proceedings of the Free-Space
Laser Communication Symposiums typically run to about 600-700 pages.  Papers
submitted for presentation at this conference will be reviewed by the
program committee prior to acceptance.  Please indicate your preference on
the abstract for either "Oral Presentation" of evening "Poster
Presentation".

Please respond before August 15 if you wish to participate as an author, and
if so, with a title, 500 word abstract and 50 to 100 word biography
(principal author only).  To speed matters up, you may fax the information
to me on [phone] via my phone/fax line-manager and then send four
copies of the abstract via the mail to SPIE.  Communications can also be
sent via my computer bulletin board system (BBS) on [phone] or via
internet at [e-mail].  I would also be interested
to know whether you and your colleagues would be inclined to attend this
session, even if not authors or co-authors.  If you signify your intention
to attend, and email or fax me your address, I can ensure that SPIE will
send you the full program announcement when it becomes available in early
September.

It is my intention to develop a broad-based constituency for Optical SETI as
rapidly as possible.  To this end, I am presently having discussions with
publication houses for the first book on Optical SETI, though it is likely
that SPIE would itself be the publisher.  Please bear this in mind, since
your manuscript or an extended version could later well form a contributing
chapter for such a book.  To complement such a publication on Optical SETI,
some papers from the other sessions of the Free-Space Laser Communications
Symposium, which present details about NASA's present optoelectronics and
free-space laser communication activities, may also be included.  I look
forward to the day when Optical SETI has its own dedicated conference, i.e.,
the First International Conference on Optical SETI, and becomes part of the
main-stream of terrene SETI activities.

For some, this historical symposium will present the opportunity to turn
laser swords into SETI or CETI plowshares.  To others, this will present the
opportunity to participate in a great adventure - to help answer the age old
question "Are We Alone?".

Stuart Kingsley



                                 OE/LASE '93

                      FREE-SPACE LASER COMMUNICATIONS V


SPIE's International Symposium on Lasers, Sensors, and Applications.

Date:
16-23 January 1993.

Location:
Los Angeles Airport Hilton and Airport Marriott Hotels, Los Angeles,
California, USA.

Conference Chairs:
G. Stephen Mecherle (TRW Inc.), Michael A. Krainak (NASA/Goddard Space
Flight Ctr.).

Conference Program Committee:
David L. Begley (Ball Aerospace Systems Group), Don M. Boroson (Lincoln
Lab./MIT), Timothy Busch (Rome Lab.), Robert T. Carlson (MITRE Corp.), Amos
J. Chenoweth (McDonnell Douglas Electronics Systems Co.), James E. Freidell
(Martin Marietta Corp.), Masayuki Fujise (ATR Optical and Radio
Communications Research Labs. - Japan), Karl I. Gass. (Phillips Lab.), G.
Charmaine Gilbreath (Naval Research Lab.), Bernard Laurent (Matra Espace -
France), James R. Lesh (Jet Propulsion Lab.), Alexandru F. Popescu (European
Space Agency/ESTEC - Netherlands), Bernard D. Seery (NASA/Goddard Space
Flight Ctr.).

SPIE, P.O. Box 10, Bellingham, WA 98227-0010
Shipping address: 1000 20th St., Bellingham, WA 98225
Telephone [phone]; Telex 46-7053
Telefax [phone]; OPTO-LINK [phone]
Internet [e-mail]
CompuServe 71630,2177


                           SESSION - OPTICAL SETI

The following program is hypothetical, but forms a list of suggested topics
and authors in a sort of logical order which should help convey the general
flavor of this symposium.  The program for this first Optical SETI session,
has been devised to bring the laser communications community up to speed on
Conventional (Microwave) SETI related matters.

The authors are free to select a title of their own choosing, and other
potential authors not listed here are encouraged to submit papers.  There
are more presentations listed here than can be accommodated in one day.
However, it is not expected that all the suggested authors will be willing
or able to present papers at this symposium.  Each of the authors listed
has recently been invited to make a presentation.  Hopefully, we will be
able to put together a one-day program that is very thought-provoking.  The
presentation times indicated include a five minute discussion period.


Session Chairman - Dr. Stuart A. Kingsley
(Fiberdyne Optoelectronics, Columbus, Ohio).

