Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_4/v16no443.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 41KB

Date: Fri,  9 Apr 93 05:48:29
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #443
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  9 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 443

Today's Topics:
                  B*O*R*I*N*G Reading -The Hatch Act
                       Bottled or manufactured?
 Indiana Pi (long) (was Re: Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint...))
                             NASA "Wraps"
                        Prefab Space Station?
                        Quaint US Archaisms ~
                          space food sticks
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle

    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: 8 Apr 1993 17:54 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: B*O*R*I*N*G Reading -The Hatch Act
Newsgroups: sci.space

For any bored sci.space reader who actually wants to
wade through the Hatch-act rules ...

The following is directly from Part 733 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, on political activity of federal
employees. I'll apologize up-front for the non-
inclusive language of the code (i.e. "his agency",
"identify him"). The first part deals with permissible
activities, the second part prohibited activities.

PART 733 - POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

733.111 PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES

(a) All employees are free to engage in political
activity to the widest extent consistent with the
restrictions imposed by law and this subpart. Each
employee retains the right to-

   (1) Register and vote in any election;
   (2) Express his opinion as an individual privately
and publicly on political subjects and candidates;
   (3) Display a political picture, sticker, badge, or
button;
   (4) Participate in the nonpartisan activities of a
civic, community, social, labor, or professional
organization, or of a similar organization;
   (5) Be a member of a political party or other
political organization and participate in its
activities to the extent consistent with law;
   (6) Attend a political convention, rally, fund-
raising function; or other political gathering;
   (7) Sign a political petition as an individual;
   (8) Make a financial contribution to a political
party or organization;
   (9) Take an active part, as an independent
candidate, or in support of an independent candidate,
in a partisan election covered by 733.124;
   (10)Take an active part, as a candidate or in
support of a candidate, in a nonpartisan election;
   (11)Be politically active in connection with a
question which is not specifically identified with a
political party, such as a constitutional amendment,
referendum, approval of a municipal ordinance or any
other question or issue of a similar character;
   (12)Serve as an election judge or clerk, or in a
similar position to perform nonpartisan duties as
prescribed by State or local law; and
   (13) Otherwise participate fully in public affairs,
except as prohibited by law, in a manner which does not
materially compromise his efficiency or integrity as an
employee or the neutrality, efficiency, or integrity of
his agency.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not authorize an
employee to engage in political activity in violation
of law, while on duty, or while in a uniform that
identifies him as an employee. The head of an agency
may prohibit or limit the participation of an employee
or class of employees of his agency in an activity
permitted by paragraph (a) of this section, if
participation in the activity would interfere with the
efficient performance of official duties, or create a
conflict or apparent conflict of interests.


PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

733.121 Use of Official Authority; prohibition
An employee may not use his official authority or
influence for the purpose of interfering with or
affecting the result of an election.

733.122 Political management and political campaigning;
prohibitions.
(a) An employee may not take an active part in
political management or in a political campaign, except
as permitted by this subpart.

(b) Activities prohibited by paragraph (a) of this
section include but are not limited to --

   (1) Serving as an officer of a political party, a
member of a National, State, or local committee of a
political party, an officer or member of a committee of
a partisan political club, or being a candidate for any
of these positions;

   (2) Organizing or reorganizing a political party
organization or political club;

   (3) Directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving,
collecting, handling, disbursing, or accounting for
assessments, contributions, or other funds for a
partisan political purpose;

   (4) Organizing, selling tickets to, promoting, or
actively participating in a fund-raising activity of a
candidate in a partisan election or of a political
party, or political club;

   (5) Taking an active part in managing the political
campaign of a candidate for public office in a partisan
election or a candidate for political party office;

   (6) Becoming a candidate for, or campaigning for, an
elective public office in a partisan election;

   (7) Soliciting votes in support of or in opposition
to a candidate for public office in a partisan election
or a candidate for political party office;

   (8) Acting as recorder, watcher, challenger, or
similar officer at the poll on behalf of a political
party or a candidate in a partisan election;

   (9) Driving voters to the polls on behalf of a
political party or a candidate in a partisan election;

   (10) Endorsing or opposing a candidate for public
office in a partisan election or a candidate for
political party office in a political advertisement, a
broadcast, campaign, literature, or similar material;

   (11) Serving as a delegate, alternative, or proxy to
a political party convention;

