Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 05:03:34 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #052 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 30 Jul 92 Volume 15 : Issue 052 Today's Topics: Answers to PLANES of the ecliptic question Biogenesis (was: ETs and Radio) Calendar and Zodiac Calendar and Zodiak ETs and Radio Space Calendar Star Trek Realism (3 msgs) Testers for Astronomy Lab: NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS!!! Whales (SETI) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jul 92 01:45:08 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: Answers to PLANES of the ecliptic question Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner) writes: >Thanks to all who responded to my question about the solar >system's plane of ecliptic relative to the galaxies. Almost >everyone who responded agreed that the number was about >60 degress. The rest of the details were most consisely >summed up by the following to respondents. >Thanks agian to all who responded. >=steve= [...first reply and most of the second (from Bill Gawne, STSI) deleted...] >Roughly, its a 63 degree tilt. Yes, this changes as the sun orbits >the galactic center. The solar motion is not simply circular, it also >moves up and down thru the disk of the galaxy. Look at an introductory >astronomy book for the period of the sun's orbit about the GC. I am aware that the sun orbits the galactic center, and also oscillates about the center of the galactic plane. This has made me think, though, does the plane of the ecliptic precess? We have, on a planetary scale, the Earth rotational axis precessing every 26K years; does the plane of the solar system do thie also? What would we measure this precession against, in order to distinguish it from the revolution about the galactic center, and oscillation about the galactic plane? -- Shari L Brooks | slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil NAVSOC code NSOC323D | shari@caspar.nosc.mil NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013 | --> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 92 18:31:35 From: "Steven J. Edwards" Subject: Biogenesis (was: ETs and Radio) Newsgroups: sci.space In article rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes: # In <1992Jul29.162909.3574@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: # #> When you place hydrogen and oxygen together in a 2:1 ratio and provide #> an energy source, what happens? Blooey! Every time? Yes, every time. #> That's the way it is with life chemicals, there is nothing accidental #> about their combination. It's just basic organic chemistry at work. #> We have very good evidence that the primordial chemical mixtures of #> early planetary bodies contain the proper precursor compounds and #> elements in abundance. We know that solar UV and electrical discharges, #> lightning, will supply the necessary energy. We've done it in a test tube. #> We haven't yet made the step to the enclosed cell, but with 10^23 precursor #> molecules in every cubic meter, the combination is bound to occur. # # Yes, I realize that amino acids are bound to form under the appropriate # conditions. However, those amino acids are no more likely to # spontaneously assemble into a life form than 10^6 transistors placed in # a box and shuffled around are to assemble themselves into a working # computer. The current leading theory is that ribonucleic acids were the first step ont he biogenesis chain. A recent (early 1992.07) issue of _Science_ had a very convincing article about self assembly of replicating clusters of pure and nearly pure RNA molecules. It turns out that a regular ribosome (protein assembler) is still remarkably functional even when almost all of its structural amino acids are removed. Before this research, many scientists had a deep suspicion that nucleic acids, either DNA or RNA, got the ball started; now we have experimental evidence. Therefore, there is now no need to appeal to deep time and large reaction volumes for complex protein self assemblers and self replicators: the RNA molecules got there first. A suggested scenario: 1) Significant quantities of single or small chain amino acids form spontaneously, but no "wonder molecule" replicator is seen. 2) Ancestral variants of rRNA molecules form clusters spontaneously; these have partial replicative ability in varying degrees. Cluster replication is irregular and probably not too accurate as far as faithful duplication of the parent template. 3) Some rRNA clusters are capable of incorporating naturally formed amino acid chains. Some of these cases the amino acids enhance replicative fidelity and productivity; natural selective pressure begins due to limited supplies of spontaneously formed amino acids. 4) At some point an rRNA replicating cluster using amino acids becomes capable of partial synthesis of useful amino acids. This replicator gains a tremendous advantage over imperfect and less efficient replicators who must compete for the limited spontaneous amino acid production. 