Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no204.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 05:06:51
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #204
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 15 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 204

Today's Topics:
                       Ethics of Terra-forming
      Flames of the Future (was Re: Is NASA really planning...)
                    Nasa's Apollo rerun vs. Zubrin
              New lunar spacecraft (& old data formats)
    Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars)
                          Old data formats
                            overpopulation
                              Population

    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: 15 Sep 92 02:12:29 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Tom) writes:

The stuff with one > and I belive the stuff with >>>

I wrote the rest.
>>>Perhaps Mars has life already.  So what?  ...

>>Perhaps the rain forest has life already.  So what?....

>The situation is different.  The negative value of messing with rainforests
>depends totally on the effects of that change reaching Humans.  Mars,
>obviously, I think, will not affect us adversely if we mess with it.

Well, there's always the (remote) possibility of diseases etc, but what I really
objected to was your apparently cavalier attitude in deciding that we can
destroy any potential life on Mars.

>I should have known my post would have drawn fire from the anti-lifers..

Cute.  We've communitcated a couple of times and you already know I'm satan :)
You catch on fast.

>2) You totally missed the point.  Ethics questions are based on values.
>I submit that you either value life, or not.  No middle ground.

>If you do value life, then you will want to protect life here, particularly
>life-forms or -systems upon which your own survival may depend.  Protection
>of other, non-affecting life-forms may be desired for aesthetic reasons,
>or simply to have a 'cushion', or to be safe, in the case of systems or
>forms we don't know much about.

>But, if you do value life, than you must conclude that terra-forming
>Mars would be good, as it would support more life, and, especially, Human
>life.  Or, you may decide that the terra-forming question is intractable,
>unanswerable, nuetral.  In no case would you conclude that terra-forming
>would be bad, unless you are an anti-lifer.

I conclude that I don't know the answer to this, and that you can't possibly
know either :)  At least to the extent of deciding to hypothetically committ
genocide on hypothetical Mars life.  (It'll solve many problems if there is
no life on Mars).  I don't pretend to know how much more human/bunnyrabbit/
fungus life is worth compared to the existance of Marslife.  I do however
know that _I_ personally get some joy in, for example, being in a woods with
no beer cans.  I don't know how to measure how much joy I will get from
knowing that Mars life is living out its existance like it used to, but I know
it will be non zero.  Thus, I choose to wait and see what the circumstances are
before I decide.

>The only way you can logically make the situation on Mars the same as on
>Earth is to a) Demonstrate that life there affects life here, or
>b) Assert that life-in-general has value without Human life. (This
>choice is the route many greens take, and it is for this reason that many
>people correctly identify them as anti-life double-thinkers.  Anti-life
>non-double-thinkers have to be dead.)  You can also jump out of the system
>and c) claim that value exists seperate from Human Choice.

>To choose a) above is damn-near impossible, unless you follow Astrology.

To suggest that the mere knowledge of life on Mars wouldn't affect us is a
little loony.  Granted this probably wasn't what you meant.

>The point of my post was to show how the argument about whether we hurt
>Earth or not was intractable, while an argument based on our ability to
>hurt Mars was doomed to fail, and that's why Dave's argument was flawed.
>The only possible question about Mars-terra-forming;  "Is it good for us?"
>If you think there is some other, more important question, you are an
>anti-lifer, and, unless already dead, a hypocrite.

>Knowledge about Mars-life is different, and easily seperated from the question
>of co-existence or destruction.  We can know about it, but kill it anyway.
>Like AIDS, Polio, the Flu, rabid dogs, etc., knowledge has value, even though
>the thing known may not.  That's why I understand the Green Mind so well >;->

Granted knowledge of the hypothetical life would be most important.  I question
whether you can decide that you've learned everything of value from a life
form.  Basically, I objected to the fact that in 30 or so lines, you "proved"
the net worth of any life form we understood that didn't live on Earth was
zero point zero.

--
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to
[e-mail]         miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
[e-mail]  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 00:47:08 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flames of the Future (was Re: Is NASA really planning...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In this article, Dave Knapp's postings are indented with an even number of >'s,
and Doug Mohney's are indented with an odd number of >'s.

