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 ; Fri, 28 Apr 89 05:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 28 Apr 89 05:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #399 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 399 Today's Topics: U.S. launches most ambitious space science period (Forwarded) Re: U.S. launches most ambitious space science period (Forwarded) Re: RE: SETI: Where and when to look Re: ET contact Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO! Re: RE: SETI: Where and when to look Colonization problems Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded) Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO! Re: manned spaceflight funding ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Apr 89 21:59:27 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: U.S. launches most ambitious space science period (Forwarded) [No flames about the lofty language in this one, please. :-) -PEY] Graciela Iguina Headquarters, Washington, D.C. April 26, 1989 RELEASE: 89-63 U.S. LAUNCHES MOST AMBITIOUS SPACE SCIENCE PERIOD America's planetary exploration program, which almost became an "also ran," will reassume world leadership with the launch of the Magellan spacecraft to Venus, the head of NASA's space science program said today. Dr. Lennard A. Fisk said the Magellan launch on Friday will mark the beginning of a "new golden age of space science" with 36 major missions in the next 5 years. "If we are smart, we will use these missions to conduct the biggest and the most public science and engineering lesson ever for the youth of this nation." "There is no task more important for a government than to instill in its people the conviction that the future will be brighter than the present," Fisk said. While conceding that there are national defense and poverty problems in this country, Fisk stated that funds have been committed for these activities and that "somewhere among these expenditures that are based on fear and on injustice, there also should be expenditures based on hope for a brighter tomorrow." Fisk said that the United States is again the leader in planetary exploration and "we are determined that never again will this leadership be allowed to pass from us." Two days from now, the Shuttle Atlantis will lift off from Kennedy Space Center, carrying the Magellan space probe destined for Venus. "The Magellan mission alone will return more data than all previous planetary mission combined." Fisk made these and other points: o Magellan will map the surface of Venus with a radar that has 10 times the resolution of any previous U.S. or Soviet mission. Magellan will cover 90 percent of the planet as opposed to only 25 percent by the last Soviet mission and should answer the fundamental question of why Venus -- which is so similar to the Earth in size and location -- is so different. o NASA will complete the Hubble Space Telescope, the Gamma Ray Observatory, the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility and the Space Infrared Astrophysics Facility. These four great observatories, spanning the electromagnetic spectrum from infrared to gamma rays, possess resolution and sensitivity never before possible in astronomy. o The Cosmic Backround Explorer this summer will probe the backround radiation left over from the birth of the universe -- the big bang. o The Astro Spacelab mission, next year, will make definitive measurements of the recent supernova -- the closest observable supernova in 400 years. o Ulysses will examine the poles of the sun, the Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite will study the Earth's atmosphere, Mars Observer exploration will follow in 1992 and Galileo will explore Jupiter and its moons in 1996. o The Earth Observing System (EOS) will study our planet from the polar platforms of Space Station Freedom, making continuous and comprehensive measurements of the Earth and what humans are doing to it. EOS "will serve as a basis for sound policy decisions to protect the future of our planet...a graphic demonstration of American technology in space serving the peoples of the world." "We need to appreciate," Fisk said, "that with all these activities and plans, we are sending a simple but very powerful message -- that we are a nation that believes in its future." ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 89 22:58:14 GMT From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Subject: Re: U.S. launches most ambitious space science period (Forwarded) yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) <24514@ames.arc.nasa.gov> : -[No flames about the lofty language in this one, please. :-) -PEY] At least we can get SOMEthing aloft! :-) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 89 20:34:34 GMT From: amdahl!bnrmtv!miket@apple.com (Michael Thompson) Subject: Re: RE: SETI: Where and when to look From article <8904241950.AA09264@ti.com>, by pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (c, it's not just a good idea, it's the law): > hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!oreilly@hplabs.hp.com write: >>Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time >>coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other. Let's look at > > The other alternative would be some sort of man made event. My office mate > suggests blowing up the sun, but I think that as a little drastic. The > only real requirements would be that it is detectable at some extreme distance > (25,000 ltyrs?) and obviously artificial. Making the sun nova would fit > this, but what could we do