5) The protein making rRNA clusters become self sufficient and the first true ribosomes are the result. This is a good candidate for "first life". 6) Over long periods, lots of nifty developments occur: many different amino acids start to be used and are assembled in complex three dimensional shapes; these proteins have greater and more complicated electropotential surface features for greater variety; very primitive precursors to cells form as the natural result of polar molecules that can spontaneously form spheres; the membranes of these spheres become more complex and are used to mediate molecular and energy transport to the replicators within; RNA molecule families specialize in functions and now handle molecular transport (tRNA) along with information transport (mRNA precursors) as well as both RNA and amino acid synthesis; organelles form and become specialized; nucleated cells develop and the nucleus becomes the repository for the latest variant of RNA: deoxynucleic acid; DNA combined with replicating and transcribing enzymes starts along the path of today's DNA->DNA (replication) + DNA->mRNA->(tRNA + ribosome)->protein; the genetic code starts with a single base reader, then a two base reader, and finally today's three base reader (plenty of evidence for this as the first two codes can be recovered from the third). So there's none of this one chance in 10^1000 stuff. It could have happened that way, but it very probably didn't. Even if the probability of planets like Earth (comparable star, distance, mass, age, composition) is only one in 10^6 stars (a bit pessimistic), then there still may be 10^4 life bearing planets in the Milky Way. I think the two big problems are: 1) the estimation of the rise of tool using (radio capable) lifeforms, and 2) the average longevity of such species. Unless a signal of some sort is received by us, we will never know the real figures until we start interstellar travel. [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.] == Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. == == (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A == == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA == "That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 92 02:31:37 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: Calendar and Zodiac Newsgroups: sci.space -From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) -Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiac -Date: 29 Jul 92 20:10:07 GMT -Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept. -In article <9207291235.AA05080@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: ->In the British Empire, the month of September, 1752 lost 11 days (the day ->after September 2 was September 14). It was the renters who complained, ->because they had to pay a full month's rent. -OK. I've had it. Could someone in alt.folklore.urban please clear this up? -The way I've usually heard this is as a "rebuttal" to the notion of -superstitious peasants who felt that they lost 11 days out of their life -because of the calendar change; the explanation, you see, is that they were -upset about having to pay the extra 11 days rent, so they weren't acting on -superstition at all. -But even this seems rather suspicious to me. It implies a bit too much of a -lack of common sense on the part of landlords. Does anyone know if this is -what _really_ happened? I don't think it was lack of sense on the part of the landlords - I think it was part of the the legal decisions that brought about the change. By the way, the Orthodox church still uses the Julian calendar (in the US and Russia, anyway, and presumably elsewhere). I believe the skew is currently 14 days, and should remain so until AD 2100. Since the determination of the date of Easter is partly a function of the phase of the moon, the lag between the two observations of Easter is variable. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 92 17:32:28 GMT From: BakerRC Subject: Calendar and Zodiak Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul28.043346.21710@unocal.com>, stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes: > In article <1992Jul28.011553.19947@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu> ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings) writes: > >To make up the VERY small difference due to precession, as well > >as to adjust for the slowing of the Earth's rotation due to > >tidal drag of the oceans (caused by the moon's gravitation), > >from time to time they declare "leap-seconds" there was one > >this year. > >-- > > > Incorrect. Precession advances the year appoximately 20 minutes per year. > (24*60*365.2422)/26000. There are other influences- quakes, solar activity, > weather- that may cause the length of the year to vary one or two seconds > per year. Since we can measure the length of year to an accuracy of about > a microsecond (one part in 10E14), a