Message-ID: <wcNhj=G00WBwI=sk4R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 01:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #704

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 704

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Why would I stick a face on Mars...
		    Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise
		 Re: The Space Station Nobody Wanted
			   Re: NASA Budget
		  Re: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go
			  Sun Spot naked eye
			   Re: NASA Budget
	      NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle
			  Re: Microgravity?

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 7 Jun 91 00:56:47 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlf3.gvl.unisys.com!tredysvr!cellar!revpk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Subject: Re: Why would I stick a face on Mars...

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:

> In article <1991Jun4.185703.19747@swbatl.sbc.com> jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com (Jim
> >...there is a special
> >part of your brain that is dedicated to doing nothing but recognize
> >faces.  Anything that has 2 "eyes", 1 "mouth" and is round will
> >be recognized as such.  Really...if someone wanted to send us a
> >message why didnt they just encode it in symbology like we did
> >on voyager.
> 
> Because we're much better at recognizing faces...
> 
> What would you have?  An objective scale of facialness constructed with
> a probability metric assigned for natural formations, in order to prove
> that this is worthy of attention?
> 
> The point is: you've made no falsifiable assertion to this object's nature.
> Merely saying it's random is irresponsible: you need to provided an objective
> means by which one can determine this, such as what I've described above.
> 
> In fact, I will bet you that ANY neural net successfully trained to distingui
> a face from a non face out of a large and sufficiently complete corpus of tes
> cases with more than 99% accuracy will, when applied to the photo of the
> formation on Mars, classify that as a human face with more than 99% probabili
> 
> There. I've just provided a falsifiable test.  You haven't.
> 
> As a general principle in my development of language independent software,
> I make it a point to make the interface as non symbolic and visual as possibl
> because humans are so much more adept at seeing images than reading (which
> has to be trained in school even).
> 
> If I wanted to communicate with aliens, even to tell them how to bootstrap
> my language, I'd have to use imagery (assuming they process images too),
> since it is the most error-tolerant and efficient means of communication
> we have.
> 
> In Hungary, foreign students are taught Hungarian from a text written complet
> in Hungarian.  The bootstrapping technique used is so efficient as to make th
> nation the most adept in whole area second language accquisition.  The first
> few pages are virtually all images.
> 
> As you yourself said, an image will attract attention much quicker than a
> sequence of symbols.

        I may be mistaken in this, but are you making the case that the Face 
was placed there to be easily recognizable by another race? And that your 
work in software that relies on image recognition has given you enough 
insight into this matter?

        I agree with your statements about how people repsond to images and 
the like, but the 'falsifiable test' you propsed is certainly no proof that 
the Face on Mars was 'designed' to be a face.

        I agree with you that not only would most people recognize it as a 
face, but a computer analysis of the image would also classify it as a face. 
Everyone agrees that, in the famous photo, it does look like a face.

        But what I'd be testing for is this' if something looks like a face, 
does this mean that a face was designed into it?

        I think it would amke far more sense to provide subjects with a 
series of patterns, some of which have faces 'designed' into them, and others 
which are truly random... and ask people if they see any faces. I expect that 
one would find a high correlation among the random images of where 'faces' 
could be seen. If people are recognizing faces in verifiably random patterns, 
then our seeing a 'face' on Mars doesn't constitute proof for design.

        However, if I was mistaken in your position on the Face, the above is 
pretty much moot.


======================================================================
Brian Siano, aka      [ "Mr. A. Hitler, the old Nazi thing, says      
                      [ Mickey's silly. Imagine that! Well, Mickey is 
Rev. Philosopher-King [ going to save Mr. A. Hitler from drowning or  
                      [ something some day. Just wait and see if he   
 revpk@cellar.UUCP    [ doesn't. Then won't Mr. A. Hitler be ashamed!"
                      [ -- Walt Disney, 1933.                         
======================================================================

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 15:26:40 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!kcarroll@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise

In article <43279@fmsrl7.UUCP> wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes:
>I'm disappointed that you can't come up with better objections.
>Much more to the point would be "Where are you going to get 15
>million metric tons of graphite whisker?"  That's a much more
>difficult question, because we don't know how to make the stuff
>in quantity yet.  I'm assuming that this will be done, soon,
>because the market for high-strength fibers is large and
>growing, and the state of the art is progressing rapidly.