Morning

 1.  "How The Galaxy Could Be One".*
     Keynote Speaker - Arthur C. Clarke (Chancellor - International Space
     University).
     Recorded or live video address from his home in Sri Lanka.
     (20 minutes).

 2.  "The Electromagnetic Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence - An
     Overview".
     Dr. John Billingham (Chief, NASA SETI Office & SETI Institute, NASA -
     Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California).
     (30 minutes).

 3.  "The Microwave Observing Project".
     Dr. Jill Tarter (MOP Project Scientist, SETI Institute).
     (20 minutes).

 4.  "MOP's All Sky Survey".*
     Dr. Michael Klein (MOP Program Manager, Jet Propulsion Laboratory).
     (20 minutes).

 5.  "Project Argus and Big Ear".
     Dr. Robert Dixon (Ohio State, Columbus, Ohio).
     (20 minutes).

 6.  "SETI - A Waste of Time!".
     Professor Frank Tipler.
     (20 minutes).

 7.  "SETI Ignorance of Modern Philosophy and Defectiveness of Frank
     Tipler's (Von Neumann Probe) Hypothesis".
     Clive Goodall (Ohio State, Columbus, Ohio).
     (20 minutes).

 8.  "The Decoding Problem".
     Professor Neil Tennant (Ohio State, Columbus, Ohio).
     (20 minutes).

 9.  "The Microwave or Optical Approach To SETI - Which is Better?".
     Dr. Bernard M. Oliver (Deputy Chief, NASA SETI Office).
     (20 minutes).


Afternoon

10.  "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in the Optical
     Spectrum - Professional Optical SETI".**
     Dr. Stuart A. Kingsley (President, Fiberdyne Optoelectronics, Columbus,
     Ohio).
     (20 minutes).

11.  "Infrared SETI".**
     Professor Charles Townes (Space Sciences Laboratory, University of
     California at Berkeley, California).
     (20 minutes).

12.  "SETI in the Infrared".
     Dr. Ben Zuckerman (Astronomy Department, UCLA, California).
     (20 minutes).

13.  "CO2 Planetary Lasers".
     Brent Sherwood (Boeing Defense & Space Group, Huntsville, Alabama).
     (20 minutes).

14.  "Mt. Wilson's CO2 Optical SETI Observatory".
     Dr. Albert Betz (University of Colorado).
     (20 minutes).

15.  "Adaptive Telescope Technology".
     Dr. Byron M. Welsh (Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio).
     (20 minutes).

16.  "The Use of Lasers for Interstellar Beacons, Communications and
     Travel".**
     Dr. John Rather (NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.).
     (20 minutes).

17.  "Visible SETI Observations in the Former Soviet Union - Historical &
     Technical Prospectives".
     Dr. Gregory Beskin (Soviet Academy of Science).
     (20 minutes).

18.  "Large M-ary Pulse Position Modulation for Effective Interstellar
     Communications"*
     Dr. Monte Ross (President, Laser Data Technology, Inc., St. Louis,
     Missouri).
     (20 minutes).

19.  "Amateur Optical SETI".**
     Dr. Stuart A. Kingsley (President, Fiberdyne Optoelectronics, Columbus,
     Ohio.
     (20 minutes).

20.  "Advanced Technological Civilizations".
     Dr. Freeman Dyson (President, Space Studies Institute).
     (20 minutes).

21.  General Discussion Round Table.
     Possible inclusion of Arthur C. Clarke in discussion via telephone.
     (30 minutes).

*  Signifies confirmed author.
** Signifies confirmed author and titles.


July 26, 1992
File: SPIESETI.TXT


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 * Dr. Stuart A. Kingsley, CEng,                                           *
 * Consultant,                                                             *
 * MIEE, SMIEEE,                                                           *
 * The Planetary Society,                                                  *
 * Space Studies Institute,                                                *
 * Columbus Astronomical Society,                                          *
 * Volunteer, SETI Group, Ohio State.                                      *
 *                                                                         *
 *                                    "Where No Photon Has Gone Before &   *
 *                                   The Impossible Takes A Little Longer" *
 *                                                 __________              *
 * FIBERDYNE OPTOELECTRONICS                      /          \             *
 * 545 Northview Drive                        ---   hf >> kT   ---         *
 * Columbus, Ohio 43209                           \__________/             *
 * United States                                                           *
 * Tel/Fax: [phone]                 ..    ..    ..    ..    ..      *
 * Manual Fax Tone Access Code: 33        .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     *
 * Bulletin Board System (BBS):               ..    ..    ..    ..         *
 * Modem: [phone],                                                  *
 * 300/1200/2400/4800/9600 Baud, MNP, 8N1.                                 *
 * Internet: [e-mail]                            *
 * CompuServe: 72376,3545                                                  *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 12:15:22 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space position
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
-Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
-Date: 26 Jul 92 00:53:27 GMT

-What he said.

