Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no127.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 05:01:34
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #127
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 20 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
                    ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
                           Commercial Space
             Early Warning of missiles and meteo (2 msgs)
          EJASA Back Issues Now Available via Anonymous FTP
              Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
                             GPS Info ...
                              NASA SETI
                        Private space ventures
         Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
                            Saturn dreams
                            Soyuz as ACRV
                        Space Digest V15 #122
                       Space probe information
                            Space Station
             SPS feasibility / Astrophysical Engineering
             SPS feasibility and other space development
                       statistical significance
superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other space development)
                To anyone who is interested in science

    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: 19 Aug 92 18:08:26 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell?

>And wait how many years for MM to develop a comparable system? *Time*

No need to wait since they developed their system along with Douglas.
We can insure that both are available if we buy from both providers.

>critical missions go on the first *available* transport,

Since we also sign long term contracts with both parties for maybe
one launch each this isn't a problem. BTW, Martin's commercial
Titan buisness says they can make money on one launch per year.

>There is no market for *two*
>HL systems today, only Fred, and a possible return to the Moon. Winner
>takes all.

Since I am allocating costs in quanity one I can decide to buy from
whomever is out there or give contracts to both parties. Since both
companies use their existing MLV production facilities to build both
the MLV and HLV both can respond quickly.

compared to Shuttle costs, there is enough money to provide for
several HLVs.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------247 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 18 Aug 92  21:25:32
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Commercial Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

dann cutter writes:
   >Could anybody out there please tell me the current status of the
   >private space industry world wide. What comapnies exist... what
   >they have done... thanks

Listing individual companies is a bit difficult, since there are
several thousands of them.  For a general overview, from Commercial
Space News #15 , which I posted a month or so ago...

1- COMMERCIAL SPACE BUSINESS INDICATORS UP
  The annual issue of "Space Business Indicators" published by the
Department of Commerce's Office of Space Commerce is about to be
released.  As compiled from the Office of Business Statistics, the
U.S. Commercial Space Industry saw another record year of space
sales, and is expected to reach about $5 B in sales in 1992.
  A summary of the results are:                        (est.)
                        1988     1989     1990     1991     1992
                       -----     ----     ----     ----     ----
Commercial Satellites    550      900     1000     1300     1100
Satellite Services       600      750      800     1200     1500
    Fixed Services      (600)    (700)    (735)   (1115)   (1350)
    Mobile Services     (  0)    ( 50)    ( 65)   (  85)   ( 150)
Satellite Ground Equip   600      790      860     1350     1700
    Fixed               (600)    (690)    (715)    (970)   (1200)
    Mobile              (  0)    (100)    (145)    (380)   ( 500)
Commercial Launches        0      150      570      380      500
Remote Sensing            90      115      140      170      200
                        ====     ====     ====     ====     ====
Annual Sales ($M)       1840     2705     3370     4400     5000

  To summarize what is included in these groupings:
  Commercial Satellites - sales of satellites to foreign and non-
governmental entities.  For example, sales of communications
satellites to foreign and commercial customers.
  Satellite Services  - the sale of satellite provided services to
customers, including broadcast TV, telecommunications, data and
navigation services. Examples of this include TV broadcasts and
vehicle tracking services. Fixed services are those to fixed ground
sites, such as TV broadcast to home receivers or cable services.
Mobile services are sales of satellite service to non-fixed ground
sites, such as air-to-ground phone service, ship-to-shore
telecommunications, and vehicle tracking.
  Satellite ground equipment - the sale of satellite ground
receiving and transmitting equipment.  Examples of this include
satellite dishes, mobile communications suites, and navigation
boxes.  An example of fixed ground equipment is a satellite dish for
home satellite TV reception.  An examples of mobile satellites
ground equipment would be a hand held GPS navigation reciever.
  Commercial launches  - sales of launch vehicles to foreign or
commercial customers to launch satellites.  This also includes
"commercial launch service contracts" to the US government, which
are based upon a commercial firm launching the satellite rather than
the more typical government practise of procuring a satellite
launcher and operating it under government control.
   Remote Sensing - includes the sale of directly derived Earth
observation data by U.S. firms.  This is essentially sales of
Landsat data through the EOSAT corporation.
  [Commentary:  I could spend the rest of this column discussing the
contents of these statistics, but to save bandwidth I will just point
out this data represents a average annual growth rate of over 25 %
for space-related commercial products and services.  A simple
extrapolation of the historical data shown above indicates there is
still a large up-side to this market. From the perspective of an
individual investor in the space market, this data indicates there
is are substantial market opportunities in the satellite business.
  It is also interesting to note that about 90% of this market is
driven by satellite communications products of some type. While
remote sensing data sales have been growing at over 20% per year,
these sales only comprise about $200 M per year.  Furthermore, most
of the attention paid to commercial space activities seems to be
directed at the launch systems segment, which really is a very small
part of the commercial activity (about 10%).  There's a lot more
going on, and I will try to focus more on those other areas in
future articles.]
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 18:09:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Early Warning of missiles and meteo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
>To:    sci.space From:  Mark Goodman ([e-mail]) Re:
>Meteoroid Detection Date:  18 Aug 1992
>
> [... deleted...]
>
>Also, over-the-horizon radars are irrelevant to this discussion.
>They do not have anything like the sensitivity required to see a
>meteoroid against the backscatter of the Earth's surface.
>
>+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
>|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
>| [e-mail] -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
>| [e-mail]  |                             |
>+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
>
>