I looked into this awhile ago, when my company was
thinking of getting into space materials processing
as part of Canada's space station user development program.
As far as I could tell, there has been >no< significant
progress in the art of growing graphite whiskers
since (checking my files...) Roger Bacon of the National Carbon Research
Laboratories (part of Union Carbide) developed his process
in the late '50's. This technique involves "forming a direct current arc
in an inert gas under a pressure in the vicinity of 90 atmospheres,
which is 10 atm. above the triple point of graphite (using graphite
electrodes -KAC). As the positive electrode is consumed, the vapor
deposits on a lower block and builds up a boule several inches
long. The whiskers are found imbedded in this boule and are
extracted simply by breaking the boule open. A large crop of
whiskers appears protruding from each broken surface.
They have diameters ranging from about 0.5 to over 5 microns,
and lengths up to 3 cm."
(quote from Roger Bacon in one of his papers)

This approach doesn't appear attractive as a starting-point for
a large-scale production process. I spent some months looking into
possible alternate techniques for making this whiskers (principlally
as a reinforcing phase of a whisker/metal composite, by eutectic solidification
under microgravity), with little success. I'd be >>extremely<<
interested in any information on alternate graphite-whisker growth
techniques that are known to any readers of this message.
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 22:57:58 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!nereid!white@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (H. Peter White)
Subject: Re: The Space Station Nobody Wanted




Just wondering, has NASA or any of the partners say anything to the effect:

	These are the type of experiments that we wish to do over 
	the next XXX days/months/years in the area of ???? science
	and/or engineering.

Such things as the Hubble had a purpose and a time frame to work on that 
purpose. When the shuttle started, it had a definite purpose. In the area of 
the station, I heard more about how bad it would be for somethings, and nothing
about what it would be good for other than a possible (but not probable) site 
for working on interplanetary vehicles, and a place to practise fixing space 
stations. 

So basically, was there ever a set mission or purpose to work towards in 
building Fred, or were there only the wishy washy possiblities?

 H. Peter White			" Whoever undertakes to set himself
 white@nereid.sal.ists.ca	  up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
 fs300367@yusol.bitnet    	  is shipwrecked by the laughter of
 665-5448 (SAL/ISTS)		  the Gods. "        - Albert Einstein

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 11:45:21 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!iago.caltech.edu!carl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lydick, Carl)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <1991Jun6.014730.8610@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain) writes...
>The American Geophysical Union recognizes that passage of this
>amendment would do serious damage to future space science programs and
>urge all to phone their congressional representatives and urge that
>this amendment be defeated. Instead, they support the originally
>passed budget of the Appropriations Committee.

The time to have taken such action was when space station Freedom was first
proposed or at least before we got commitments from foreign governments to work
with the project.  To renege on our commitment at this time could well endanger
chances to have foreign governments participate in U.S.-directed research.  I
think we ought to go ahead with Fred, but learn from our mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick	HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL	Internet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 16:33:58 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go

In article <m0jlKVO-0000N8C@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>When someone who is receiving tax dollars lobbies Congress to give them 
>more tax dollars, a positive feedback system is created that ultimately 
>undermines democracy itself.  When they actually FLY INTO WASHINGTON,
>hang out in hotels, take Congressmen/staffers out to dinner or whatever, 
>they should be thrown in jail.

This doesn't make sense.  Are you saying it should be illegal to talk 
to Congressmen outside of a formal panel hearing?  Or that it should be 
illegal for a government organization to ask for a larger budget?

>Since we appear unwilling to throw the rascals in jail as they should 
>be, the least we can do is provide free travel expenses to taxpaying
>citizens with a countervailing point of view.

Government is not some kind of a formalized debating society, as you seem
to think it is.  There is absolutely no obligation for the government to
fly some random (exactly how do you determine who the lucky person is who
gets to go to Washington, anyway?) person in to lobby.  Lobbying isn't
defined anywhere legally.  If you want to lobby, fine, but you have to do it
on your own money.  NASA has to use its own money...