Ditto.

->I've
->heard (unofficially and third hand) that the NASA folks aren't unduly
->concerned about the space platforms of either of the major candidates.

-NASA as a burecracy will indeed do fine whoever is in power. The middle
-mamagers who are now running scared under Goldin would like a Clinton
-administration.

-I would hate to see the just beginning effort to fix NASA get derailed.

Who on Earth would want to replace Goldin, when he's had such a promising
start? There are plenty of examples of Cabinet members being kept on through
a change in Administration, if they're doing well. (And, in case you didn't
know, Goldin is actually a Democrat, though that doesn't get talked about
much. :-) I would guess that Goldin is likely to stay, whoever is elected.

->Note that the platform isn't too different from the current trends in
->Administration and Congress - keep the manned program going, support...

-Except for two important differences:

-1. They want to keep the Shuttle which currently consumes 1/3 of the
-NASA budget.

*Everybody* wants to keep the Shuttle for the time being, though nobody's
particularly happy about it. Even Goldin, from an unmanned space background,
wants to keep the Shuttle going. (And SSF, for that matter.)

-2. clinton pretty much comes out and says there will be no effort put
-inot Moon/Mars.

As opposed to the current thriving SEI program? :-) Seriously, what
candidate with a reasonable chance of election has promised more, *and*
given some clue as to where the money would come from? (Yeah, I know, GB
promised colonies on the moon by 1999 or some such, but try asking him if
that's still the plan.)

(It's my own opinion that starting actual manned Mars exploration / lunar
colonization right now, with current hardware, would be a mistake, and I
don't think you're going to find anybody in power who's going to push very
hard for it.)

->There are several indications in the proposal that some of the military
->space funding would be shifted to the civilian space program, which ought
->to be beneficial to the civilian program.

-Except that the funding won't be transfered.

Just after I posted that, I read somewhere that the current Administration
has expressed interest in the same thing. If both major parties are behind
it, it might happen.

-Add to all this the fact that by law Al Gore will be the head of the
-Space Council and will be the point person on space policy. Except
-for Mission to Planet Earth Gore has shown almost NO interest in space.
-I don't expect him to support the human expansion into space in any
-way.

So why doncha write letters *before* the election to any candidates who you
feel are less than fully supportive of space exploration, urging them to
change their positions? :-)

Personally, I hope space is a nonissue in the upcoming election. With such
a close similarity of platform positions, that might turn out to be the case.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 07:42:42 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Whales (SETI)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Travsky) writes:
>
>On the other hand, what would a whale do with knowing the prime numbers?
>Why would a whale(s) need numbers? I have read (back when I took some
>anthro) that some less technologically advanced _human_ cultures did
>not have a numbering system that went much beyond "one, two, and many".
>By the above metric, then, the people in these cultures are not
>intelligent.

Counting systems developed among humans because of the needs of herdsmen
to keep track of their flocks. Plane geometry developed as agriculturalists
needed to measure their fields. Number theory and higher forms of geometry
developed as an *intellectual* exercise among natural philosphers of the
ancient world. One, two, many was sufficient for subsistence gatherers and
nomad hunters too busy surviving to develop natural philosphy.

While whales don't usually herd their prey, they also don't have natural
enemies (except man) and should have sufficient leisure time to develop
a natural philosphy. I'd expect that their three dimensional environment
would lead to geometric insights, and their podding behavior would lead
to counting. From there, the leap to analytic geometry and prime ratios
should be the logical next step. Any creature that doesn't grasp mathematics
can't be said to be intelligent.

Gary

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

Date: 26 Jul 92 16:03:34 GMT
From: Nick Janow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales (SETI)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Any creature that doesn't grasp mathematics can't be said to be intelligent.

Well, that lets out a lot of high school graduates.  :-)

--

[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 040
------------------------------