Bzzzt. Wrong. OTH radars are very sensitive, and are usually located
in areas with very low noise floors - they have to be to resolve very
weak returns (via a path which exhibits high attenuation), and detect
small objects, such as aeroplanes, at very long ranges! As a meteor
entering the atmosphere causes ionisation, the "target" is twice as
close as a regular target (ie, half way along the propagation path),
and will have a much larger doppler shift than an aeroplane (or missile
for that matter). The main drawback is that it only detects meteors
than enter the atmosphere on the radar's boresight.

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 15:41:55 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Early Warning of missiles and meteo
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Goodman) writes:
>
>Meteoroids also travel faster than ballistic missiles -- tens of
>km/sec compared to up to 7 for missiles, at least until they get
>vey low in the atmosphere and are below the radar fan -- so
>theradar won't have as much time to look.  The United States has a
>PAVE PAWS radar in Georgia for warning of SLBM attack, which I
>think had a good chance of seeing a meteoroid off Daytona Beach.

The system at Warner Robbins AFB has only been activated at full power
*one* time.  The effects at the (then) SAC flight line were such that
the system hasn't been turned on since. Can you say boondoggle? I
knew you could.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:58:40 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: EJASA Back Issues Now Available via Anonymous FTP
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc

        Back issues of the Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society
    of the Atlantic (EJASA), which is posted each month on the sci.astro,
    sci.space, sci.space.news, and sci.misc USENET newsgroups, are now
    available via anonymous FTP at:

        chara.gsu.edu

        The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
    (EJASA) is published monthly by the Astronomical Society of the
    Atlantic, Incorporated.  The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated
    to the advancement of amateur and professional astronomy and space
    exploration, as well as the social and educational needs of its members.

        ASA membership application is open to all with an interest in
    astronomy and space exploration.  Members receive the Journal of the
    ASA (hardcopy sent through United States Mail - Not a duplicate of this
    Electronic Journal) and the Astronomical League's REFLECTOR magazine.
    Members may also purchase discount subscriptions to ASTRONOMY and
    SKY & TELESCOPE magazines.

        For information on membership, you may contact the Society at any
    of the following addresses:

        Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (ASA)
        c/o Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA)
        Georgia State University (GSU)
        Atlanta, Georgia  30303
        U.S.A.

        [e-mail]

        ASA BBS: [phone], 300/1200/2400 Baud.

        or telephone the Society Recording at [phone] to leave your
    address and/or receive the latest Society news.

        ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS -

        Article submissions to the EJASA on astronomy and space exploration
    are most welcome.  Please send your on-line articles in ASCII format to
    Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net addresses or the above
    Society addresses:

        [e-mail]
        or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
        or - [e-mail]
        or - [e-mail]

        You may also use the above addresses for EJASA back issue requests,
    letters to the editor, and ASA membership information.

        When sending your article submissions, please be certain to include
    either a network or regular mail address where you can be reached, a
    telephone number, and a brief biographical sketch.

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 15:18:42 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Indeed. If we follow the plan of using Soyuz and HL Deltas, the Shuttle
>>fleet is *gone*. That's Sherzer's plan anyway. With this plan 3/4 of the
>>Shuttle fleet is available for other work than servicing Fred. Now if
>>your plan includes operating the full Shuttle fleet in *addition*
>>to Soyuz at the station, then *never mind*. Expensive though.
>
>3/4 of the shuttle fleet will not be available for non-station duties.