within current (or near term) technology? I > still like my nucleat flare gun, but suspect it a little short on the range. > > Comments? This is a great idea, and I would like to do my part to make > it better (or is it tear it to shreds? :-) ) > Dillon Pyron | The opinions are mine, the facts How about taking our nuclear stock pile (Both US and USSR) and putting them in orbit about the sun. They could be spread equally around the orbit of Jupiter and exploded sequentially in an order that would indicate intelligence. The aliens would see this, hopefully have the technology to detect a planet the size of Jupiter and then turn their radio telescopes towards our solar system to find a strong transmitter of Radio Frequency radiation which is the Earth. We probably need a bigger firecracker than a 100MT nuclear bomb to attract attention though. How about creating hundreds of tons of anti-matter and throwing it into the sun. Now that should make a nice display for several light-years around. Hey, you asked for comments so don't blame me :-). Mike Thompson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 18:06:19 EDT 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: ET contact >From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU >Subject: ET exposure >> "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of >> citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14, >> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted >> 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing). The Code >I hereby publicly and solemnly swear that I will break this law if ever >given the opportunity. Furthurmore I will make any and all information so >gained fully public regardless of personal consequences. You'd probably be doing what the people who proposed the law had in mind. It's probably not intended to discourage such contact (it was not publicized, so most civilians wouldn't know about it). Once contact has been made, it gives the authorities justification to grab you, pump you for information, and make sure you haven't picked up any diseases. It's a way to "automatically enlist" anyone who becomes involved. Of course, if you ask them, they have to *say* "we don't want you to do it". John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 89 19:04:44 GMT From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO! No, actually "fire" is the NASA code-word for "Elvis". Now you know. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 89 19:14:27 GMT From: mcvax!hp4nl!botter!ark.cs.vu.nl!fjvwing@uunet.uu.net (Wingerde van FJ) Subject: Re: RE: SETI: Where and when to look In article <5313@bnrmtv.UUCP> miket@bnrmtv.UUCP (Michael Thompson) writes: >From article <8904241950.AA09264@ti.com>, by pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com >> oreilly@hplabs.hp.com write: >>>Somehow, the two planets need to make a reasonable guess at space-time >>>coordinates at which to attempt contact with the other. Let's look at >>>(......) >> The other alternative would be some sort of man made event. My office mate >> suggests blowing up the sun, but I think that as a little drastic. The >> only real requirements would be that it is detectable at some extreme >> distance (25,000 ltyrs?) and obviously artificial. >> Dillon Pyron >How about taking our nuclear stock pile (Both US and USSR) and putting them >in orbit about the sun. They could be spread equally around the orbit >of Jupiter and exploded sequentially in >(more stuff about how to attract attention) >Hey, you asked for comments so don't blame me :-). >Mike Thompson Now ,I might be totally, inconcievably, way off here, but I remember reading somewhere about a plan to collect ,between two parabolic mirrors in space, some of the laserlight that some of the elements in the Martian atmosphere are supposed to emit as a result of being 'excited' by sunlight. Because the off the alignment of the mirrors , the light would be reflected between them until a nice beam was formed, which then would be 'shot' out into space because one off the mirrors would be only 99% reflective( somewhat like in a normal laser). The beam would be supposed to be visible from a couple o' hundred lightyears away. (Wouldn't like to be on the planet in it's path :-) I think this thread should further be pursued in misc.misc. But there is something else about the plan that makes me wonder: Suppose we create something like that, wouldn't the other intelligent life form just try to come up with some natural explanation and not start listening because it's (in their eyes) a natural phenomenon anyway? I know that we would .(Maybe those pulsars are beacons with atomic-clock accuracy after all)(smiley?)) FJ!! What Disclaimer? +---- ----+ / / I'll plead temporary insanity anyway. /__ / / / fjvwing@cs.vu.nl / <__/ o o ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 23:58 EST From: "Kevin N. Gunn" Subject: Colonization problems I am interested in learning more about the obstacles we face should we (humanity) decide to establish permanent extraterrestrial colonies. (I actually mean permanent, self-sufficient colonies.) One particular problem which interests me is the effects of low gravity of growth and development in organisms. I've heard that fetal development in zero (or micro) gravity results in abnormalities. Does this carry over to low gravity situations? Does the Moon have enough gravity for normal fetal development? What about plant development? Have any tests been run on any of these questions? I'm trying to pose this problem broadly in order to get general information