Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 01:06:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8809120806.AA07624@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Reply-To: Space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #358

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 358

Today's Topics:
			      Pioneer 10
	     Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
			    Re: Plutonium
		    space exploration/exploitation
			       Re: Seti
	       Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)
		Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything?
Re: Were the Russians right about 007?   [New stuff on KAL 007 from CBC]
		  Re: space exploration/exploitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 88 16:41:57 GMT
From: math.ucla.edu!hgw@locus.ucla.edu
Subject: Pioneer 10

Greetings,

I've always wondered about this so I'm finally asking.  Is Pioneer 10 still
sending information back to earth?  Not just information on its well being but
space data.  I'm sure it's too dark to take pictures (not much to take pictures
at either).  But are there other data gathering devices working and sending back
information?  Is there anybody here on earth analysing these data?  Can these
data be distributed to people like you and me and crunched by our own computers?
If Pioneer passed by an alien spacecraft will we ever know about it?

 Thanks. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harold Wong         (213) 825-9040 
UCLA-Mathnet; 3915F MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555
ARPA: hgw@math.ucla.edu          BITNET: hgw%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 13:52:08 GMT
From: jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu  (Joe Keane)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

In article <1988Aug30.005423.20005@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The best way to get really close to the Sun, in
>fact, is a Jupiter flyby (!).

Right.  A random asteroid might be even better (do any go backwards?).
Let's write _How to get to the sun in 170 (km/sec)^2_.

>>>The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to
>>>use hard land it on the moon...
>>
>>Please don't do this!
>
>Why not?  Assuming you have enough control to put them down within, say,
>50 km of a specific aiming point, of course.

Someone will curse the fools who sprayed plutonium on her land.

--Joe
--

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 14:24:59 GMT
From: jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu  (Joe Keane)
Subject: Re: Plutonium

In article <880829154722.000008A8.ABBF.AA@Virginia> pcp2g@CDC.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU (=3545***) writes:
>4) There are two problems I overlooked--one is that  what happens if
>   the rocket carrying the Pu blows up twenty miles up? Scratch one eco- 
>   sphere, that's what. A payload like that is too risky to launch.

Launches won't always use explosives.  Maybe an ice cube, or a launch
loop, or a skyhook.  Of course you embed the plutonium in ceramic and
concrete.  If something fails, find the pieces and re-launch them.

--Joe
--

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 13:53:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: space exploration/exploitation

>  The problem is
>that _the government restricts the launching by Americans_.  The best the

  What are the precise nature of these restrictions?
 
  Why can't the promoters of these ventures take the launch
  part of the operation offshore, like to some Caribbean Island?
  Many of those islands would be thrilled to have the revenue
  and added influx of tourists, reporters, technicians, etc.
  The R&D and other facilities of this space corporation could
  still be in the 'states.  
 
  And BTW, don't try the argument that the governemnt restrictions
  consist of unfair competition because they are tax-supported and
  therefore aren't competing on a level-playing-field.  There *is*
  no competition for the space-colony/asteroid-mining/solar-power-
  in-space/..etc ventures these wannabe space capitalists propose.
  You're not competing with the government in those ventures; they
  have no plans to do those things.
 
  The bottom line remains that this notion of free-enterprise
  in space is just a pipe-dream with a lot of conveeenient
  excuses by it's proponents.    


                                     --Peter Nelson

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 15:48:33 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!jco@nrl-cmf.arpa  (Dumpmaster John)
Subject: Re: Seti

In article <IWM.88Aug29195204@asun3.ic.ac.uk> iwm@asun3.ic.ac.uk (Ian Moor) writes:
>There may only be a small time interval during which a civilization radiates
>RF at an easily detectable frequency. How long before we all have cable tv
>over fibre optic links ? Or maybe satellites which direct all their output
>at the planet. Should we be looking for something else like Infra-red
>from power plants?

I don't think you have to worry about RF comming to an end in very soon.
There are many things that you can use Radio for that you can't use
Fiber Optics for.  (like in your car, but then in any advance form of
transportation you will have a tape deck or CD player :-)  And while
having satellites broadcast down on the planet might be what big
stations will do.  Little ones (WRAG here in town) will still broadcast
out (unless someone wants to donate a Transponder to them.) 

