Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 7 Mar 89 05:16:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 05:16:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #281 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 281 Today's Topics: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation Re: For the People of Planet Earth Re: "Centrifugal forces" Re: External tanks RE: the un/manned debate Re: External tanks ISEECO please call home.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Mar 89 06:11:46 GMT From: algor2!jeffrey@uunet.uu.net (Jeffrey Kegler) Subject: Baseball Statistics as a test of Astrology Some years ago, I studied astrology, but never found chart interpretations to correspond with the people for whom I was doing the charts. Since then, I have tried to figure out if there is a way to test the claims of astrology scientifically. Of course, the majority of scientists are firmly convinced that astrology has no validity, but this is different from having proof. Previous studies have been from one camp or the other. Pro-astrology forces have come up with weak statistical evidence, and anti-astrology forces have torn that evidence to pieces. I have just completed a study which uses Reichler's "Baseball Encyclopedia", which presents a well-audited group of statistics in a difficult field of human endeavor. These statistics have the advantage that I cannot be accused of cooking them. Prior studies have studied "eminent physicists" or whatever, where the researcher decided who was eminent. Judicious selection of borderline cases can seriously bias a sample, especially a small one. I used the A's and B's where both a complete date of birth (day, month and year) and a state or country of birth were available. Several statistics were examined, but the best data was for "the single most difficult thing to do in sport" --get a major league base hit. I tried many methods of analysis, all of which gave similar results to the one I am about to present. Here is a list of aspects for which rank correlation of orb (closeness of the aspect) with career hits has better than a .05 (1 in 20) level of significance, using rank correlation. Aspect D Prob D RS Prob RS Aries Neptune Opposition 125708640 0.000 -0.175 0.000 Neptune Pluto Square 90512944 0.000 0.154 0.000 Aries Pluto Trine 120891576 0.000 -0.130 0.000 Neptune Pluto Trine 93505600 0.000 0.126 0.000 Uranus Pluto Opposition 93872048 0.000 0.123 0.000 Neptune Pluto Conjunction 94217008 0.000 0.119 0.000 Neptune Pluto Opposition 94217008 0.000 0.119 0.000 Aries Pluto Square 94264088 0.000 0.119 0.000 Aries Neptune Conjunction 94839664 0.001 0.114 0.001 Uranus Neptune Trine 119292816 0.001 -0.115 0.001 Saturn Uranus Opposition 96095072 0.002 0.102 0.003 Uranus Pluto Conjunction 117933960 0.003 -0.102 0.003 Aries Pluto Quintile 96657528 0.004 0.097 0.004 Uranus Neptune Opposition 96710632 0.004 0.096 0.005 Aries Jupiter Quintile 116642920 0.009 -0.090 0.008 Mercury Saturn Opposition 98103312 0.014 0.083 0.014 Venus Jupiter Trine 116082856 0.014 -0.085 0.013 Mars Saturn Quintile 115898664 0.016 -0.083 0.015 Aries Pluto Sextile 115875216 0.016 -0.083 0.015 Aries Uranus Conjunction 115737880 0.018 -0.082 0.016 Moon Mercury Sextile 115412992 0.023 -0.078 0.021 Moon Pluto Square 115278192 0.025 -0.077 0.023 Venus Pluto Trine 98936512 0.025 0.075 0.027 Venus Mars Square 98965280 0.026 0.075 0.027 Aries Neptune Quintile 99040496 0.027 0.074 0.029 Sun Neptune Conjunction 99362264 0.034 0.071 0.036 Aries Pluto Opposition 114742384 0.036 -0.072 0.034 Jupiter Neptune Quintile 99489808 0.037 0.070 0.039 Aries Mercury Quintile 114716576 0.037 -0.072 0.034 Sun Jupiter Square 114508088 0.042 -0.070 0.040 Uranus Neptune Conjunction 114441104 0.044 -0.069 0.041 Neptune Pluto Quintile 99790192 0.045 0.067 0.048 Uranus Pluto Trine 99867696 0.047 0.067 0.050 Jupiter Neptune Trine 99869256 0.047 0.067 0.050 Aries Pluto Conjunction 99908880 0.048 0.066 0.052 I won't explain the statistics involved at any great length. What follows will assume you have looked it up in a statistics book, already knew it, or don't really care much. D is the sum of the squared difference of the ranks, Prob D is the probability its deviation from the expected value is significant, RS is the correlation coefficient of the ranks and Prob RS is the probability it is significant. Low Prob D or Prob RS indicate that the null hypothesis (that the aspect given does not predict career hits) may be rejected with only that much risk of an error. We'll also take a fast pass over the astrology. I call 0 degrees Aries, the (relatively) fixed point at the start of the zodiac, and the Moon planets, even though they are not. A conjunction is an angle of 0 degrees between two planets. An opposition is an angle of 180 degrees, a trine one of 120 degrees, and a square one of 90 degrees. Rarely used are the sextile, taken here as an angle which is any multiple of 60 degrees, and never used by the ancients was the quintile, an angle involving a multiple of 72 degrees. The 10 highest correlations involve planets