>Since the long duration flights screw up the shuttle  turnaround,
>you only get about half the previously-available flights.  Is that
>worth it?

Maybe. In a sense Shuttle is priceless. It can do some things that
no other vehicle currently available, or in the pipeline, can do.
We have to make a value decision on whether those things are worth
doing at the price. I think some of them are.

>Soyuz prices might well go up.  They won't likely go past (installed
>on a US Vehicle, inclusive of integration exclusive of vehicle)
>$30 million per Soyuz.  Even at $30 million, total vehicle cost
>is only $80 million on an Atlas.  If the price stays low for
>a while, we're looking at my quote of $65 million.
>
>Satisfied?

Yeah. Using Soyuz for ACRV *is* a cheap way to get the capability
now. It may even *remain* a cheap way to get the capability by
the time we need it. But we are depending on a very unstable
situation for what could be a critical mission requirement. I'd
feel a lot better if they could be manufactured here under license
as a *second* source. Even at the higher price, it's cheaper than
developing an entirely new vehicle.

Gary

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

Date: 18 Aug 92  21:27:38
From: [e-mail]
Subject: GPS Info ...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Jeff Bytof states:

>I have just read the famous 76-page brochure on GPS put out by
>Trimble Navigation.  It hardly qualifies as a manual or technical
>documentation. When I call Trimble Navigation for information, they
>give me the phone number of a guy that won't be back for two weeks.
>According to the brochure, US taxpayers are "investing over $12
>billion" on the system. I would think there would be at least an
>address I could write to for a good bibliography on the system
>without having to go through some company that makes it money
>keeping public information away from the public.

     Rather than asking someone else do your research for you, why
don't you try a good local library.  Since Trimble is only in the
business of providing receivers and user-specific applications
hardware and software, I don't think they need to provide random
callers with technical specs on GPS.  From your net address
([e-mail]), I am assuming you are near UCSD, which has
an excellent technical library.  I'll bet you money you could find
50 or more references in 15 minutes by looking in any of the
following ...
   - IAF abstracts
   - STAR (scientific and technical abstracts report)
   - AIAA abstracts
   - NTIS data base (National Technical Information System)
   - Aerospace data base.
   All of the above are available in hard copy (except for the last)
at just about any significant technical library.  All are available
on CD-ROM, or on-line. And they'll give you just about anything you
want to know from spacecraft constellation specifics and design, to
full technical specifications for any part of the system.

   And if you still don't want to do any of the (minimal) legwork,
ask the reference librarian at the library what would be the easiest
way...  She/he is paid to help answer questions like this -- but
she/he doesn't know exactly what questions you want answered.

  Sorry Jeff, but I'm in a rotten mood tonight.  I've just read
through about 50 K of useless drivel, posturing, and meaningless
speculation.  Your question can be answered simply, and I'm
surprized no one else has recommended you just look up the data in
any of the standard data bases.   If you really want to go the
horse's mouth, call the GPS Joint Program Office (GPS JPO) at Air
Force Space and Missiles Command in El Segundo, California.  But all
they'll do is reference to some of the reports and papers you'll
find in the above data bases.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor



--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 20:59:07 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA SETI
Newsgroups: sci.space

Is NASA's Microwave Observing Project still dead in Congress or
have they managed to revive it?

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 14:43:27 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Private space ventures

I'm afraid you are a bit out of date on Astrotech. Willard Rockwell's
efforts peaked just prior to the Challenger, at which point efforts
to commercialize the shuttle collapsed. The venture was backed
privately by the Rockwell fortune in Pittsburgh. Willard, having led
Rockwell Corp through the years during which the shuttle was built
wanted to fly one commercial. He was the sort of billionaire who
dreams great dreams. All my interactions with him left me thoroughly
impressed with him as a person, a manager and a dreamer. He is one of
us. And he puts money where is mouth is. He also donated money for
many space education projects as well.

Just prior to the Challenger tragedy the company president, E. Doug
Ward had told me they could cut the cost of a shuttle launch by 50%
on the day they took it over.


In hindsite I realize that even at 50% it would still have required
massive subsidies to run it on a commercial basis because it is
still, to this day, essentially an X plane masquerading as "DC3 of
space" (yes that phrase was used).

