Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no634.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Fri, 28 May 93 11:01:27
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #634
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 28 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 634

Today's Topics:
                Addr: Tom Wolfe's RIGHT STUFf (2 msgs)
          August Meteor Shower May Threaten Earth Satellites
                             Comet 1993e
                  Detecting planets in other system
                            Galileo's HGA?
                  Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
                            Hubble vs Keck
                      Jenks Leaves SSP for SSFP
                            Kennedy tour?
                          Moon Base (2 msgs)
                Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
       Neil's words - an analysis (was Re: Neil's first words)
             Question about B&W markings on US launchers
                          The crew is toast
           Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
         Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
           Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan? (3 msgs)

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

Date: 26 May 93 14:54:12 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Addr: Tom Wolfe's RIGHT STUFF

FROM: Kevin



IN ARTICLE "DATE: WED, 26 MAY 1993 03:34:14 GMT
            FROM: DAVE MICHELSON <[e-mail]>
Dave writes:
>In article <1tul9r$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>Henry makes a comment abou;t grissoms command for apollo.
>>
>>I assume Grissom, chaffee and white were one single crew.
>>
>>THey were going to fly Apollo 6, then?
>>
>>I can imagine his first words on making orbit :-)

> Grissom, White, and Chaffee were assigned to AS-204 which was later named
>Apollo 1.  They were designated command pilot, senior pilot, and pilot,
>respectively.

>Regarding your comment about imagining "his first words on making orbit":
>If that's a joke, it's too obscure for me.
Kevin R. Cain, Applications Support
Florida A&M, Tallahassee Fl
Phone [phone]        Fax [phone]
KEVIN @ VM.CC.FAMU.EDU      NAUI #1378

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

Date: 26 May 93 15:03:49 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Addr: Tom Wolfe's RIGHT STUFf

FROM: Kevin

(Sorry about the last one, got out before I was done. DAMN PROFS EDITOR)



IN ARTICLE "DATE: WED, 26 MAY 1993 03:34:14 GMT
            FROM: DAVE MICHELSON <[e-mail]>
Dave writes:
>In article <1tul9r$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>Henry makes a comment abou;t grissoms command for apollo.
>>
>>I assume Grissom, chaffee and white were one single crew.
>>
>>THey were going to fly Apollo 6, then?
>>
>>I can imagine his first words on making orbit :-)

> Grissom, White, and Chaffee were assigned to AS-204 which was later named
>Apollo 1.  They were designated command pilot, senior pilot, and pilot,
>respectively.

>Regarding your comment about imagining "his first words on making orbit":
>If that's a joke, it's too obscure for me.


If it was meant as a joke, it was a *DAMN* sick one. I grew
up in Cocoa Beach, (Dad was Senior Project Engineer of the CSM)
and I'll guarantee that the fire was *not* a laughing matter to
any of us living there.
Kevin R. Cain, Applications Support
Florida A&M, Tallahassee Fl
Phone [phone]        Fax [phone]
KEVIN @ VM.CC.FAMU.EDU      NAUI #1378

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 18:03:48 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: August Meteor Shower May Threaten Earth Satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

I don't know if the Pegasus satellite detected any increased
micrometeoroid impacts during the 1966 storm (or if it was even
orbiting), but I do know that some sounding rockets launched during
the peak of the 1965 shower showed *no* increased micrometeorite
presence on the exposed surfaces of sounding rockets. The
appropriate references are Farlow, N.H., et al., JGR, 71, 23, Dec.
1966, 5689 and Blanchard, M.B., et al., JGR, 73, 19, Oct. 1968,
6347. A similar experiment during the 1966 display also showed *no*

increased micrometeorite flux (Ferry, G.V., et al., JGR, 75, 4,
Feb. 1970, 859), but I have not seen references as yet to in situ
measurements of micrometeoroid impact rates during the peak of the
1966 storm. These would be VERY interesting.

Peter Brown

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

Date: 26 May 93 12:39:37
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet 1993e
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Dellinger) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes:
   |> The rest may either become captured satellites or be thrown into short-
   |> period heliocentric orbits, depending on which side of Jupiter the
   |> encounter occurs.

       How big are these comet fragments? If one is dropped into the
   inner solar system, could it make a good show for Earth?