   (12) Addressing a convention, caucus, rally, or
similar gathering of a political party in support of or
in opposition to a partisan candidate for public office
or political party office;

   (13) Initiating or circulating a partisan nominating
petition;

   (14) Soliciting, collecting, or receiving a
contribution at or in the Federal workplace from any
employee for any political party, political fund, or
other partisan recipient;

   (15) Paying a contribution at or in the Federal
workplace to any employee who is the employer or
employing authority of the person making the
contribution for any political party, political fund,
or other partisan recipient; and

   (16) Soliciting, paying, collecting, or receiving a
contribution at or in the Federal workplace from any
employee for any political party, political fund, or
other partisan recipient.


733.123 Prohibited activity; exception of certain
employees.

(a) Sections 733.121 and 733.122 do not apply to an
employee of an educational or research institution,
establishment, agency, or system which is supported in
whole or in part by the District of Columbia or by a
recognized religious, philanthropic, or cultural
organization.

(b) Section 733.122 does not apply to --

   (1) An individual exempted under section 7324(d) of
title 5, United States Code;

   (2) An employee of The Alaska Railroad who resides
in a municipality on the line of the railroad in
respect to political activities involving that
municipality;

   (3) Subject to the conditions of 733.124, an
employee who resides in a municipality or other
political subdivision designated by OPM under that
section; or

   (4) An employee who works on an irregular or
occasional basis, on the days that he performs no
services.

733.124 Political management and political campaigning;
exception of certain elections.

(a) Section 733.122 does not prohibit activity in
political management or in a political campaign by an
employee in connection with --

   (1) A nonpartisan election, or

   (2) Subject to the conditions and limitations
established by OPM, an election held in a municipality
or political subdivision designated by OPM under
paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) For the purpose of paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, the Office may designate a municipality or
political subdivision in Maryland or Virginia in the
immediate vicinity of the District of Columbia or a
municipality in which the majority of voters are
employed by the Government of the United States, when
the Office determines that, because of special or
unusual circumstances, it is in the domestic interest
of employees to participate in local elections.
Information as to the documentation required to support
a request for designation is furnished by the Office on
request. The following municipalities and political
subdivisions have been designated, effective on the
date specified:

     {big list of municipalities not typed in}

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

Date: 5 Apr 93 18:11:32 CDT
From: Bob Kierski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bottled or manufactured?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Is the air in the space shuttle bottled and brought with them into space?  Or is
it created chemicly while they are out there?  In either case, what is the capacity
(how long can they breath suitable air before they have to return)?
--
Have a day,

  @   @
   ( )     bobo

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

Date: 8 Apr 93 15:29:29 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Indiana Pi (long) (was Re: Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint...))
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q1jnm$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> |I believe he means attempts in the past by your legislature to
> |regulate the value of pi *by law* to be 3 (or 9, depending on the
> |story) because the round number would be easier to work with.
> |
>
>
> Actually, that story is urban Legend.

Pat goes on to cite a *different* distorted version of the story.
Clue:  As Pat suggests, this is in the alt.folklore.urban Frequently
Asked Questions, where it is stated:

>T.*Indiana House Bill #246 of 1897 would've set pi=3.2, killed in state Senate.

The"T" means it's established as true, the * means there's more
material in the A.F.U. archive.  I'll append it (it's sorta long,
like over 400 lines).

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
==============================

From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: AFU FAQ archive - pi.indiana

In the above-cited article, I write:

> I have a couple of long articles online giving some of the history of
> the bill and an interpretation of what the author appears to have been
> thinking; but here is the full text of the bill for what it is worth.
> I'll send the articles to anyone who asks for them in email, but I
> don't think they'd be of great interest here.

Perhaps they would, however, be of sufficient interest to put in the
archive (if only to forestall future email requests for them!).
Here they are:





Article 15233 of sci.math:
Xref: sq sci.math:15233 soc.history:3911
Path: sq!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!ukma!ghot
From: [e-mail] (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: sci.math,soc.history
Subject: Re: Mathematical Scandals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Mar 91 21:43:32 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Allan Adler)
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Lines: 165


Lorenzo Sadun paints the legislation of pi = 3 (or 3.14) as reasonable.
I happen to have in my files a copy of an article by Will E. Edington of
De Pauw University, entitled

    "House Bill No. 246, Indiana State Legislature, 1897",

which appeared in the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. I don't
happen to have written the year of the article. I vague recall it being
in the 1950's, but I might be mistaken.