second is a noticable effect. > Universal time based is based on atomic vibrations and independent of > astronomical irregularity. Also not quite right. Leap seconds are added to keep the DAY correct. Let's start from the beginning. We measure time in seconds. The second is now defined relative to cesium clocks, and was made to approximately equal the second as it was then (1950s?). However, since this [previous] second was defined in 1900, it approximately equals 1/86,400 of a mean solar day in 1900. Since then the day has been increasimg at a rate of (1 second/ year) per century. Since it has been about a century since the second was "defined", approximately 1 leap second a year is added to keep the day correct, ie the mean sun crosses the meridian at noon. If this was not done daytime would drift to the night hours. So now we have an accurate second, and a little more than 86,400 of them to make a mean solar day. Back to the original posters question, the calendar is based upon the tropical year, the time between successive vernal equinoxes (or other seasons). This is slightly different then the sidereal (star) year due to precession as mentioned by others. The calendar was developed to keep track of the seasons, not to keep track of how many times the earth revolves around the sun. Julius had a good approximation of 365.25 days, but by Pope Gregory's time the error had built up to 11 days, and the seasons were out of synch with tradition. Thus he took 11 days out of the calendar, and changed the rules to make the year more closely correct at 365.2425 days, subracting 3 leap days every 400 years (multiples of 100 are not leap years unless divisible by 400.) That was a decent approximation then, but now the tropical year is 365.2422 days and getting smaller (both due to the earth slowing down it's rotation and the earth getting closer to the sun). Thus the seasons stay in the same months because we make it that way, that's what the calendar is supposed to represent. Where the sun appears during those seasons, and thus the months representing them, drift to different constellations due to precession. Hope this helps Robin Radar Baker Let's get Henry fired for talking about American politics :.) :.) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 92 08:06:41 GMT From: russell wallace Subject: ETs and Radio Newsgroups: sci.space In henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes: >>However, one crystal is pretty much the same as another; none of them >>actually do anything (in the absence of humans to make use of them). >You've obviously never studied crystal properties. They can be complex >and strange. Incidentally, in some circumstances they can even display >a limited form of self-reproduction. *Trivial* self-reproduction. >>... You actually need something like a cell to have >>self-reproduction at all, where by "self-reproduction", I mean >>non-trivial self-reproduction, not things like crystal growth... >Sorry, this simply isn't true. Simple molecules in solution can reproduce >themselves, given favorable conditions. RNA, in particular, does this. >Not well, and not quickly, by itself... but it does do it. Again, if it is replicating by itself, it is performing *trivial* self-reproduction, because it is not carrying any genetic information. >>for non-trivial self-reproduction to occur, the following must be present: >>An information storage unit which stores information on how to build the >>organism. >>Some machinery to construct a new organism. >With sufficiently favorable conditions or sufficient patience, the machinery >need be little more than a supply of suitable raw materials. Don't confuse >a self-reproducing *system* with a self-reproducing *organism*; just because >you can't draw a line around it and say "this is where it ends and the rest >of the world begins" doesn't mean it's not a real system, capable of >both reproduction and evolution. >>In organic life forms, DNA is the blueprint, which is interpreted by the >>transcription process, and copied by splitting the strands and adding >>matching nucleotides to each. The enzymes are the machinery, and there >>is a cell membrane around the whole thing (which is needed, otherwise >>the enzymes will float away and be lost). >If circumstances are favorable, you don't need the cell membrane. There >is no fundamental problem with just having the blueprint and the machinery >floating free in solution, if it's concentrated enough (the proverbial >"small warm pond"). The cell membrane does confer a very important >advantage -- the benefits of better machinery are available only to the >blueprint that produced them, not to all blueprints at large -- but it >is not essential to the first stages. If the only machinery required is the stuff floating around all over the place (free amino acids etc.) then you have trivial self-reproduction which does not count, because even if RNA can replicate in this context, it is trivial self-reproduction because