Apologies, if I am spelling anyone's name wrong.

Re: nuclear stockpiles
David is unhappy at the prospect of nuclear war  :(  Doug is chastising him.

>Obviously, I need to spell things out for you.

>You were one of the ones whining for a "nuclear freeze" in the early 80s.
>Surprise, it didn't happen. Now, we'll end up CUTTING TOTAL EXISTING WEAPONS in
>half. But, instead of being happy because the United States and the Former
>Soviet Union are going to CUT weapons. We are off of "hair-triggers" on both
>sides. You'd have to work really really hard to go back to the way things were,
>with bombers on pad alert, loaded with gravity bombs and SRAM and ALCMs ...

Really?  That's news to me.  I mean, you can *bet* that we would not have
come down from that alert if we weren't perfectly capable af fielding a
same magnitude of response as before.

There are signs all over here reminding us that the Russians are still the
Russians.  Vigilance is not to be relaxed.  Etc.

>>>Another Club of Rome member. <yawn>

>>Huh?

>Hm. Suggest you become well-read on Club of Rome, _Limits to Growth_ and other
>various pop-mythos.

Why should anybody?  Other than to find the flaws.

>No, the point is, based upon roughly 100-150 years of "good" factual reporting,
>you can't really project anything other than the fact we don't know too much :)

>>You are correct about global warming. We have no conclusive evidence. On the
>>other hand if it is truly happening, and we just cannot figure it out, we're
>>fucked.

>Nope. We're not. It is known that the earth goes through various climatic
>phases. Can you say "Ice Age"? Thank you. Man will adapt. It may be beneficial
>because you'll be able to grow more food in Siberia and other colder areas.

Is there more land available in colder areas than temperate areas?  Any land
made arable in a colder climate by global warming will be paid for with coastal
flooding or inland desertification.  Somehow I doubt that coastal flooding
will be beneficial to, say, Holland.

>> Ozone loss, on the other hand, is quite real and quite anthropogenic,
>>or will you now call me a bunny hugger because I liked ozone the way it was?

>>I urge you to fight against the chicken littles of the world and stop
>>wearing sun screen just to prove you're right.

>We know there are two holes in the ozone layer. We know these holes fluctuate
>in size. We do not know if these holes are dramatically affected by man's
>activity, or by sunspot cycles.

It would please me to know, since we are in high solar activity, that the
ozone layers are dramatically affected by said activity.  However, the effect
of CFC's is real and should not be ignored.  It is folly to continue to do
something damaging to the ozone simply because we have not concluded what
the extent of the damage can be attributed to our actions.

>>>I didn't know we had gone to world goverment. Now, who in the third world is
>>>going to come and tax US, hmm?

>>There is effectively a world government, Yes. You misinterpreted the context
>>of the word 'taxed'.

>If you're referring to the U.N., it is not a "world government." At least not
>in the sense of government which you seem to have the hots for. It's more along
>the lines of a mutual cooperation society by individual member-states. It does
>not collect taxes. It does not build infrastructure. It does not elect a
>Congress to live off the largess of taxes :-).

I will not comment on the "world govt", as I am constrained by US govt ethics.
However, I would like to know how Mr Mohney thinks the UN gets its money.

Also,
instead of letting the quibbling about "taxing" get out of hand, I point out
that Dave Knapp meant "tax resources" in the same sense that a difficult
orbital mechanics problem might tax your analytic abilities.

>>When the global population saturates, you will not be thinking 'piss ant'
>>wars anymore. I don't have to try to convince you either because all you
>>have to do is wait and remember somebody mentioned it to you.

>When? Malthus and each successive generation of doom-sayers has picked a
>magical date where population growth was supposed to exceed the support limits
>of the world ecosystem. Funny, those numbers keep on going and going and
>going... just like that Energizer Bunny. (Hm, does he wear shades to be cool,
>or to avoid too much UV? ooooh, how subtle ...)

Space...the final frontier.
For the first time, the human race has nowhere to expand.  As population goes
up, the amount of arable land goes down.  The only solution to this in the past
has been to expand into the frontier.  But now only governments and rich
companies have access to the frontier, which is space.  And population in
undeveloped countries is increasing exponentially.