Edington's article is based on " the bill itself,..., the Journals of the
House and Senate for 1897, and the files of the three Indianapolis papers
for January and February, 1897." He also draws on an article of Prof.Waldo
in the Proc.Indiana Acad.Science in 1916 on the subject.

The author of the bill was Edwin J. Goodwin, M.D. It was introduced into
the House by Mr. Taylor I. Record, Representative from Posey County, on
Jan.18, 1897. The following is the statement of the bill:

            "HOUSE BILL NO. 246

   "A bill for an act introducinga new mathematical truth and offered as a
contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of
cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted
and adopted by the official action of the legislature of 1897.

   "Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the
quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to
the square on one side. The diameter employed as the linear unit according to
the present rule in computing the circle's area is entirely wrong, as it
represents the circles area one and one-fifths times the area of a square
whose perimeter is equal to the circumference of the circle. This is because
one-fifth of the diameter fils to be represented four times in the circle's
circumference. For example: if we multiply the perimeter of a square by
one-fourth of any line one-fifth greater than one side, we can, in like
manner make the square's area to appear one fifth greater than the fact, as
is done by taking the diameter for the linear unit instead of the quadrant
of the circle's circumference.

   "Section 2. It is impossible to compute the area of a circle on the
diameter as the linear unit without tresspassing upon the area outside the
circle to the extent of including one-fifth more area than is contained within
the circle's circumference, because the square on the diameter produces the
side of a square which equals nine when the arc of ninety degrees equals
eight. By taking the quadrant of the circle's circumference for the linear
unit, we fulfill the requirements of both quadrature and rectification of
the circle's circumference. Furthermore, it has revealed the ratio of the
chord and arc of ninety degrees, which is as seven to eight, and also the
ratio of the diagonal and one side of a square which is as ten to seven,
disclosing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the diameter and
circumference is as five-fourths to four; and because of these facts and the
further fact that the rule in prresent use fails to work both ways
mathematically, it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in
its practical applications.

   "Section 3. In further proof of the value of the author's proposed
contribution to education, and offered as a gift to the State of Indiana,
is the fact of his solutions of the trisection of the angle, duplication of
the cube and quadrature having been already accepted as contributions to
science  by the American Mathematical Monthly, the leading exponent of
mathematical thought in this country. And be it remembered that these
noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as
unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend."

I think the text of the bill should dispell any illusions as to its
resasonableness. Note the mention of the American Mathematical Monthly:
I don't know whether the Monthly actually published what this bill claims.
If it did, that might be a scandal worthy of Kenton Yee's list.

Edington describes the fate of the bill in the committees of the Indiana
legislature. First it was referred to the House Committee on Canals, which was
also referred to as the Committee on Swamp Lands. Notices of the bill appeared
in the Indianapolis Journal and the Indianapolis Sentinel on Jan. 19,1897,
both of which described it a a bill telling how to square circles. On the same
day, "Representative M.B.Butler, of Steuben County, chairman of the
Committee on Canals, submitted the following report:

   "Your Committee on Canals, to which was referred House Bill No.246, entitled
an act for the introduction of a mamthematical truth, etc., has had the same
under consideration and begs leave to report the same back to the House with
the recommendation that said bill be referred to the Committee on Education."

The next day, the following article appeared in the Indianapolis Sentinel:

            "To SQUARE THE CIRCLE

   "Claims Made That This Old Problem Has Been Solved.
   "The bill telling how to square a circle, introduced in the House by
Mr.Record, is not intended to be a hoax. Mr. Record knows nothing of the bill
with the exception that he introduced it by request of Dr.Edwin Goodwin of
Posey County, who is the author of the deomstration. The latter and State
Superintendent of Public Instruction Geeting believe that it is the long-sought
solution of the problem, and they are seeking to have it adopted by the
legislature. Dr. Goodwin, the author, is a mathematician of note. He has it
copyrighted and his proposition is that if the legislature will indorse the
solution, he will allow the state to use the demonstration in its textbooks
free of charge. The author is lobbying for the bill."

On "February 2, 1897, ...Representative S.E. Nicholson, of Howard County,
chairman of the Committee on Education, reported to the House.

