Date: Sun, 2 Aug 92 05:03:19 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #061 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 2 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 061 Today's Topics: Ariane V.52 Canadian comments ET's, life in space ETs and Radio (2 msgs) Food additive? (was Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)) Great NASA board, but having logon problems! Odds of Life Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.) ReEe: aA 12 mile tether that gernerates 5000v? Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 had problems docking with Mir station 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: 1 Aug 92 11:30:25 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Ariane V.52 Newsgroups: sci.space ARIANESPACE FLIGHT 52 The 52nd Ariane launch is to place the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite and two auxiliary payloads, KITSAT-A and S80/T, into a quasi-circular 66 degree inclined orbit using an Ariane 42P launch vehicle equipped with 2 solid strap-on boosters (PAPs). This will be the 2nd launch of an Ariane 4 in the 42P configuration. It will be launched from the Ariane launch complex ELA 2, in Kourou- French Guiana. The launch vehicle performance requirement is 2,661 kg (5,868 lb), of which 2,502 kg (5,517 lb) represent the satellite mass. The total vehicle mass at liftoff is 320,587 kg. Required Orbit Characteristics: Perigee Altitude ..... 1322 km Apogee Altitude ...... 1330 km Inclination .......... 66 degrees The Ariane 42P lift-off for Flight 52 is scheduled on Monday August 10, 1992, as soon as possible within the following launch window: Kourou Time GMT Washington, DC 20:08 - 20:53 23:08 - 23:53 19:08 - 19:53 Launch Vehicle: Ariane 42P. This is a three-stage liquid fueled launcher with solid fueled strap-on boosters. The first stage (L220) is built by Aerospatiale, and is powered by 4 liquid fueled Viking V engines. The second stage (L33) is built by MBB Erno and is powered by a single Viking IV engine. Both the Viking IV and V engines are manufactured by SEP. The first and second stages use a biliquid UH25/N2O4 fuel. The third stage (H10) is built by Aerospatiale, and is powered by a cryogenic LH2/LO2 fueled HM-7B engine built by SEP. The two strap-on boosters (PAP) are built by BPD and use a solid Flexadrine propellant. The fully assembled launch vehicle stands 55.2 meters high on the pad. It uses the Ariane Type 2 payload fairing. Flight Profile: +01:29 Solid strap-on booster jettison +03:24 First stage separation +03:48 Fairing jettison +05:35 Second stage separation +17:37 Third stage shutdown / orbit injection +19:29 TOPEX/POSEIDON separation +23:36 KITSAT-A and S80/T separation +27:46 End of Ariane mission 52 Payloads: TOPEX/POSEIDON is a cooperative program between NASA and CNES for studying the ocean surface topography. The satellite is built by FAIRCHILD SPACE under contract to NASA/JPL. For 3 to 5 years the altimeter payload will survey the ocean circulation on a global scale. Total mass at lift-off .... 2,402 kg Dry mass .................. 2,185 kg On-board power ............ 2,140 W (end of life) Solar panel span .......... 8.7 m Orbital altitude .......... 1336 km Instruments: NASA altimeter and CNES altimeter (POSEIDON) for measuring ocean surface topography by radar. TMR (TOPEX Microwave Radiometer) to measure atmospheric water vapor for correcting altimetric data. Three systems of orbit determination to give precision satellite position: LRA (Laser Reflective Array) GPS (Global Positioning System) DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radio positioning Integrated from Space) In-flight operations: Deployment of solar panels .... about 3 minutes after separation Deploy of high-gain antenna ... about 8 minutes after separation Deployment of GPS antenna ..... about 11 minutes after separation Transition from DSN to TDRSS communications ... 16 minutes after separation Beginning of high-gain TDRSS operations ....... 25 hours after separation Beginning of maneuver to operational orbit .... about 7 days after launch Auxiliary Payloads: KITSAT-A uses the UOSAT platform built at University of Surrey (U.K.) for the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. It will be used for store and forward communications and various experiments. Mass ...................... 50 kg On-board power ............ 21 W (end of life) Nominal lifetime .......... 5 years Satellite is 0.35 x 0.35m in size, with a 6m deployable mast Instruments: Two CCD cameras with 4 km and 400 m resolution Digital signal processing experiment Transponder for store and forward communications In-orbit radiation measurement experiment S80/T is built by MATRA MARCONI SPACE for CNES, also using a platform of the UOSAT type. It will be used to study use of the VHF band for mobile communications. Mass ...................... 50 kg On-board power ............ 26 W Nominal lifetime .......... 