Well, if P/C-S started out at 5km, it could make 100+ 1 km fragments,
or more likely order 20 order 1 km fragments and a few thousand 100m
fragments... I seem to remember anything under 100m is probably going
to airburst too high to do anything, 100m might reach the ground
in a Tunguska event. July 1994 could be interesting :-)

Has anyone told SDIO^H^H^H^H  BMDO yet? Time to strut their stuff!  ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson               Lick Observatory          *
*  [e-mail]        "standard disclaimer"      *
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict            *
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 18:40:01 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> Stupendous Man,
> [e-mail] writes:
.. discussion of detecting planets via occultation
> > >    Assuming a solar-type star, Borucki finds the expected signal
> >to be a 1% decrease in light for Jupiter, 0.1% for Uranus and 0.01%
> >for Earth.  These are really tough limits; solar-type stars themselves
> >tend to vary by ~ 0.1% or so (= 0.001 mag = 1 millimag) on short time
> >scales, which makes looking for Earth-sized planets very hard indeed.
> >
> I understand all of that. A quick geometric calculation will show that,
> for the parameters of the Jupiter-sun system, the chance of catching an
> alignment capable of producing a 1% occultation is about one in five
> million!

In a recent issue of Science there is a discussion of a project
to look for MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects - things like
planets, brown dwarfs, or even black holes in the galactic halo
that might account for some of the missing mass).  The scheme for
detecting MACHOs is to look for a micro-gravitational lensing event
as the MACHO passes in front of a distant star.  To make the
statistics workable they have put together a 64 million (!!!) pixel
CCD which will be mounted on an otherwise little used 50-odd inch
worn-out telescope.  The CCD will then stare at the large Magellenic
Cloud (LMC) to look for microlensing events.  They expect a
jupiter-sized object to enhance a stares brightness for a day or two,
a week or two for dwarfs, and possibly months for a black hole.

The point, of this is that maybe the same detector will inadvertantly
succeed in detecting planets.  It would be ironic if the first
detection of a Jupiter-sized planet were in the LMC!
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 May 93 19:14:11 GMT
From: G C Lyons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's HGA?
Newsgroups: sci.space

What's the status of the high gain antenna?  I haven't been on the Net for
awhile and haven't heard anything elsewhere.

-Glenn
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:31:03 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1ttm8j$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>|[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|>Ken seems fixated on this measure of performance.
>|>I would suggest that we not look at mass returned,  but Useful
>|>Cargo Returned.
>|>In that Case we have,  1 LDEF,  4-5 SpaceLab flights,  and probably
>|>appx 100 GAS Cans.
>>>Not a lot for 12 years of missions.  The soviets probably have
>>>returned as much using capsula  vehicles and with soyuz.


>Nobody gunned down my thumb sketch.

Well then, a small caliber bullet:  I don't know that I'd include the
SpaceLab as 'cargo' -- it's just another matter of having to haul
facilities up and down that would be better if we could simply leave
the same facilities on orbit.

>Ken,
>Justify the STS program on the basis of mass returned.

>pat.

>Don't include contingency satellitte return missions.  It would have
>been cheaper to build new ones  and pop them off.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 26 May 1993 18:24:55 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble vs Keck
Newsgroups: sci.space

I would mention two more advantages of Hubble over Keck


1. After the fix it will give you 0.1 arcsec resolution all the time.
   No ground telescope can get this, even with adaptive optics.
   (I am talking about resolution in visual light).

2. From Hubble you get better signal to noise ratio, because your
   only noise is a photon statistics.  With keck your photon statistics
   is better (larger mirror), but you also get atmospheric scintillation
   and sky bacground noise. This last one is going to hurt you specially
   for the fainest objects.


Of course, Hubble has one major disadvantage over Keck: it will last for
only 15, maybe 20 years. Keck can be used for 100 years, with its
instrumentation being constantly upgrated.


Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: 26 May 93 18:42:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Jenks Leaves SSP for SSFP
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics.space

Dear Friends,

I have left the Space Shuttle Program Office for a new Civil Service
position in the Space Station Freedom Program.  I'm now working in the
JSC Mission Operations Directorate, Systems Division.  I'm in DE44, the
Maintenance and Logistics Section.  I will be working as an SSF
Operations Support Officer in the Consolidated Control Center
(consolidated between SSFP and SSP).  I've been planning this move for
several months, and I'm quite pleased that it's now come to fruition.
This is technically a temporary, six-month reassignment, but I hope to
get a permanent job here.  However, if I can't, or if the SSFP dies
suddenly, I can go back to Shuttle.  It's a good safety net.