   "Your Committee on Education, to which was referred House Bill No.246,
entitled a a bill for an act entitled an act introducing a new mathematical
truth, has had same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same
back to the House with the recommendation that said bill do pass.

"The report was cincurred in, and on February 8,1897, it was brought up for the
second reading, following which it was considered engrossed. Then
'Mr. Nicholson moved that the consitutional rule requiring bills to be read
on three days be suspended, that the bill may be read a third time now.' The
constitutional rule was suspended by a vote of 72 to 0 and the bill was then
read a third time. It was passed by a vote of 67  to 0, and the Clerk of the
House was directed to inform the Senate of the passage of the bill."

The newspapers reported the suspension of the consitutional rules and
the unanimous passage of the bill matter-of-factly, except for one line
in the Indianapolis Journal to the effect that "this is the strangest
bill that has ever passed an Indiana Assembly."

The bill was referred to the Senate on Feb.10,1897 and was read for the first
time on Feb.11 and referred to the Committee on Temperance. "On Feb.12
Senator Harry S. New, of Marion County, Chairman of the COmmittee on
Temperance, made the following report to the Senate:
   "Your committee on Temperance, to which was referred House Bill No.246,
introduced by Mr.Record, has had the same under consideration and begs leave
to report the same back to the Senate with the recommendation that said bill
do pass."

The Senate Journal mentions only that the bill was read a second time on
Feb.12, 1897, that there was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the bill
by strike out the enacting clause, and finally it was postponed indefinitely.
That the bill was killed appears to be a matter of dumb luck rather than the
superior education or wisdom of the Senate. It is true that the bill was
widely ridiculed in Indiana and other states, but what actually brought about
the defeat of the bill is recorded by Prof.C.A.Waldo in an article he wrote
for the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science in 1916. The reason
he knows is that he happened to be at the State Capitol lobbying for the
appropriation of the Indiana Academy of Science, on the day the Housed passed
House Bill 246. When he walked in the found the debate on House Bill 246
already in progress.In his article, he writes (according to Edington):

"An ex-teacher from the eastern part of the state was saying: 'The case is
perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes a new and correct
value for \pi, the author offers to our state without cost the use of his
discovery and its free publication in our school text books, while everyone
else must pay him a royalty.' The roll was then called and the bill passed its
third and final reading in the lower house. A member then showed the writer
[i.e. Waldo -AA] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him if he would like
an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He declined the courtesy
with thanks remarking that he was acquainted with as many crazy people as he
cared to know.

"That evening the senators were properly coached and shortly thereafter as it
came to its final reading in the upper house they threw out with much
merriment the epoch making discovery of the Wise Man from the Pocket."

So much for the bill regarding the value of \pi. Before we laugh too hard
at the legislature of Indiana or at the state of education in 1897, I think
we should have a moment of silence as we contemplate what fate the bill
might have if it were brought up for a referendum today.

Allan Adler
[e-mail]


Article 15360 of sci.math:
Xref: sq sci.math:15360 soc.history:3971
Newsgroups: sci.math,soc.history
Path: sq!msb
From: [e-mail] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Indiana Pi Bill (was: Mathematical Scandals)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: sci.math
Summary: pi = 3.2; annotated text of bill follows
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <sadun.670185234@acf9>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 02:11:21 GMT
Lines: 227

This article is cross-posted as part of a cross-posted thread;
followups are directed to sci.math.

Before I start I should point out that this topic is in fact covered
in the master Frequently Asked Questions list -- I wrote the entry there
-- and that nobody has yet mentioned this.  Everyone posting to the net
should be familiar with this and the other articles that are regularly
reposted to news.announce.newusers!  However, I think it's okay to post
this article, as it goes into rather more detail than can appear there.

> [e-mail] (Allan Adler) writes a long and informative article
> about the 1897 Indiana legislature almost passing a circle-squarer's
> "corrected" value of pi, and included the text of the bill.  I did not
> know about this bill, and I stand corrected.
>
> (BTW, from the text of the bill I couldn't quite figure out what the
> value of pi was supposed to be.  If somebody could sift through
> the bill and answer that I'd appreciate it.)

David Singmaster's article (Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 7 (1985) #2,
p.69-72), which was mentioned in another posting in this thread, takes
each mathematical statement in the bill at face value and derives a
value of pi by comparing it to the truth.  I don't think this is fair;
it seems clear to me that the author's model of the world had more
deviations from reality than the value of pi.  At the end of this
article I explain why I consider the bill to assign the value 3.2 to pi.