1 year Satellite is 0.35 x 0.35m in size, with a 6m deployable mast Payload: 1 transponder- 148-149.9 mhz reception 137-138.0 mhz transmission Launch coverage: All Ariane missions are broadcast live via satellite from Kourou. Coverage begins at 30 minutes before launch, and continues until all payloads have been deployed. NASA Select-TV will also broadcast this mission on F2/13. -{ Dean Adams }- ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 92 22:06:19 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: Canadian comments Newsgroups: sci.space In article dp10@mc4adm.UWaterloo.ca (Derek Kirkland) writes: >The whole idea that "foreigners" should not comment on internal US >politics is the most ridiculous statement I have heard in years. It is evident that Mr. Kirkland has not lived in Canada recently. Ridiculous statements are the principal product of the Canadian political establishment. I don't know how common this knowledge is, but many Canadian citizens are also US citizens. Even those who are Canadian residents may vote in US elections. To claim that *any* sentient individual who cares enough to comment on any matter discussed in a forum which is directed to him (and I receive only those which are directed to Canada) should not do so is absurd. Whether such a person is or is not a citizen should have no bearing on his or her entitlement to comment on a discussion he or she receives. If you don't want to hear from Canadians please direct your comments elsewhere; we probably won't miss them. Leigh Palmer ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 92 09:50:58 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: ET's, life in space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul31.134151.42561@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: |> You seem to have a hangup with this "non-trivial". If you stay with |> that you have a tautology. |> |> The whole point many people are making is that the difference between |> life and non-life (as we define it) is at somepoint where the |> "trivial" chemical replication becomes complex enough to be definable |> as your "non-trivial" replication. Gary, there *is* a significant difference. That is: trivially reproducing entities cannot undergo evolution by selection. Nontrivial ones (in which significant genetic differences exist, are propagated faithfully and affect behavior) can. Since evolution by selection is *the* mechanism by which life has become complex, you can't just wave your hands and say nonevolving entities became complex without specifying another mechanism that made this happen. BTW, one basic problem with any scheme for self replication is the high fidelity required to preserve a message. A mechanism with an error rate of just 1% will not allow the survival of a genome with more than about 100 bits of information. Cells today go to great lengths to error-correct their DNA; such mechanisms could not have been present at the beginning. Breaking this "error barrier" is a significant difficulty in any theory of biogenesis, and has not been solved, to my knowledge. |> Another point of interest. It has LONG been known that the ribosomes |> are from an ENTIRELY separate evolutionary strain. They don't even |> use the same genetic code. Eukaryotic cells are nothing but a |> symbiotic relationship between independant organisms. It is thought You mean mitochondria, of course. Ribosomes don't code for anything, and appear in all cells, not just eukaryotes. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 92 14:54:32 GMT From: James Davis Nicoll Subject: ETs and Radio Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >However, again I'd like to see references for the time scale. Animal >life based on oxygen has been extant and probably dominant for most of >the history of life on Earth, I believe. What took a long time was >the transition to vertebrates, not to oxygen. Superfically this doesn't >change the line of argument much, since intelligent invertebrates don't >seem very likely either. The important difference is that we're now >dealing with a transition whose timing doesn't seem to be constrained >by fundamentals of physics. > >>... One of the greatest unknowns >>is whether life bearing planets naturally evolve intelligent creatures, >>or whether that's a rare accident. We don't have any data to support >>either position very well. > >Agreed. It took a while for vertebrates to become intelligent here. >An unusually long while? An unusually short while? Open question. >However, note that it happened to some degree on three parallel lines >of development: apes, whales, and elephants. You have to really >stretch the point to claim that it's inordinately rare. Don't forget octopi, which are pretty bright *and* invertebrates to boot. James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 92 09:09:17 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: ETs and Radio Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul30.223424.9219@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: |> But you are still making a flawed assumption. The carbon chemistry of |> complex organic molecules *dictates* that they must react in such a |> way as to form self replicating structures. Once that happens, the |> self replicators quickly dominate all other processes. The only way |> you can view life as an accident is if you view the chemical laws |> as an accident. Given the laws of carbon chemistry, life *must* result |> when conditions meet certain criteria of