I'm learning a thousand new things a day about the SSFP, and I will
be posting some of them to the 'Net.  I'm looking forward to sharing
my new experiences with you.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "The primary mission of the Space Station Freedom is to
      provide supporting functions and operations to multiple users.
      These functions and operations provide a capability for:
       1) material processing research
       2) life sciences research including permanently manned
      presence
       3) a permanent observatory"

        -- Space Station Freedom Program Definition and Requirements,
           SSP 30000, Section 3, Revision L, page 1-2

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 15:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Tricia Porth [phone])
Subject: Kennedy tour?

Hi y'all!

My husband and I have last minute plans to visit
Kennedy on Monday, June 7.  We have never visited
and would like a tour - I hope those are available.
Does anyone have any details or advice on what we
MUST see.  We have the whole day free to tour.

Thanks for the advice!

Tricia Porth
NASA HQ

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

Date: 26 May 93 17:40:24 GMT
From: Gopinath Kuduvalli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
[...]
>
>Since when are "flags and footprints" and mining the only alternatives?
>There are many other reasons for long-term of permanent presence, that
>have nothing at all to do with mining.
>
Pray tell, what *are* these other reasons for long-term permanent presence
on the moon, mars or wherever in space?

Cheers,

-- Gopi

Dr. Gopi Kuduvalli         |e-mail: [e-mail]
MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates |Phone: [phone] (Office)
13800 Commerce Pkwy         |     [phone] (Home)
Richmond, BC V7C 1G4, CANADA     |Fax:     [phone]

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

Date: 26 May 93 19:52:24 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:


>Careful Gary,
>you are starting to sound like szabo :-)

>pat

At the World space congress during the opening session the VP of the US
(er called Quayle I think) gave a typical we will do everything election
speech. The interesting point was that as he boosted each sub activity
of space (Freedom, the Moon, Mars etc.) a completely different and compact
section of the audience cheered, while for the most part all others were
silent. Sorry but if space exploration is to proceed at all there has to
be acceptance that "if we do not hang together, then gentlemen we shall
most assuradly hang separately" (B. Franklin, sometime postmaster, scientist
and traitor, -I stand to be corrected ). At the moment space enthusiasts
are spending more time running down those that should be allies. I
personally think that if a coherent vision (for want of a better word)
does not emerge from the space community world wide in the next couple
of years to replace the cold war justificiation of super technology
at any price for the sake of national pride, aerospace profits, and military
ability, then there won't be much space activity by 2001!

To me the Moon seems the best bet as attainable, scientifically viable,
and with a little effort salable both to the public and any commercial
interests that have an attention span longer than a quarter. The key
is lower launch costs, and getting rid of a lot of management overheads,
that are no longer appropriate, if they ever were.









--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:39:48 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>[e-mail] (Dillon Pyron) writes:


>>"Boys, Joe didn't do nothin' illegal here.  I do hear tell that them Alpha
>>Centoorians are gonna kill every fourth man woman and child unless we show them
>>how bad we feel about it.  Okay, Joe, you're free to go."

>I was being facesious in the statements you're following up to...

>>Get the picture? ;-)

>Get this: a man murdered a Japanese exchange student in BR and
>was acquitted. A great miscarriage of justice. But he got away
>with it, and the student wasn't even shooting at a Martian.

Get this: first, this has nothing to do with space, and second, you
appear to have received some sort of immaculate reception of
information in this case, since from everything I've heard it sounded
like justified protection of himself and his property (due to the
actions of the person in question, no matter how mistaken the shooter
may have been about his actual intent).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:36:56 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil's words - an analysis (was Re: Neil's first words)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger Noe) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Darryl O. Cottle") writes:
>>One poster stated that the "a" WAS said but too softly for the radio
>>equipment to pick it up.

>It was spoken, although hurriedly, and is easy to miss because of
>radio interference.  I can hear it.

>>If my memory serves Neil himself was the FIRST one to say that he had
>>not said what he had intended to say.

>You have a reference for that?  I've heard Armstrong speak on this
>subject (albeit many years ago) and what I recall him saying is that
>he did say "for a man", as intended.