I posted some information about the affair to the net in about 1985,
and still have it online.  As with Allan Adler's posting, which also
included the text of the bill, my source for this was Will Edington's
PIAS article -- I don't have a date either, but a reference in the text
means that it must have been the second half of 1935 of thereabouts.
I hadn't read Singmaster's article at the time.  Anyway, I have edited
down most of what I wrote about the story behind the bill, as much of
it duplicated what Allan posted.  I have retained some bits that he
didn't mention, and some other bits needed for continuity.

One interesting difference between today's Usenet and those days --
I originally felt it necessary to post this in three parts because
of its length!


(Edited old posting follows.)


I have been unable to find any reference by Martin Gardner to the
story, neither in "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" nor in
his Scientific American columns.  Gardner did write a column about pi in
July 1960.  I have seen brief references to the story in several places,
including the Guinness Book of World Records.  Frequently these
references give the *wrong* wrong value of Pi.  It was 3.2, not 3 as
the Bible seems to suggest, nor 4 as Guinness says.


THE STORY

The author of the bill was Dr. Edwin J. Goodwin, an M.D., of
Solitude, Indiana.  It seems that he was a crank mathematician.
He contacted his Representative, one Taylor I. Record, with his

epoch-making suggestion:  if the State would pass an Act recognizing
his discovery, he would allow all Indiana textbooks to use it without
paying him a royalty.

Nobody in the Indiana Legislature knew enough mathematics to know that
the "discovery" was nonsense. In due course the bill had its third
House reading, and passed 67-0.  At this point the text of the bill
was published "and, of course, became the target for ridicule",
"in this and other states".

By this time a real mathematician, Prof. C. A. Waldo, had learned
what was going on.  In fact, he was present when the bill was read
on February 5, 1897.  ("...imagine [the author's] surprise when he
discovered that he was in the midst of a debate upon a piece of
mathematical legislation.  An ex-teacher was saying ... 'The case is
perfectly simple.  If we pass this bill which establishes a new and
correct value for Pi, the author offers ... its free publication in
our school text books, while everyone else must pay him a royalty'",
Waldo wrote in a 1916 article.)  But the House had passed the bill.

Fortunately, Indiana has a bicameral legislature.  The bill came up
for first reading in the Senate on Thursday, February 11.  Apparently
in fun, they referred it to the Committee on Temperance.  The Committee
reported back on Friday, February 12, approving the bill, which then
had its second reading.

The Indianapolis Journal reported what happened:  "The Senators
made bad puns about it, ridiculed it, and laughed over it.  The fun
lasted half an hour.  Senator Hubbell said that it was not meet for
the Senate, which was costing the State $250 a day [!], to waste its
time in such frivolity ... He moved the indefinite postponement of
the bill, and the motion carried.  ...  All of the senators who
spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of
the proposition.  [In the end,] it was simply regarded as not being a
subject for legislation."


ANNOTATED TEXT OF THE BILL

/*  Following is the text of Indiana House Bill #246 of 1897, with my
 *  own annotations (in comment signs and exdented, like this text).
 *  In my annotations, A, r, d, c, and s are respectively the circle's
 *  area, radius, diameter, circumference, and the side of the inscribed
 *  square.  */


              A bill for an act introducing a  new  mathematical
        truth  and  offered as a contribution to education to be
        used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying
        any  royalties  whatever on the same, provided it is ac-
        cepted and adopted by the official action  of  the  leg-
        islature of 1897.

/*  You normally have to pay royalties on mathematical truths?
 *  The Pythagoras estate must be doing well by now...  */


        SECTION 1.
              Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State
        of Indiana: It has been found that a circular area is to
        the square on a line equal to the quadrant of  the  cir-
        cumference,  as  the area of an equilateral rectangle is
        to the square on one side.

/*  The part after the last comma is a remarkable way of saying
 *  "as 1 is to 1".  In other words, this says A = (c/4)^2, which
 *  is the same as A = (pi*r/2)^2 = (pi^2/4)*r^2 instead of the
 *  actual A = pi*r^2.  */

                            The diameter employed as the  linear
        unit  according  to  the  present  rule in computing the
        circle's area is entirely wrong, as  it  represents  the
        circle's  area  one  and  one-fifth  times the area of a
        square whose perimeter is equal to the circumference  of
        the circle.