about growth and development of plants and animals in low gravity environments, especially the Moon and Mars. Any input is appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 89 22:01:50 GMT From: ogccse!cvedc!nosun!fpssun.fps.com!celerity!dave@husc6.harvard.edu (Dave Smith) Subject: Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded) In article <24221@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >Barbara Selby >Headquarters, Washington, D.C. > >Jerry Berg >Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. > > >RELEASE: 89-57 > >NASA SELECTS CONTRACTOR TO DEVELOP ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR > You would think that we would have learned not to send people up on Roman candles by now. Is there a valid reason for designing a new set of solid boosters rather than replacing them with liquid fueled boosters? (Other than economics. I know NASA is cheap). David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave "Repent, Harlequin!," said the TickTock Man ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 89 01:03:24 GMT From: trantor.harris-atd.com!x102a!hnewstrom@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Harvey Newstrom) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Attacked by 200-foot UFO! In article <3174@kalliope.rice.edu> phil@Rice.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >In article <891@csed-55.IDA.ORG> roskos@ida.org (Eric Roskos) writes: >>The Daily Star rocked Europe by additionally reporting that a *ham radio >>operator* claims to have heard a shuttle astronaut say: "Houston, we >>have a `fire'" -- which is widely believed to be a NASA [term] for a >>UFO. > >It is ludicrous to believe that they would have established "fire" as a >code word for a UFO during shuttle operations. What if they really *had* >a fire on board? That is too dangerous a situation to confuse with a >"close encounter". If they said they had a fire, they probably did have a >fire.... > More rumor stuff... I was once told by a friend who worked on the apollo program that it is standard procedure to switch to security channels when an emergency situation comes up. This is to prevent the media from jumping on a situation before it is officially announced. Since they did not want to tip off the media that they were concealing a problem, the astronauts were told to make a brief statement about the problem, such as "we have a fire" and then maintain radio silence and wait for the ground crew to secure a channel. It was also stated that such a phrase could be used to request a secure channel even if there was no actual problem. I think this is probably where the rumor comes from. _____ Harvey Newstrom (hnewstrom@x102a.harris-atd.com) (uunet!x102a!hnewstrom) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Apr 89 17:28:41 EDT 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: manned spaceflight funding Two messages: >From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu (Henry Spencer) >Subject: manned spaceflight funding >There is considerable precedent, in other areas, for private funding of >science and exploration. Roald Amundsen had no government funding for >his trip to the South Pole. Fleischmann and Pons had no government funding >for their cold-fusion research.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU >The new breakthrough in fusion, if it pans out will be just one more >example of the way government fails to have the economic effects it >claims it will have. 30 years and untold billions (US billions, not >European billions) have been spent on big bureaucratic science and the >preservation of reputations and pet projects. And along come two guys >with a neat idea and their own money to create a fusion process people >will be able to build for high school science projects. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's tempting to regard the Fleischmann-Pons research as an example of private research with no "taint" of government spending, but I don't think the evidence supports this view. For one thing, the research is being carried out at a university, using university facilities. Universities that conduct technical research typically derive much of their funding directly or indirectly from the government. Fleischmann and Pons may owe largely to government spending the fact that they were able to pursue careers as academic researchers. In addition, recent news reports explicitly describe government funding for this research. An article in the New York Times (April 24, pp 1,B6) tells how they decided to attempt the experiment, and to put up $100000. It goes on to relate that by "last fall", they had started submitting grant applications to DOE. Another article in the April 26 issue (p A-16) states that they had $1.2 million in support from the Office of Naval Research, and that they hope to get an additional $25 million from the Federal government. (They also hope that later grants and investments by individuals and corporations will bring the total to $100 million.) For space exploration, I agree that it may be possible to get private funding for programs that promise a net return within ten years, or for relatively inexpensive programs that can serve as tax write-offs. However, any expensive programs with only long-term returns, or which return only "abstract" knowledge are unlikely to be funded by private industry in the US. A possible alternate funding method is for "charity programs" to be set up similar to the "Viking fund". John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #399 *******************