I've heard something similar, but I think that he's misinterpreting a
remark made in exasperation at people continually telling Armstrong that
they don't hear what he claimed to have said -- which was on the order
of, "Well dammit, that's what I *meant* to say."  Note that he does
*not* say that he did not say what he meant to say -- more a loss of
patience with people who are trying to argue with him about what he
actually *did* say.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 26 May 1993 18:33:20 GMT
From: "C. D. Tavares" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question about B&W markings on US launchers
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]  (Roger Wilfong) writes:

> In one of the rocket history books, the author credits the color schemes on
> the Saturns, Redstones and Jupiters to Werner von Braun's conviction that
> rockets should be 'black and white'.

Luckily, von Braun died well before 1995, when the NASA film library was
purchased by Ted Turner.
--

[e-mail]   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR [e-mail]        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 93 15:42:57 EDT
From: "Darryl O. Cottle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The crew is toast

At last, the opening I've been looking for for over a year now.
(Didn't want to start a completely NEW thread as a first time poster,
but since I got my feet wet earlier this week and I still have my
head I'll try it.)

Fred J McCall writes:
> If something happens while the solid (rockets??) are lit, the
> crew is toast.  No way out that's feasible.

I watched some of the proceedings of the Senate (or was it House?)
committee investigating the loss of Challenger and was immediately
struck by something in their VERY detailed film of the explosion
and shower of debris.

The man with the pointer was identifying various parts of the shower
and one of the objects he pointed to he identified as the crew cabin
with its wiring harness trailing behind it.  (Don't ask me his
name - I didn't write it down and I don't remember what it was.)

I looked at that and visualized a crude parachute of some sort that
could be attached to the various parts of the wiring harness to
slow the fall.  I've torn apart enough no-longer-working electronic
assemblies to know just how strongly a wiring harness is attached!
Something like very tough, thin, flexible material (hopefully very
light as well) or perhaps deflated balloons with compressed helium
capsules that could be triggered if the pressure holding them in
place was suddenly removed (as in the disintegration of the craft).

A newspaper here ran a very long article (many pages) about the loss
of Challenger and it was strongly implied that evidence existed that
at least some of the crew were still alive until the impact with the
Atlantic ocean.  My kid brother used to work as a roofer. (This IS
relevant - bear with me.)  In his training they were taught that, if
they started to fall to grab something - anything - even if they
KNEW it wouldn't hold them, because doing so would SLOW their fall.
True they might still break something (or several somethings!) but
they would still be alive to recover from it.

No tree branches or drain spouts in the atmosphere to grab hold of,
but, if the fall could be slowed just enough to allow the crew cabin
to hold together, and with the crew strapped in, they might have
been able to survive.

Sure its off the wall.  It might be the stupidest idea anyone has
ever proposed.  But there might be some kernel in here that an
engineer could latch onto and come up with something that WOULD
work.  Challenger's crew deserves that much.
                                                        Doc
Afterthought: No use directing any questions about
              this to me.  I've already stated all
              I know about it.   About all I could
              do would be to look up the newspaper
              article.  If someone wants that I'll
              be glad to do so.

+- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -+
|/CAUTION//////////CAUTION/|"I don't know what I'm doin'!|   (voice)    |
|////U/N/D/E/R/////////////|  If I ever DO figure it out,| 606-257-7577 |
|/C/O/N/S/T/R/U/C/T/I/O/N//|   I'll prob'ly go HIDE!!"   |     or       |
|/CAUTION//////////CAUTION/|   "Brother" Dave Gardner    | 606-254-8914 |
+- --- --- --- --- --- --- + - --- --- --- --- --- --- --+ --- --- --- -|
| [e-mail]    or else try    [e-mail]          |
+- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -+

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

Date: 26 MAY 93 19:04:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

Mark Taranto writes:

>The only Wolfe I've read was BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES.  I thought it a
>fascinating book which had lots of interesting things to say about
>society (paricularly about New York society).  But I thought the book
>was *very* poorly written -- a classic example of substance winning
>out over style.

_Bonfire_ is not poorly written at all!  I can see how one might
think so, however, if one is unfamiliar with Wolfe's idiosyncratic
style.

>From Jeff's comment, I gather that THE RIGHT STUFF is
>more than substance.  Is this true?  WHat about Wolfe's other works?

Like all of Wolfe's works, it's a balancing act between style and
substance.  Wolfe's most brilliant stroke, in my opinion, was the discovery
of Chuck Yeager, who was, to most people, a footnote in the history books
up to that point.  Granted, Yeager has a lot of substance, but it was
Wolfe's style that brought that substance out vividly.  (Check out Yeager's
own book, called -- what else? -- _Yeager_.  Good stuff, particularly
the bit about his time with the French Resistance, and his escape from
occupied territory.)