>>>We've been running out of fossil fuels for 100 years. Before that, there was
>>>a fear of a great shortage of whale oil, due to overhunting.

>>No, we will *run out* of fossil fuels in less than fifty years.

Um.  Maybe oil.  Not coal.  Of course, accessing coal will reduce the amount
of available arable land, and also contribute greatly to pollution and global
warming; but nevertheless it is the cheapest way to go.

I personally would like to see solar powersats in place; astronomers
notwithstanding.  But the human race is lazy and will take the easiest stopgap
solution first.  To rephrase; the market will not support powersat development
on an operational scale until other alternatives with shorter lead times and
cheaper development costs are exhausted first.

>>>Could you tell me what the current demand for whale oil is?

>>Ah, you're right. Somebody will think of something before there is a problem.
>>Let's have a beer.

just because something is thought of doesn't mean it will be developed.
I am thinking of an orbiting Jovian colony, right now...it could pay for itself
by tourism alone...   :)

>Naw, I'll be drivin' my Saturn III (GM, not NASA product:) past your raggy
>eco-bike with my "John DeArmond for President" bumpersticker in your face.
>:->
       who is John DeArmond?

>>>Furthermore, the Club of Ignorance also ignores little things like A)
>>>Technological Innovation is not static,

innovation is not static but will never truly take place until driven by
necessity.  My example is synthetic rubber.

It's nice to think about this stuff now but nothing will get done until a
substantial amount of people with money are threatened.

>Gradual fixes to gradual problems. I know that's scary to consider.

Especially since the magnitude of the problems dictates gov't funding, and
this funding is short term.

>>>Naw, you'd better line up now to put Saturn's rings off-limits to Szabo's Ice
>>>Mining, Inc. And then prepare to go out there and enforce your law, hm?

>>I'll have some of what you're smoking! ;-)

>I respect Mr. Szabo <ack, gag> in certain areas, despise him in others. If he
>got a couple of billion dollars, he might be able to do some of what he has
>proposed in messages on here.

I respect Mr Szabo in all areas.  I rarely agree with him but that certainly
does not mean professional respect should be disposed of.  Apparently you
disagree.  As soon as a net.person airs points of view which you disagree with
y'all have to go off and exchange insults.  A non-space discussion seems to
only serve to make it no-holds-barred.

>There isn't a world goverment. There's an organization to coordinate
>cooperation between nations. Big difference. I know, it's a little bit subtle
>for you to figure out, but I'm sure if you examine the role of the U.N. in the
>past 40 years, you'd figure it out.

Please name one instance where the UN actually coordinated cooperation in such
a manner to fulfill its charter.

>>No, really, I see what you're saying, until we see that it is a problem,
>>we should not worry about it. Good strategy.

>Sounds good. Prove to me there is a problem.

Wow.  I can see it now.  I come to you saying there is a potential problem
with the doowhack on this launcher, and you say prove it, nothing's gone
wrong yet.  Next thing you know, bits & pieces of the payload are all over
the Atlantic.  I sure am glad NASA isn't run that way.

--
 Shari L Brooks                  |      [e-mail]
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             [e-mail]
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 00:51:29 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa's Apollo rerun vs. Zubrin
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

>>These guys couldn't even return to the moon if you gave them a
>>full-size, fully operational moon rocket. They'd complain about
>>how it was too small for the job.

I recently saw a NASA promo on how robotics experts at Marshall helped develop
vastly improved artificial appendages for people who've lost hands.  One victim
works at his own lumber mill, so the Aero engineer happily built him what he
calls a "heavy lift" attachment. Must have gotten a real kick out it.

>Doug Mohney writes:

>\They're also putting a LOT more mass up there too. Four people, lots
>/of instruments, groceries for 15-30-45 days. Pilot projects. We're
>\talking serious camping and roaming around.

>I know, but they are deliberately setting up things so that
>the pilot projects won't reduce weight, which is the opposite
>of Zubrin's scheme. Please take a look at it.