temperature, pressure, precursors, |> and energetics. Given the intial conditions on Earth, life *had* to |> form. There was no way the chemical laws could be broken any more than |> light can travel faster than 300,000 m/s in vacuum. Gary, you're spouting nonsense. No one has demonstrated that life is an inevitable consequence of carbon chemistry, not requiring some very rare accident along the way. That life is likely in the right environment is a *working hypothesis* (without which origin-of-life research would be pretty pointless), but, absent observation of ET life or recreation of life in the lab by the same kind of processes, the hypothesis can't be regarded as confirmed. There are enough gaping holes in our understanding of biogenesis to make any conclusion inappropriate at this time. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1992 02:26:32 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Food additive? (was Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)) Newsgroups: sci.space higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >In article , rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin) writes: >> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >> >> |BTW, Antimatter should also be rather stable at low temperatures. >> |Some of the positrons should boil off and be annihilated, leaving the >> |rest of the antimatter with a net negative charge. This should keep >> |electrons away, while keeping enough positrons bound to the set of >> |molecules to "screen" away protons and other positive nuclei... >> >> I'm beginning to think that this stuff is so stable that you could use >> it as a food additive. Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, where is the kaboom it >> gives. >Once I was in a bakery with another physicist. The display cases >incorporated mirrors. Right next to a pile of brownies was another >pile labeled "SEINWORB c55." >That's when we conceived our diet book: > THE AMAZING ANTIMATTER DIET: > Eat All You Want and *Still* Lose Weight! >Alas, we got busy with other projects and never got around to writing >it... >Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | "I'm gonna keep on writing >Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | songs until I write the song >Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | that makes the guys in >Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | Detroit who build the cars >SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | put tailfins on 'em again." > --John Prine My net access has been kinda chancy what with a wedding coming up and the phone lines acting funny and both modems in the house acting sick, but here goes: My sister wants to have her wedding at my parents house; we have some problems with the floors, wax buildup and a rubber rug mat that got bonded to the floor. After a couple hours with a commercial stripping machine, Dad and I were making jokes about "A little universal solvent will get that off" which quickly evolved into "A little antimatter will get that off"... -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 "There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message "57 channels and nothing on" - Bruce Springsteen ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 92 21:49:46 GMT From: Ryan Hartwich Subject: Great NASA board, but having logon problems! Newsgroups: sci.space There is a great board run by NASA that is accessible to all through telnet, it's address is Spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov I have had problems lately connecting to it, and if anyone knows of a way that I can locate a sysop account on that board to email to I would greatly appreciate it!!!, and if not, enjoy calling yourself... Please email replys to /-------------------------------------------------\ | \ /------\ | | ===========> | Ryan | send email to: | | / \------/ | | bt556@cleveland.freenet.edu | \-------------------------------------------------/ -- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 92 15:47:35 GMT From: David Knapp Subject: Odds of Life Newsgroups: sci.space In article David O Hunt writes: >IF (big if) one assumes that the probablilty of life arising on earth is >so small that it couldn't happen, then there are only 2 possiblities >for our existance: > >1) That life arrived from another place (accidentally or purposefully) Unnecessary, but perhaps possible. Amino acids have been found in meteorites. > >2) That "God" created us Unverifyable. We'll use Occam's razor on that one. (whack) > >About 1) - this only delays talk, as SOMEwhere down the line life had to >arise spontaneously...kinda like the "turtles all the way down [to what?]" >argument. Not that simple. Life doesn't need to form spontaneously. It can take a goodly amount of time for the things that life requires (like proteins etc.) to form. Take a look at the highly unique character of your surroundings. Nice, comfortable atmospheric pressure. Cozy low lattitude temperatures. Good tanning rays. *Lots* of water. It is *the* perfect environment for carbon based compounds to exist, namely, amino acids. Under lab simulations with atomic and fundamental sources for the consituents of life (N2, CO2, H2O etc.) and a