>Democracy:  Easy come, easy go.

Yeah, yeah...everything's a threat to democracy.  If you don't like something,
go vote your congressman out of office and tell him why.

Btw, I think this was posted last month...can we be a little more prompt?

-- 
Matthew DeLuca                   
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 16:51:19 GMT
From: haven.umd.edu!wam.umd.edu!bunge@louie.udel.edu  (Robert David Bunge)
Subject: Sun Spot naked eye


For all those who have bought filters to view the upcoming eclipse, 
you might notice that a large sunspot can currently be seen
with the naked eye (and filter, of course).  I'm guessing that
is the region that is responiable for the recent (and upcoming?)
auroral.

Bob Bunge
bunge@wam.umd.edu

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 23:25:00 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!isi.edu!cew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <1991Jun6.014730.8610@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain) writes:
>The following information was received from my congressman's`
>legislative correspondent this afternoon:
>
>	SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPMAN/LOWERY AMENDMENT
>...
>
>The American Geophysical Union recognizes that passage of this
>amendment would do serious damage to future space science programs and
>urge all to phone their congressional representatives and urge that
>this amendment be defeated. Instead, they support the originally
>passed budget of the Appropriations Committee.

With all due respect, the AGU is wrong and is playing the role of a patsy for
non-space special interests.  The remotely-manned space program will suffer
greatly if the hands-on manned program suffers and, understand this clearly,
if the current space station is killed, the manned program could be set back
a generation.

The budget agreement with the pro-space congressmen and the White House is
that 20% of the NASA budget goes to remotely-manned programs.  Does the AGU
want 20% $15 billion or $13 billion?  Be fully aware that, with a decline in
the manned programs, the 20% slice will be remembered by the convenient memory
of Bob Traxler and the programs the AGU seems to hold so dear will be next.
This is the old "divide-and-conquer" tactic.

With no manned program, where will the AGU look for allies in next year's
budget war?  Doesn't the AGU realize that alliances and coalitions are what
keep tobacco price supports going year-to-year (and corn and sugar and...)?
How long would the AGU stand if AARP decided its pet programs needed money
from space projects?  Not long.  What of foreign aid for Israel?  What of the
budget for welfare bureaucrats?  How many B-2s are really needed and where
should those funds go?  What of this-and-that military base?  The lesson here
is that there are lots of places to find funding and it takes coalitions to
win.

Get the picture?  What the AGU is asking for is to have one of its natural
political allies killed.  Not smart.

It's after 4 o'clock here on the west coast so the vote has probably already
been won or lost.  I don't know how the vote went but I do know that many,
perhaps too many, space supporters think that because they have a certain
expertise in a field of the sciences, they are equally expertise in the a
field of the humanities.  This gives the luddites and the earth-bound a great
advantage.

Sigh.
-- 
Craig E. Ward <cew@venera.isi.edu> 	Slogan:	"nemo me impune lacessit"
USPS:	USC/Information Sciences Institute
	4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1200
	Marina del Rey, CA 90292

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 20:47:18 GMT
From: udecc.engr.udayton.edu!blackbird.afit.af.mil!tkelso@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (TS Kelso)
Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins:  Space Shuttle


The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times
weekly.  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, or 2400 baud using 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

STS 40     
1 21399U 91 40  A 91156.82974537  .00104438  00000-0  25599-3 0    45
2 21399  39.0041 331.5023 0015220 350.4298 156.6830 15.94744764    56
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil          Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 07:16:34 GMT
From: fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com!ROCKY@uunet.uu.net  (John Richard Bruni)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

>> A 710-meter shaft set deep into the Earth forms the centerpiece of a
>> new microgravity experimentation facility which will open in July.
 
>I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?
>The formula I recall would have the gravitational force there approximately
> .9999 g.
>Drop something down the hole?

Of course.  It is simple.  A *BLACK* hole with sufficient mass to balance
out the earth's gravity should be dropped into the hole at the proper point.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #704
*******************