(The rest comes from my 1000 level astronomy course.)
As for IR you have to be off planet to pick it up.  Because the H2O in
the air absorbs most of the incoming IR radiation.  And until we get a
space program again we can't talk about off planet things.  :-(

later
jco
--
"And the sun is eclipsed by the moon" -- Pink Floyd
In Real Life:		UUCP: ...ihnp4!codas!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!jco
John C. Orthoefer	Internet: jco@beach.cis.ufl.edu
University of Florida	Floyd Mailing List: eclipse-request@beach.cis.ufl.edu

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 14:23:44 GMT
From: nsc!taux01!taux02!amos@decwrl.dec.com  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Inverse SETI (Was:  ET phone home?)

About receiving radio signals from earth on near stars - doesn't the
Sun's radiation at these frequencies completely drown anything generated
on earth?
-- 
	Amos Shapir				amos@nsc.com
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel  Tel. +972 52 522261
34 48 E / 32 10 N			(My other cpu is a NS32532)

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

Date: 28 Aug 88 21:05:15 GMT
From: oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (phil nelson)
Subject: Re: SETI: Why don't we hear anything?

In article <1988Aug22.183500.6536@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <127@antares.UUCP> pnelson@antares.UUCP (phil nelson) writes:
>> I think that the problem of creating these "self-replicating robots" may
>>be more difficult than we imagine, perhaps too difficult even for our
>>hypothetical "advanced" xenophobes.
>
>If so, the difficulties must be in an area we can't foresee today.  People
>have looked at building self-replicating robots.  The conclusion has been
>that we can't do it today, but it doesn't look that far off.  There don't
>seem to be any fundamental barriers.  Given that we haven't done it yet,
>it's always possible to speculate that there is some bogeyman lurking
>hidden somewhere, but I for one am reluctant to accept this without some
>more specific suggestion of where the obstacle lies.
>

Creating machines that can replicate themselves within a simple environment
will not be difficult, creating machines that can survive and reproduce in
the real world is another matter. I would be very interested to hear who
has concluded that it "doesn't look that far off", I hear practically no
speculation in this area.

I prefer not to be too specific about the obstacles, but consider that there
are no examples of self-maintaining machines in our entire technology, and
no evidence (beyond talk) of a trend in that direction. Consider the problem
of re-making the Shuttle so that it operated without Human intervention. It
will have to find it's own fuels, mine it's own metals, plastics, glass, etc.,
refine them all, manufacture each one of it's replacement parts, replace
them as needed _and know when the parts need replacement_ etc. etc...

The difficulty of the above should be obvious after some consideration. I
submit that the only working example of the self-replicating machine (life)
is poorly understood and is apparently constructed in fundamentally different
way than the machines we know how to build, therefore, we can not predict
when (or if) our technology will be able to build such machines.

>> Among other lifelike qualities this race of robots might require is the
>>ability to adapt to new conditions. Assuming for a moment that these robots
>>can be (and are) created, isn't it likely that they would either evolve into
>>something more benevolent or (perhaps more likely) devolve into something
>>much less terrible?
>
>Well, it's not clear why they would require the ability to evolve -- their
>job is pretty well-defined and their environment is not a particularly
>variable one.  The ability to evolve might be useful, especially in the
>long term, but it would not seem essential.

I used the wrong word, I really meant _mutate_, not evolve. It is not a
question of whether the machine would "require the ability", rather, how
well will it maintain it's functionality and _purpose_ after being damaged
and having repaired itself for the Nth time, and how faithfully will it
replicate it's functionality and purpose in each of it's offspring?

I cannot agree that the environment is not particularly variable, the
environment was defined in the hypothesis as the universe, which, since it
includes everything that is, has to be about as variable as you can get.

>And assuming that evolution is provided for, why would they evolve in the
>direction of benevolence?  It seems to me that evolution the other way
>is much more likely:  unless one postulates a mutation so radical that
>it converts the machines into friends, it is in the machines' interests
>to be the most efficient enemies possible, to prevent the development of
>a race capable of destroying them.
>

Well, the most obvious change that might occur (apart from simply losing
interest in the original purpose) is that a machine designed to destroy
might begin to destroy other such machines. If the machines had something
like intelligence (probably required in order to have any chance of achieving
the purpose) they might easily organize into warring camps, each group could
become so absorbed dealing with the immediate threat (each other) that they
would be delayed indefinitely from pursuing the original purpose.

>In the long run, "time and chance happen to us all", but for a well-crafted
>self-replicating machine, "the long run" might be a very long time indeed.

I agree, given that the machines can be built, that they might be very
dangerous for a long time, but I define 'long' by our standards, maybe 100K
years. not even enough time to kill a Galaxy, let alone the whole universe.