unknown to the inventors of astrology. The 14 highest involve two "slow" planets. Here the gradual tendency of batting averages to decline is probably what is showing up. The indirect correlation with the gradual trend over time swamps any effects which are more strictly astrological. The 15th highest correlation is the Aries Jupiter Quintile, a relatively slow variant of an obscure aspect. The 16th highest correlation is the Mercury Saturn Opposition. An opposition is traditionally a "difficult aspect" and we would expect to see a similar effect from the other "difficult aspect" of Mercury Saturn--the square. The levels of significance there are .149 and .141--and the direction of the correlation is the opposite! Even the Mercury Saturn Opposition has a .014 level of significance. That is, if we decide it does affect career hits, we have a 1.4% chance of being wrong. Since we have taken a brute force approach--testing 540 different aspects all at once, a spurious correlation at this level is hardly surprising. What is surprising is the that the 120 aspects among the slow planets (0 degrees Aries, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) constitute the top 14 aspects in the correlations. The odds against that occurring by chance are well over one in 6 billion. It is in the nature of statistical evidence that it is hard to make an absolutely final case, but this study would have to be a disappointment to anyone seeking evidence for astrology. -- Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists, jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 89 14:53:00 GMT From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation Just out of curiousity, how does a commercial firm get EXCLUSIVE rights to a technology developed for the U.S. Air Force? ( I'm assuming that E'Prime didn't develop this technology with its own money, more likely you and I paid for it with our generous contributions to Uncle Sam each paycheck ). Please don't take this as a criticism of the company, a private competitor to the vicious Arianne monopololy on commercial spaceflight is welcome ... ( Many, many smiley faces intended ) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 89 00:34:23 GMT From: att!ihlpa!rjp1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: For the People of Planet Earth Z In article (Friends of Earth) writes: > ===================================================================== > > .\:|/, > -- o -- > PEOPLE OF PLANET EARTH '|\` > > Your planet is nearing the period in its evolution when it shall pass > from the third dimension (that which you experience as your > surroundings now) into the fourth dimension of existence. This shall > be a great change in the physical, mental and emotional nature of > human beings as well as a dramatic change in the nature of your planet. What I want to know, is, what about the Vogons??? You know, those guys up in those huge yellow, slab-like spaceships?? That float in the air much in the same way that bricks don't? Yeah! Those guys!! B^) Just puttin on my peril-sensitive sunglasses now... -- -- rj pietkivitch att!ihlpa!rjp1 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 20:16:48 EST From: John Roberts Formerly: National Bureau of Standards Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: "Centrifugal forces" >From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul Dietz) >Ah yes. I believe the story (which appeared in the now defunct >Galaxy) was called "Jogging Up Main Street". >...Jogging would >cause the colony to spin up very slightly as long as the runner kept >moving, but as soon as he stopped, the extra spin would disappear >(considering the mass of a runner vs. the colony, the effect would be >unnoticable). Ah, but if the joggers never stopped (dedicated jogging teams running in shifts) the increased acceleration would remain. If the number of joggers or their average speed were to increase, the total acceleration would also increase. (OK, maybe the overall *magnitude* of the effect would not be all that significant, but the *principle* remains valid :-) Similarly, in a nonrotating colony, joggers could control the attitude of the craft. Skylab used flywheels for this purpose. The joggers (see A&S Museum film loop) were merely recreational. Disclaimer: maybe I should have waited 30 days (from March 2) to post this. John Roberts cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 89 18:20:08 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: External tanks In article <890301125213.00000133CE3@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >...they interviewed some NASA official and asked him why they never put the >E.T.s into orbit after taking them 99% of the way there, when the cost >to put that amount of mass in orbit would be $300 million if done any other >way. He mumbled that it had never been proven to be cost effective... He's probably right. The thing is, what do you use that mass for, and how? Remember that the cost has to include reduced payload (it is no longer the case that the shuttle flies a special maneuver just to drop