Granted, but before you can launch a Zubrin mission, which _requires_ native
propellants, we have to know that they work.  I'd rather not wait till we've
built Zubrin's hardware to find that out, but I also don't want to wait 15
years and find out by having an astronaut standing next to it.  The bright
side of this is that Shimizu (sp?) in partnership with an American firm is
planning to fly some test equipment on a lunar lander some time in the
mid-term.  Anyone know where we could get enough cash to build a test plant of
our own?  :)

>/If you want to do serious exploration, you have to bring something
>\more than duct tape, a screwdriver, and a copy of "The moon on $5 a
>/day" by Shezer & Szabo.

You have to have cardboard too.  You can skip the screwdriver if you have a
swiss army knife.

--
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to
[e-mail]         miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
[e-mail]  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 02:30:31 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New lunar spacecraft (& old data formats)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes:

> from the same reference:
> pg A-6: ".. however an excellent source turned out to be the National
> Space Science Data Center. Their purpose is to collect and archive
> existing space science data, and the data are kept there with some care."

Thanks for the name of the center, but what's the name of the program?
In other words, who allocates the funding for planetary science data
archives, or don't they do it in an organized manner, as ADP does? (ADP
uses NSSDC resources all the time; I've telnetted McCook & Sion's white
dwarf catalog from them, myself.) I'll go get this reference, too.

> So it appears that the information is not yet lost, but the will (or
> dollars) to recover it may be.

Sounds like an excellent topic for an NRC postdoc proposal. Maybe I've
just answered my own question, then, but you'd think planetary science
would have its own dedicated program for archival research.
Astrophysics does, in ADP.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:33:52 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>>(I'm not familiar with their instrument load). Phobos 2 and one of the
>>>Soviet Mars landers carried tiny rovers, too.  Or do we only count
>>>spacecraft that succeeded?  ^^^^
>>                               ?
>>Tiny?  I'm not sure about Phobos 2, but 2 weeks ago I saw a Soviet Mars
>>rover at the Air Force Museum, Wright Patterson AFB and it was pretty
>>big.  Probably at least as large as a 12 - 16 hp riding lawnmower with
>>6 wheels and lots more mass.

>Nice to hear that there's some serious Soviet stuff in Dayton. I'll
>have to return to the AFM to look at it.  No, this is not what I
>meant; Larry Klaes described it in a subsequent message.

There's an exhibit of Soviet Hardware in St. Louis.  Has anyone seen it yet?
Bill, would you like to join us on a trip?

--
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to
[e-mail]         miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
[e-mail]  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:28:11 GMT
From: "robert.f.casey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Old data formats
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>I did meet somebody at the World Space Congress who was involved in an
>informal effort to recover the Lunar Orbiter data.  The data are
>stored in analog format on magtapes.  They've located a machine which
>may be capable of playing them back, but nobody knows whether the
>tapes are in good enough shape to read all the pictures.  The hope is
>to get the data into nice digital form so modern computers can digest
>them.  There are at least two serious lunar-mapping spacecraft
>projects underway in the U.S., and at least one in Japan, so there is
>real interest in access to these pictures.

According to what I've seen in various articles and advertisments, CD
"record" companies that re-issue old rock oldies on CDs from the
orginal master tapes sometime run into these problems trying to play tapes
in bad condition.  Heard that they "bake" some tapes to get them to not
fall apart upon playback.  And other tricks.  It might be possible to
ask the people at one of these record companies for advice on reading
the poor condition space tapes.  "Rhino" in Santa Monica, CA is one.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:47:30 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: overpopulation
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>>>The trick is technological and economic development, not forcing
>>>Africans at gunpoint not to have babies.
>>
>>Coments like this blow me out of the water. Yes, making everyone a first world
>>citizen is the long term solution, but you can cut growth drastically without
>>using guns.  Contraception is _not_ available in Africa.  A very large
>>percentage of women would prefer to have fewer children if that was an option.

><chuckle>. Some very BROAD statements. Which part of Africa do you refer? There
>are some countries which are quite "civilized." Why, they even have running
>water and color TV in the cities!

Read my post.  I didn't say squat about being "civilized," I said first world.
If you think the majority of Africa is first world, that would explain why
we're having so much trouble with this.

>Furthermore, the traditional Third-World family has more children because it's
>the only "resource" it can produce. More hands means more workers. And more of
>a chance for someone to take care of you when old age comes along. Less chance
>of having your whole family wiped out by disease or starvation.