Other Wolfe books I'd recommend:

        _Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers_
        _The Painted Word_

You might also try _In Our Time_, a book of Wolfe's own drawings, which
are great.


Heather
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 May 93 19:26:50 GMT
From: "joseph.l.nastasi" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

> In article <1tb0uo$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> > Von Brauns  original plan was to have the capsule fully automatic,
> > with the occupants, performing a few bio experiments.
>
> Did Wernher von Braun actually have anything to do with the Mercury
> program, or did pat just see *The Right Stuff* too many times? (A
> lousy way to get your history, by the way...)
>

Van Braun had very little to do with Mercury.  For a very good review
of the political and technological decisions in the early space
program, read David Baker's "The History of Manned Spaceflight"
It was written in the very early eighties and most of the facts
are still valid today...

Joe Nastasi
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:24:26 GMT
From: "Matthew R. Feulner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
|>
|> I don't like him because he usually lets his politics dictate his
|> science. His nuclear winter theory was bogus scientifically but he
|> pushed it because it agreed with his politics. He opposed human
|> exploration of space saying it wasn't good science. Then he decided
|> the cold war would end if the US and USSR went to Mars together.
|> Suddenly, humans in space was GREAT science.
|>

Anyone catch him on Nightline (or another) during the Gulf War when the
Iraqis were burning oil wells?  He was preaching global impact for years
to come.  When it turns out to have little but local impact, where was he?
"Irresponsible" is the word I'd use - he used the press to tout his
theory which turned out to be wrong, at least in that case, and issued no
retraction or apology from what I know.

"Damn it, Jim, I'm an astronomer, not an atmospheric scientist!"

Matthew Feulner
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 18:57:10 GMT
From: Alan Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert S. Hill) writes:
[Discussion of value of popularization deleted]
|> Still, perhaps I am allowed a few mild worries. The gee whiz approach
|> can backfire.  People in general are smart enough to know that science
|> isn't magic, and that we slog away at a desk or bench every day like any
|> other white-collar worker.  So when we try make ourselves look like
|> alchemists who are in search of the philosopher's stone, or perhaps even
|> worse, the `face of God,' they know perfectly well that we are talking
|> like idiots or snake-oil salesmen.
|>
|> Did Sagan contribute to this problem, or did he help fight it, or
|> was he neutral?  Or did he make a negative contribution that was
|> outweighed by the positive one?  This last I think is likely, but
|> we have no way of knowing for sure.

Perhaps there is a useful distinction between gee-whizzing that which
we have learned or suspect, which includes many topics that certainly
still gee-whiz me, and gee-wizzing the people that learned these things,
and/or suggesting that these people bathe specially in the reflected
glory of the universe.

As an example of the distinction, compare Gleik's "Chaos", wherein all
discoveries seem to be made serendipitously, or as blinding flashes
of revelation as the mathematician-priests walk in the park, and the
same author's "Genius", which talks about the history, the politics
and the human frailties, but lets the work and the exceptional talents
speak for themselves without hyperbole.

In this context, it looks like Sagan's got a bit of an ego there,
so I would agree with the -ve outweighed by +ve likelihood.

   Regards, Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 Belle Vue Court    |"We've entered a synchronous  | Home: 0684 564438
32 Belle Vue Terrace | orbit above the southern     | Away: 0628 784351
Great Malvern        | pole."                       | Work: 0628 794137
Worcestershire       |                              |
WR14 4PZ             | Lt. Commander Geordi LaForge | Temporary: [e-mail]
England              | Star Trek The Next Generation| Permanent: [e-mail]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:03:45 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:


>I don't like him because he usually lets his politics dictate his
>science. His nuclear winter theory was bogus scientifically but he
>pushed it because it agreed with his politics. He opposed human
>exploration of space saying it wasn't good science. Then he decided
>the cold war would end if the US and USSR went to Mars together.
>Suddenly, humans in space was GREAT science.

My feelings *exactly*.  Given his record of late, I'm left feeling
that Dr Sagan left his scientific integrity somewhere in the swirl of
publicity quite a few years ago.  He lets his political agenda drive
the analysis of data and the conclusions he claims to 'prove' with it;
an odious habit in a scientist, to say the least.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 634
------------------------------