the tank, so you no longer save anything by avoiding said maneuver) and whatever system you devise to keep the thing up there after the shuttle leaves (it will not stay up long by itself, it's too big and too light). If you're going to keep it up there very long, you need to either wrap it in something or remove the insulation, *after* launch, because the insulation will outgas and "popcorn" and add to the space-debris problem in a nasty way. If you want to use it as a pressurized container, you need space-debris protection, as the tank walls are not very thick and will get punctured soon. Since NASA is paranoid about another Skylab, you *must* have an ultra-reliable de-orbit system to ensure that if worst comes to worst, the thing can be brought down in a halfway controlled way. And so forth... And *then* you have to use it for something. Yes, it's a lot of mass, but it's not in a terribly convenient form. It really isn't quite as simple as it looks -- the folks looking at converting one to a gamma-ray telescope have significant problems to solve. And of course, in any situation where the answer isn't blindingly obvious, the only way you can *prove* that something is cost-effective is to try it. Until then, the nay-sayers can always imagine more problems that might occur. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 89 14:00:32 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: RE: the un/manned debate In article <8902272332.AA16989@crash.cs.umass.edu>, ELIOT@cs.umass.edu writes: } } I just read the march 1989 Scientific American article "U.S. Access } to Space". This is a companion to last month's article on the Soviet } space program. The march article describes the "Shuttle-C" which } has not been extensively discussed on the net. }... } At $1.5B it is a relatively cheap project. (Sci.Am p.38) This is Maybe cheap by current NASA standards, but it's an awful large sum for basically sticking together existing components. In addition, it will NOT be cheap to launch, as it uses Space Shuttle Main Engines, which are by no means cheap even when reused instead of launching an expendable. The proposed solution to this is to fly the SSME's ten times or so on the shuttle, and then use them on the Shuttle-C, which of course severely restricts how often S-C flies. } The "proponants maintain that the vehicle could be operational as } early as 1994 and estimate that it could lift between 100,000 and } 150,000 pounds to the space station's orbit" (S.A. P.38). Tsk, tsk. After several years of study, it will now take five years to make an operational system of mostly-existing components. The Saturn V was designed and built from scratch in rather less than five years--*without* years of study. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I claimed something? You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 89 15:22:43 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu!hogg@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: External tanks In article <890301125213.00000133CE3@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@GROUCH.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >I heard an article on NPR this morning on the way to work about the >External Tank Corporation... >...they interviewed some NASA official and asked him why they never put the >E.T.s into orbit after taking them 99% of the way there, when the cost >to put that amount of mass in orbit would be $300 million if done any other >way. He mumbled that it had never been proven to be cost effective. I wonder >what paragon of economic efficiency he was comparing it with. The shuttle? That sounds like the wrong answer. The orbit that an ET would achieve would be a low one, and the surface-area-to-mass ratio is very high. This means that a tank will reenter fairly soon if action isn't taken to keep it up there. Given the Challenger launch hiatus, *not* storing tanks in orbit on spec turns out to have been the right decision. Twenty-four ETs raining down could be called bad publicity... NASA has introduced their ``ETs for free'' deal, but there are a few caveats to it. First, each request must explain how a tank's orbit is to be controlled. Second, the organization placing the bid must be judged to be stable, i.e., unlikely to suddenly fold. In almost all other cases, this would be a case of fattening the aerospace oligopoly at the expense of the young, lean and mean. In this instance, however, it's reasonable. I don't know how much (if any) of an ET would actually reach the surface if it were allowed to decay from orbit, but it would be impolitic to bombard the Middle East with American space junk. -- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1989 14:31-EST From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: ISEECO please call home.... ISEECO: One of our people here at Pittsburgh L5 may have access to some unused green house space in a year or so. If you are interested contact Frank Kopriver at 412-466-0990 and tell him I told you to call. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #281 *******************