/*  The formula A = pi*r^2 is interpreted as A = d*(c/4), which is correct.
 *  The author claims that the d factor should be c/4, so the ratio of
 *  the area by the author's formula to the area by the real formula
 *  is c/(4*d), that is, pi/4.  Since he believes pi = 3.2, this ratio
 *  is 3.2/4, which is 4/5.  Therefore the area by the author's rule
 *  is 1/5 smaller than the actual area.  Now he apparently thinks that
 *  the reciprocal of 1-1/5 is 1+1/5, and thus that the other area is
 *  1/5 larger than his area, which of course would actually require
 *  the ratio to be 5/6.  */

                            This is because one-fifth of the di-
        ameter  fails  to  be  represented  four  times  in  the
        circle's circumference.

/*  In other words, c = (1-1/5) * (4*d); consistent with pi = 3.2.  */

                            For example: if we multiply the per-
        imeter  of  a square by one-fourth of any line one-fifth
        greater than one side, we can in like  manner  make  the
        square's area to appear one fifth greater than the fact,
        as is done by taking the diameter for  the  linear  unit
        instead of the quadrant of the circle's circumference.

/*  He says that if we consider the area of a square of side x to be
 *  (4*x)*(x/4) and we replace the second x by (1+1/5)*x, we get an
 *  area 1/5 too large, and this is analogous to using d in place of
 *  c/4 with the circle.  */


        SECTION 2.
              It is impossible to compute the area of  a  circle
        on  the diameter as the linear unit without tresspassing
        upon the area outside the circle to the  extent  of  in-
        cluding one-fifth more area than is contained within the
        circle's circumference, because the square on the diame-
        ter produces the side of a square which equals nine when
        the arc of ninety degrees equals eight.

/*  I can only assume that "nine" is a mistake for "ten".  See also
 *  the annotation after the next one.  */

                            By  taking  the  quadrant   of   the
        circle's  circumference  for the linear unit, we fulfill
        the requirements of both quadrature and rectification of
        the circle's circumference.

/*  Getting repetitive here...  */

                            Furthermore, it has revealed the ra-
        tio  of the chord and arc of ninety degrees, which is as
        seven to eight, and also the ratio of the  diagonal  and
        one  side of a square which is as ten to seven, disclos-
        ing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the di-
        ameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four; and
        because of these facts and the futher fact that the rule
        in  present  use fails to work both ways mathematically,
        it should be discarded as wholly wanting and  misleading
        in its practical applications.

/*  The meat of the bill.  He says that s/(c/4) = 7/8, and d/s = 10/7,
 *  therefore d/c = (10/7)*(7/8)/4, which he reduces only as far as
 *  (5/4)/4.  Of course this is 5/16, and gives pi = c/d = 16/5 = 3.2.
 *  It also implies that the square root of 2 is 10/7.  */


        SECTION 3.
              In further proof of the value of the author's pro-
        posed  contribution  to education, and offered as a gift
        to the State of Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of
        the trisection of the angle, duplication of the cube and
        quadrature of the circle having been already accepted as
        contributions  to  science  by the American Mathematical
        Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in
        this country.

/*  When I first posted this I assumed that the A.M.M. must have had a
 *  policy of politely acknowledging crankish submissions, but apparently
 *  at one time they simply printed whatever they were sent.  I haven't
 *  checked this out.  */

                            And be it remembered that these not-
        ed  problems  had been long since given up by scientific
        bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above  man's  ability
        to comprehend.

/*  "Given up" is not the same as "proved insoluble"!  */

--
Mark Brader         "Sir, your composure baffles me.  A single counter-
SoftQuad Inc.          example refutes a conjecture as effectively as ten.
Toronto              ... Hands up!  You have to surrender."
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                 -- Imre Lakatos

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

Date: 8 Apr 1993 21:32:08 GMT
From: Dave McKissock <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA "Wraps"
Newsgroups: sci.space

Earlier, I had written ...

>>As I understand it, there is a specific line item in the NASA
>>budget to pay the salaries for all NASA civil servants. So, when
>>people quote a figure like $8 B, or $30 B for SSF, I do not
>>believe those numbers include civil servant salaries.