Astrotech was diversifying at the time and looking towards a complete
vertical integration of space operations. They bought a materials and
electronics company; they built the first commercial Payload
Processing Facility at Cape Canevaral (Astrotech Space Operation
Inc); they were attempting to buy a shuttle or to act as the fleet
marketing agent; they were looking at building upper stages in joint
venture with MacDac or one of the others; they were studying small
co-orbital SPSS platforms to generate and beam energy to Fred or
other platforms in need of high power. I could go on.

The last I heard before leaving Pittsburgh was that they were going
into other business lines. ASO was sold off and is still operating at
the Cape. That may be where you heard of them since I believe they
still bear the name "Astrotech". As far as I know everything else was
shelved.

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 17:44:27 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> There
> is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability.

Sure, I believe you. I'm curious to know: what is the demonstrated
need? How is it demonstrated?

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 21:44:44 GMT
From: Brett Vansteenwyk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn dreams
Newsgroups: sci.space

>No if you had looked at my posts you would have seen a progression of
>launch vehicles starting with one in the Titan V class and progressing
>upward toward and surpassing the Saturn V of the sixties capability.  There
>is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability.  I started with the single
>engine F1A engined bird as a justification for restarting the line, as was
>done for the Delta and Atlas programs at Rockewll after Challenger. The two
>engine version would use two F1A's with a Lox/H2 upper stage (as would the
>one engine verison) to double the payload to orbit without major retooling
>of the manufacturing jig for the tanks and external skins.  This would
>put us up in the real Heavy lift league (110,000 to orbit) for only an
>incremental cost, in the spirit of Allen Sherzier. Then as the need generated
>the opportunity the second phase would be implemented which would build a
>new jig for the larger diameter tanks on the first stage & second stage for
>a three engine version with 180,000 to orbit. Then the same incremental
>philosophy would hold for stretching the tanks and adding engines till the
>full up Saturn V configuration could be reached with only incremental costs.
>
>That is the reason that is backed up by the same market dynamics that Allen
>pursues.  My only argument with Allen is that the HL Delta and Atlas is
>fundamentally limited to his next step.  The path that I propose begins with
>Allen's next step and goes upward from there as the need and political
>will develops.
>
>Thats all for now folks
>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

One more possibility for expanding the market for such a vehicle--is it
possible to use the first stage of the single engine version as an LRB?
Vague memory tells me that you can re-design the Shuttle ET to accept 3
boosters without inordinate costs.  However you feel about the Shuttle,
it may be a way of getting more money.  I would suppose that these boosters
would then be useful on other designs, even on a future Saturn class booster,
let alone on a Titan system.
                --Brett Van Steenwyk

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:09:49 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
>[e-mail] writes
>> Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a
>> possible water landing.  We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia
>> to land in like the Russians.
>
>Uhhh, this may be stupid, but why not just land on the steppes of
>Asia, or any other flat land surface that happens to be within reach
>when an emergency hits?  It's not like the capsule would be reused,
>nor need we worry about the Russians getting their hands on new
>technology :-)  Heck, they'd probably appreciate the return of their
>raw materials.
>
>Jonathan H.

The problem is, you'll be re-entering from low-inclination orbits.  Most
of the Asian steppe is north of the 40th parallel.  Check a map to see
how much land-vs-water you have between the 30N and 30S parallels.  The
Russians launch into high inclination orbits because they start at high
latitude.  The US takes advantage of having low-latitude facilities to
get more payload into orbit at low inclinations.

--
||)) Dump the Whatizit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:05:06 EDT
From: WALTER SHERRILL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Digest V15 #122

I am very interested on the subject of GPS. Global Positioning Systems will
have many benefits now and in the future. I assume GPS operates through the
use of Geosychronous orbiting satellites which relay a signal containing the
satellite's latitral and longitudinal position to a receiver on earth.
The uses of this system in the military are promising.  I think that this
system would be of use to anyone who wants to know their exact location through
the use of Geosynchrounous Satellite Triangulation.

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 22:08:40 GMT
From: Tucson Al <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space probe information
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Does anyone out there know of a simple routine to compute the launch angle
and speed for a space probe, once the routine is given the current positions
of the launch and destination planets?  Gravitational effects should be taken
into account.
    Where is such a thing located, if no one has it online?
This is for my research project to graduate with a B.S. in Computer Science.