the RNA does not have or need any genetic information. -- "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 92 07:11:02 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Space Calendar Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro Here's the latest Space Calendar. If you know of any space-related events that should be included in the calendar, or see anything that is out-of-date, then let me know and I'll make the appropriate changes. Note that anniversaries are only done in five year increments. Launch dates are subject to change at any time. The following people made contributions to this month's calendar: o Erich Weber - 1993 Quadrantid Meteor Shower date o Steven Pietrobon - Ariane launch dates for Hispasat 1A, Galaxy 4, Galaxy 7, Eutelsat II-F5 and launch date for LEAP-3. ========================= SPACE CALENDAR July 29, 1992 ========================= * indicates change from last month's calendar July 1992 30 - Delta Aquarid Meteor Shower 31 - MSTI Scout Launch 31 - Consort 5 Starfire Launch *31 - STS-46, Atlantis, Tethered Satellite System (TSS) August 1992 04-07 - Galileo, Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-14) 06 - Galaxy 1R Launch 09 - Soyuz TM-14 Return to Earth 10 - TOPEX/Poseidon Ariane Launch 11-13 Perseid Meteor Shower 20 - Hipasat 1 Ariane Launch 20 - Optus B1 Long March Launch (China) 20 - GE Satcom C4 Delta Launch 20 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 2 Launch (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) 27 - 30th Anniversary, Mariner 2 Launch (Venus Flyby Mission) 27-31 - SEDS International Conference, Washington D.C. 28-05 - World Space Congress, Washington D.C. September 1992 *?? - Hispasat 1A Ariane Launch *?? - LEAP-3 OSC Aries Launch 05 - 15th Anniversary, Voyager 1 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission) 07 - Ulysses, 2nd Conjunction 08 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 5 Launch (Moon Soft Lander) *08 - Geotail, 1st Moon Flyby 11 - STS-47, Endeavour, SpaceLab Japan (SL-J) 14 - DFS-3/Kopernikus Delta Launch *14 - Magellan, Orbit Trim Maneuver, Cycle 4 Begins 16 - Mars Observer Titan III Launch 24 - Comet 1 Conestoga Launch 24 - SCD-1 Pegasus Launch October 1992 *?? - Galaxy 7 Ariane Launch ?? - 500th Anniversary of Columbus discovering America ?? - UFO Atlas Launch 01 - Mars Observer, 1st Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-1) 04 - 35th Anniversary, Sputnik Launch (1st Satellite ever) 05 - Progress Launch (Soviet) 09 - Draconid Meteor Shower 12 - SETI Scanning Begins 15 - STS-52, Columbia, Laser Geodynamics Satellite (LAGEOS-II) 15 - Freja Long March Launch (Sweden/China) 20 - Orionid Meteor Shower November 1992 *?? - Superbird A Ariane Launch *?? - Geotail, 2nd Moon Flyby 05 - STS-53, Discovery, Department of Defense (DOD) 07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 6 Launch (Moon Soft Lander) 09 - Taurid Meteor Shower 16 - Leonid Meteor Shower 25-27 Andromedid Meteor Shower December 1992 ?? - Pioneer Venus Burnup *?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch 08 - Galileo, Earth Flyby 08 - Asteroid 4179 Toutatis, Near Earth Flyby (.025 AU) 10 - Lunar Eclipse 13 - Geminid Meteor Shower 14 - 30th Anniversary, Mariner 2 Venus Flyby (1st Flyby of Another Planet) 15 - STS-54, Endeavour, TDRS-F 19 - 20 years since man has been to the Moon (Apollo 17) 22 - Ursid Meteor Shower 25 - Isaac Newton's 350th birthday (or January 4) January 1993 *?? - Eutelsat II F-5 Ariane Launch 03 - Mars Observer, High Gain Antenna Deployment *03-4 Quadrantid Meteor Shower 07 - Mars Observer, 2nd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-2) 07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 7 Launch (Moon Soft Lander) 27 - STS-55, Columbia, Spacelab Germany (SL-D2) February 1993 ?? - Hispasat 2 Ariane Launch 01 - 35th Anniversary, Explorer 1 Launch (1st U.S. Satellite) 06 - Astro-D Launch (US/Japan) 07 - Mars Observer, 3rd Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM-3) 15 - Advanced Photovoltaic Electronics Experiment (APEX) Pegasus Launch 18 - Jules Verne's 165th Birthday *19 - Copernicus' 520th Birthday 22 - STS-51, Discovery, Advanced Communications Technology Satellite(ACTS) March 1993 ?? - SPOT-C Launch ?? - Radcal Scout Launch 03 - Ulysses, 3rd Opposition 23 - STS-56, Endeavour, ATLAS-2 April 1993 06 - 20th Anniversary, Pioneer 11 Launch (Jupiter & Saturn Flyby Mission) 22 - STS-57, Atlantis, European Retrievable Carrier (EURECA-1R) May 1993 04 - Galileo Enters Asteroid Belt Again 15 - Magellan, End of Mission? June 1993 04 - Lunar Eclipse 14 - Sakigake, 2nd Earth Flyby (Japan) 22 - 15th Anniversary of Charon Discovery (Pluto's Moon) by Christy July 1993 *29 - NASA's 35th Birthday ###### ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | happen. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 92 16:33:46 GMT From: Michael Ott Subject: Star Trek Realism Newsgroups: sci.space In article wsj@wpd.sgi.com writes: >In article <1992Jul27.165309.106551@cs.cmu.edu>, 18084TM@msu.edu (tom) writes: > >Much as I enjoy Star Trek, this has always bugged me. Another thing >which bugs me is the way stars stream rapidly past the ship when they're >traveling within the same star system. AND the "whoosh" noise you hear >when they're showing the Enterprise (from the outside) cruising through >interstellar space. AND the way the shuttles bank and turn as if they're >airplanes. AND the fact that the Enterprise can accelerate at accelerations >which *must* be many multiples of one gravity, with no perceived acceleration >inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs. The last "complaint" can be argued away because when you do accelerate, you know you are going to do it, and can compensate with your artificial gravity devices, but phaser hits are less predictable, and aren't compensated for. Also, having Worf mentioning a phaser hit is rather dry compared to the entire bridge crew being thrown about. -michael Nope, I'm not speaking for Astronautics... ott%astroatc.uucp@cs.wisc.edu No really, I'm not. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 92 22:04:09 MST From: Rich Travsky Subject: Star Trek Realism Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul29.102344.1@max.u.washington.edu>, games@max.u.washington.edu writes: > Now, another problem, why do they all fall unconcious within about 2 minutes > of losing "LIFE SUPPORT"? > I think it would take much longer for the air to foul, heat to escape, etc., from a room in a large structure such as the Enterprise is supposed to be. How long would such a scenario take to come to pass in something like the shuttle or Soyuz? Richard Travsky Division of Information Technology RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU University of Wyoming (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668 No animals were harmed in the preparation of this post. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 05:02:24 GMT From: Kevin Hanna Subject: Star Trek Realism Newsgroups: sci.space 18084TM@msu.edu writes: > As long as we're on the Star-Trek vs. reality thread, here's a question > that used to come up before my housemate Doug said "Shut up and just watch > the show!": When the ship is streaming through space, stars moving past > at several per second, how is it that the ship is steadily lit from one > side? What is the source for this light? The light comes from the Enterprise's running lights reflecting off the hull of the observer's ship. Geez! :-) kevin khanna@rvgs.vak12ed.edu -- Kevin Hanna | "After a time, you may find that having is not so khanna@rvgs.vak12ed.edu | pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true." Spock to Stonn ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 92 23:10:18 GMT From: "James A. Hart" Subject: Testers for Astronomy Lab: NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS!!! Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu ebergman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Bergman-Terrell) writes: : : *** Beta Testers Needed for Windows 3.X Astronomy Program *** : : ************************************************************************* : * Sorry about the unreliable e-mail address. I have a new one that * : * should work: uunet!edoc9!erict * : ************************************************************************* : : I need people to text version 1.09 of Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X. : If you are interested, please send me an e-mail message containing the : following information: : : (If you've already sent me your information, see if your e-mail address : is in the list at the bottom of this posting) I'd be happy to try your program. Here's the statistics. Name: James A. Hart US Mail Address: 17017 Delia ave. Torrance, Ca. 90504 E-Mail Address: hart@etdesg.TRW.COM Version of MS-Windows: 3.1 Version of MS-DOS: MS 5.0 CPU: 80486 33mhz Math Coprocessor (not required): internal Memory: 20mb Graphics Card: Fahrenheit 1280 (@1024x768x256) Printer: HP laserjet III, Epson FX286 -- NAME: Jim Hart INTERNET: hart@donald.etdesg.TRW.COM HAM: N6JSS ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 92 02:35:27 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: Whales (SETI) Newsgroups: sci.space In article rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes: >Whales are _not_ intelligent in any significant sense of the word. If >they were, they could prove it in about 30 seconds, by any number of >means Why would they want to? Why would they care? I have seen a number of posts saying "If whales were intelligent, they would save themselves from whalers." This is silly and hypocritical coming from humans, who kill each other. Often. En masse. -- Shari L Brooks | slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil NAVSOC code NSOC323D | shari@caspar.nosc.mil NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013 | --> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 052 ------------------------------