It turns out I was wrong. In a July 1992 GAO report called
"Space Station, Status of Financial Reserves", they wrote

    To develop and operate the redesigned facility through
    Fiscal year 1999, NASA's current $30 billion cost
    estimate includes almost $20 billion for known
    research and development requirements and related
    financial services. Construction of station support
    facilities, shuttle flights to assembl and maintain
    the station, salaries and benefits of NASA personnel
    working on the station, and costs incurred through
    fiscal year 1991 are among the items that comprise the
    remaining costs in NASA's $30 estimate.

So, I guess if you look at the printed NASA budgets, to get
the $30 billion total you must take the SSF line item, and
add in all of the stuff in the last sentence, which are
all on other line items.


I still don't see any evidence of Allen's point, though.
Where are these billions of dollars that are allegedly in the
SSF budget but are being "wasted" actually going?
--
-----------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Apr 93 17:56:51 CDT
From: Bob Kierski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prefab Space Station?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1pl3f8$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Carol) writes:
>
> Since one of the largest expenses of Freedom will be the many trips
> required to get the pieces up, and the many EVAs required to put
> the whole thing together, why do they not consider a lesson from
> SkyLab?

>
> I'm sure that a from scratch design would be expensive, but how many
> re-designs does Freedom need?  It's going to cost a fortune, and I
> think we are underestimating the difficulty in EVAs being used to
> actually build it.  Never mind the safety issue, with the dozens of
> launchs and risky EVAs.

Forgive me for asking a stupid question... But what's an EVA?

--
Have a day,

  @   @
   ( )     bobo

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 18:26:46 CDT
From: Bob Kierski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms ~
Newsgroups: sci.space

Over the last few weeks I've heard arguments for Metric and English wrench standards.
Mostly what I've heard is that "My car takes X number of wrenches" and "Your
car takes Y number of wrenches" and doesn't it suck that Y is more than X and
its because the Y car was made with Metric sizes and the X car was made with English
sizes.  Isn't it really the manufacturer that decides what size bolts they use in
their car.  So if the manufacturer of the Y car wanted to, they could use just one
size.  And is the decision about how many bolt sizes they use inherint in the
scale they decide to use?

On another note:  I was working on my car (English scale) with my Brother-In law.  He
tried a 3/8" wrench and found it too big so he asked for a 7/16.  He obviously didn't
major in math and had gotten confused by the fractal representation of the size.  I
didn't have the chance to test him, but my guess is that he would know the size
relationship between a 15mm and a 16mm wrench without haveing to count it out on his
fingers.

I thought the point behind using metric wasn't that it was better, or that English was
worse, but that both systems were widely used and choosing a standard measurment system
meant that a common guy like me didn't have to buy two sets of wrenches.
--
Have a day,

  @   @
   ( )     bobo

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:52:50 GMT
From: Jeffrey David Hagen <[e-mail]>
Subject: space food sticks
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (RODGER CLIFF) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Elson) writes...
|> >Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" This
|>
|> I remember these; tacky packaging; tasted worst.
|>
|> >was apparently created/marketed around the time of the lunar expeditions, along
|> >with "Tang" and other dehydrated foods. I have spoken with several people
|> >who have eaten these before, and they described them as a dehydrated candy.
|>                                                                       ^^^^^
|> Only if you like vegamite.
|>
|> >Any information would be greatly appreciated.
|> >
|> >Thanks.
|> >John
|>
|> I don't know if these wre actual NASA type food or just some manufacturer
|> cashing in on the space fads of the time.  (My impression was the latter).
|> I remember peanut butter and chocolate flavors in a rubbery stick, each
|> individually packaged.  My mom bought one box of each flavor ( and never
|> bought any more.)  Probably one of those things (like disco, bell-bottoms,
|> leisure suits, etc.) that should not be resurrected.
|>
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Rodger Cliff                         |
|> Analex Corp. at                      |   All standard disclaimers
|> NASA Lewis Research Center           |
|>                                      |         apply here
|> [phone]                       |
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philistine!

Space Sticks were great. I haven't seen any in more years than I can remeber. If any one knows were to get them or can remember who made them, please tell.

Jeff Hagen
Rice University

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

Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 22:00:02 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 56
1 22621U 93 23  A 93 98.33263830  .00057138  00000-0  16539-3 0    34
2 22621  57.0030 178.4496 0006414 267.4548 344.7850 15.92517503    10
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 443
------------------------------