                        -Doug
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:50:26 EDT
From: WALTER SHERRILL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station

I connected to NASA's spacelink database and requested addtional information
about the Spacestation Freedom program. NASA somehow sent me a document
containing Spacestation Freedom stats, pictures, management graphics, and
mission plans. I would recommend requesting one from them.

Here's the address:   <Telnet>   Spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:33:02 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS feasibility / Astrophysical Engineering
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dani Eder) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Numbers could be 2X either way. That's still a near *planetary* body
>>we're talking about plating with solar cells in any case. That's so
>>unreal I'm surprised *anyone* would seriously consider it.
>
>I'm working on a book that discusses DISMANTLING planetary bodies
>(and rebuilding them more to our liking, sigh - all that wasted
>mass inside planets doing nothing more useful than holding
>atmospheres down, sheesh what poor design).
>
>(1) The energy required to dismantle a planet is 0.6Mgr, where
>M is the mass, g is the surface gravity, and r is the radius.
>
>(2) If we calculate the amount of solar energy falling on a
>planetary body, and relate it to the disassembly energy, we can
>derive a natural time constant: how long will it take to dismantle
>a planet using the sunlight falling on an area the size of the
>planet?
>
(0.8)d.r^2 / F(e) where d is density, r is radius, F(e) is energy
flux in units/unit area/time.  I was looking for the result to be
independent of radius, but it was not to be.....The Earth would take
22 times as long as the Moon, in case there are any Vogon wannabe's
listening.




--
||)) Dump the Whatizit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 17:25:12 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> As for quasi-religious; why are you so hung up on that phrase? Does it
> have some special meaning for you? My religion or lack thereof does not
> enter in to this discussion.

Yes - it means faith prevailing over reason.

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 20:53:48 GMT
From: "R. Kym Horsell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: statistical significance
Newsgroups: sci.space

Apropos of something is was yammering about a week ago the following is
reposted here -- without the permission of the authors :-) -- from another
newsgroup. I'm afraid I don't know Jerry, but Herman Rubin is at least a
mathematician with statistical leanings. ;-)

-kym
===
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Dallal)
Newsgroups: sci.math.stat
Subject: <None>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:35:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University
Lines: 13

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
> As for statistical significance, neither I nor anyone else has been able
> to come up with any good reason to use it; it is a leftover from the time
> when it was misinterpreted.

I agree whole-heartedly.  The real problem is that many people have come up
with good *ways* to *mis*use it, from requiring statistical significance as a
prerequisite for publication to concentrating on statistical significance while
ignoring practical significance.  I see no quick way out of these traps,
although things seem to be improving ever so slightly over the long haul.  (Like
the hour hand on the clock, you don't see it move, but it moves.)
===

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 18:35:11 GMT
From: Alan Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other space development)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> > P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or
|> > may not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes
|> > faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of
|> > what two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and
|> > others are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it
|> > severely strains the notion of causality...
|> >
|> Now all we have to do is find a pair of superstrings. Details,
|> details.... :-)

I thought the density variations of matter suggested by the COBE data
are very early quantum phenomena, and not at all like what would be
nucleated (if that is the word) by superstrings or textures looping
around and producing statistically different kinds of density variations,
and this had done great damage to the case for the existance of
superstrings.

Perhaps it is not causality that is the problem, but the heuristic that
'anything not forbidden is compulsory'. That is, we live in a universe
where if only we had a superstring or two, FTL travel would be allowed
by the physics, but as no-one can make a superstring in this epoch, FTL
remains in an elsewhere of physics, allowed but inaccessable.

Or might 'redundant' physics be like causality, not necessarily real,
but to do with how human minds interpret reality. I'm half joking, but
I'm half not, too.

   Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls.

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 11:13:16 +0400
From: "Naumenko M.V." <[e-mail]>
Subject: To anyone who is interested in science
Newsgroups: sci.space

We apply   to everybody  who  is   interested in future  Russian
science; who would like to assist it to integrate  in  the World
science society.
We  need  information  about Foundations and other organizations
those   are   interested   in    attraction    russian   science
organizations into a science research but also about  conditions
of participation russian  scientists  in  this projects. Besides
we would like to know about questions of finance.
We  hope on   establishment of  interaction  and  development of
international cooperation.

        Best regards.
                    M. Naumenko

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 127
------------------------------