Re-read my post - or perhaps it was in a different one.  I didn't say anything
about bringing third world families down to 1.5 kids per.  I said _decrease_.
In some countries, having an _average_ of 7 kids per family would be an
improvement.

>>Given that population growth negates much of the progress made by foreign aid
>>shouldn't we be encouraging family planning rather than giving out short term
>>help?

>We are. Both Planned Parenthood and the World Health Organization have programs
>to get family planning information out to "poor" countries. No big secret. It's
>been done since the '70s, with varying results.

Unless you know something I don't, the US government does not knowingly give
out money to help lower the population overseas.  Please note I would happily
be educated by any further info you have on this.

Unless you have any further objections, I suggest we take this to e-mail or the
appropriate group.

--
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to
[e-mail]         miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
[e-mail]  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:30:11 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
     The stuff with one >

>[e-mail] (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
     the stuff with >>

[e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
     This was me.  I wrote the stuff with >>> and the stuff with no >'s
     I said I was done with this, but my good name (what, why are you laughing?)
     was dragged into this, so I'd like to clear up my point.

[I was responding to the argument that starvation in Africa is due to warfare]

>>>I've always wondered about logic like this.  I suppose the increasing
>>>population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus
>>>making food available?  Sure.  Makes sense to me.
>>
>>This is the point I've been listening for. It really doesn't matter what
>>the reasons for starvation are. It is happening.

>Garbage. Ignorant hand-waiving garbage. If you want to provide a solution, you
>have to know the causes.

First, I'd like to point out that I'm not the same person who wrote the follow
up to my post, nor do we agree on all things.  Doug lumps us togther.  Since
the mid 80's, America has stopped giving moneyt to the UN agency that works to
combat population growth in the third world. Come to think of it, I believe
we don't give the UN any money anymore.  Anyway, my point is the following,
given that there is an unfulfilled demand for birth control (I don't think I've
cited sources here, but if you want I'll dig some up) and that population
growth in the third world tends to eat up progress made by foreign aid, it makes
sense to help reduce growth - where the assistance is desired - instead of
sending cash.  I then went on to suggest that lowering growth would be more
likely to help  stabilize the region that not lowering growth.

Please explain whether you disagree with my givens or explain why my assumption
is wrong.

>In Ethopia, we would have had to overthrow the (Communist) government and
>create a new one. In Somalia, we'd have to hunt down all the warring factions
>and install a military presence.

>Will you two volunteer to be in the army? Kill people in order to feed
>villages. That's about what it takes.

Naughty, naughty - you're lumping us together again.  I never suggested we
should try to solve the whole problem.  I suggested what I believe is a cheap
way to help, certainly in the long run.

>>>I see, so In ten years, all those green technologies the crazy tree huggers
>>>have been working on are going to be suitably conservative for you to use?

>Oh pleaseeeeee. You patronizing bunch of know-it-alls. As soon as oil becomes
>too expensive, other substitutes will become available.

But transitions take a while.  The people who are working on electric vehicles,
which may eventually be quite competitive with gas powered ones, or solar
thermal power, or finding ways to _save_ money through conservation are doing
it because it's a good investment.  The substitutes you're talking about are
being worked on now, but you're slamming them.

--
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to
[e-mail]         miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
[e-mail]  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener

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


          id aa08230; 15 Sep 92 0:26:09 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!eos!aio!news
From: Mike Begley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The real issue: massive misallocation of funds
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lockheed Engineering (Houston, TX)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:12:11 GMT
Lines: 16
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo)
writes:
>
>This isn't the important issue.  The issue is a NASA budget that puts nearly
>2/3 of its space funds towards astronaut projects, and less than 1%
>towards telepresence. Does that reflect the potential contributions
>of each?  I think not.

No, it does not, but it does reflect the actual cost of allowing
humans to go into space versus allowing machines to go into space.
Technology development closed cycle life support and safe transportation,
and life science studies, do cost a lot of money.  But if we are not
willing to be armchair explorers, we must pay those costs to allow
us to travel the solar system.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 204
------------------------------