Having said all the above, I would like to point out that our luck might be
bad, the hypothetical nasty race might live (or have lived) only tens or
hundreds of light years from us, and we might be making a very serious (as
in our last) mistake by broadcasting to the universe. I am all for listening,
we should do more of it, though we will need to be very careful if we ever
receive anything, as has been pointed out here recently. I am not kidding
about the broadcasting, I wish it would stop.

>-- 
>Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu


-- 
{ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson  | Contains: Potentially hazardous
OnTyme: QSATS.P/Nelson  POTS: (408)922-7508 | questions, Potentially hazardous
Disclaimer: Not officially representing     | opinions, Potentially hazardous
McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy.       | comments, Virtual Carcinogens

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 15:35:53 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Were the Russians right about 007?   [New stuff on KAL 007 from CBC]

In article <1397@maccs.McMaster.CA>, gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) writes:
> [followups directed to the politics groups only]

Right.  Post to irrelevant groups to get maximum exposure for the
conspiracy theory, then limit replies.  I won't debate your 007
information(?), as I have no independent checks on it, but given
the mistakes in the description of the 1978 incident, I have to doubt.

> o In 1978, KAL flight 902 strayed over Soviet territory at Murmansk.  The
> pilot, Kim Chang Kyu, ignored Soviet fighters until they fired at his plane
> (with some loss of life) and forced it down at a Soviet airfield.

Published reports had it that the fighter pilots indicated "follow me", then
lead-footed it toward the base so that the 707 could not keep up.  They
came back and fired a missile into the wing root, the plane went down out
of control, and the fighters went home, saying the target was destroyed.
The 707 pilot managed to regain control at low altitude, and flew around
for quite some time before finding a frozen lake to put down on.

> If KAL 007's overflight of Soviet territory was indeed a deliberate
> passive surveillance probe, the worst-case scenario envisaged by the
> planners would probably have simply been a forced landing on Soviet
> territory, much like what happened after the Murmansk incident in 1978,
> with no lasting effect on international relations.

Humph.  They would have known that the Soviet pilots had intended to
destroy the airliner, and thought they had succeeded.

-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 17:48:55 GMT
From: kevin@csvax.caltech.edu  (Kevin Van Horn)
Subject: Re: space exploration/exploitation

In article <3e2b1c47.ae47@apollo.COM> nelson_p@apollo.COM (Peter Nelson)
writes: 
>  Why can't the promoters of these ventures take the launch
>  part of the operation offshore, like to some Caribbean Island?

Sorry, but the Commercial Space Launch Act specifies that all United States
Citizens, *anywhere*, are subject to its provisions.  And one of the most
fiendish parts of this Act is the authority it gives the Secretary of
Transportation to deny permission to launch if a launch is deemed not to be in
the best interests of "national security" or "national policy".  Such a wide
authority to deny permission to launch contributes to an atmosphere of
uncertainty and scares potential investors away from commercial space ventures.

>  And BTW, don't try the argument that the governemnt restrictions
>  consist of unfair competition because they are tax-supported and
>  therefore aren't competing on a level-playing-field.  There *is*
>  no competition for the space-colony/asteroid-mining/solar-power-
>  in-space/..etc ventures these wannabe space capitalists propose.

But before anyone can think about doing those things, we need cheap, reliable
space transportation.  And governmental obstacles to entrepeneurs attempting
to provide such cheap transportation include the provisions of the Commercial
Space Launch Act, demands by the State Department that a *munitions export
license* must be obtained before one can launch a rocket, problems with the
FCC (once they refused to allow Gary Hudson a self-destruct frequency needed
for range safety, and they have tripped up SSI by refusing to allow a would-be
customer any frequencies for their satellites), etc.

>  The bottom line remains that this notion of free-enterprise
>  in space is just a pipe-dream with a lot of conveeenient
>  excuses by it's proponents.    

Tell that to American Rocket Company, the Hercules-Orbital Sciences
Corporation partnership, and Pacific American Launch Systems.  All three are
pushing on to provide new launchers in spite of governmental obstacles.  AMROC
has a hybrid vehicle (solid fuel + liquid oxidizer) called the Industrial
Launch Vehicle, has built and tested several engines, and (last I heard) is
planning their first suborbital flight for later this year.  Hercules and
Orbital Sciences Corporation are building Pegasus, a solid-fuel rocket dropped
from an airplane; as of May (when they first announced Pegasus) they were
half-way through its two-year development and had spent a third of the funds
they had allotted for it.  Pacific American Launch Systems is building the
Liberty IA, a liquid-fuel rocket designed to be as simple as possible, and
will be providing complete launch services (using a portable launch pad that
can be put up in two days); they have built the first stage and are in the 
process of testing it.

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #358
*******************