source to stir it all up (UV, Lightning) amino acids can form *spontaneously*. After that, things get messy, buty the point is, the unique conditions over the long time period here, *favored* the formation of life. >About 2) - If we assume that the odds are impossibly small for life to >have arisen anywhere, then this proves "God's" existence. Oh, boy, we can call *anything* a proof, right? Have you ever discussed evolution with a christian fundamentalist? Ask them how they explain fossil records. "God put them there to trick us." Well, anything goes. >But wait! We've proven something that can't be proven. And so God >vanishes in a puff of logic (with apologies to D. Adams). Proof, schmoof. >Ergo, we aren't alive at all! :P Hey, "Cogito ergo sum." Don't know about you ,though. :-o > > > >David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a >Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and >Carnegie Mellon University | <<>> | Jewish homeland! >============================================================================ >Email: dh4j@cmu.edu Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper" > >Cthulhu for President! Stop voting for the lesser evil! -- David Knapp University of Colorado, Boulder Highly Opinionated, Aging and knapp@spot.colorado.edu Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics. Write me for an argument on your favorite subject. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 92 13:10:34 GMT From: Ronald Florence Subject: Phobos & Deimos Uncertainty Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Tyler Brown writes: There appears to be no clear consensus on the meaning of "Deimos"!!! Also, several posters gave varying translations for "Phobos"!!! Curiouser and curiouser... All anyone can agree on is that they are named after a bad emotion... My favorite combo would be "fear and loathing"...;-) This discussion reminds me of the story of the elementary school class that finishes a morning period on democracy, voting, and majority rule, then turns to their afternoon science period. The teacher brings in a rabbit and asks the class, "Is this a boy rabbit or a girl rabbit?" No one answers. "How do we find out the sex of the rabbit?" the teacher asks. The students, remembering the morning lesson, shout "Vote!" -- Ronald Florence ron@mlfarm.com ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 92 02:13:04 GMT From: "John A. Weeks III" Subject: Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics In kays@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com: > I heard a rumor the congress is considering canceling NASP, SSTO and a few While driving into the parking lot at the USAF Museum in Dayton on Monday, I saw an X-30 mock-up departing Wright-Patterson AFB on the back of a semi-truck. It was painted white and blue with red trim. Since the plane was about 40 feet long, I suspect that it was a 1/3 scale mock-up. There is a Soviet Space exhibit on display at the USAF Museum. They have a few space suits, models, several back-up spacecraft, and a one person space capsule that actually flew in space. The exhibit will be there for the rest of the summer. It is in the Modern Flight Gallery next to the XB-70 (they moved the SR-71 to the annex, and the B-58 was also moved to make room for the space exhibit). The Valkarie is having some type of problem. Workers installed a large support pole under the Valkarie behind the cockpit and in front of the front landing gear. The skin is also buckled in that area. It looks like the nose section is sagging, and the support was installed to keep it from breaking further. -john- -- ============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org Newave Communications, Ltd. ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 92 03:43:26 GMT From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson Subject: ReEe: aA 12 mile tether that gernerates 5000v? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul31.054058.15957@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu writes: >The 5000 volts are induced by the Earth's magnetic field as the spacecraft >orbits. The same principle in using magnets to enduce a voltage when you >pass a magnet through a coil of wire. I can see that this will work, though it's practicality may be limited as it would start to slow down the shuttle if any serious power could be drawn. Could be modified to form a magnetic vacuum drag 'chute I suppose! Andy. +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Haveland-Robinson Associates | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk | | Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex | ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk | | CM9 8UH England. 0621-88756 | Also: 081-800 1708 081-802 4502 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:25:09 GMT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 had problems docking with Mir station Newsgroups: sci.space Radio Moscow has revealed that a problem occured during the July 29th docking of the Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 mission to the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) Mir space station. Cosmonauts Anatoli Solovyov, Sergei Avdeyev and "spationaut" Michel Tognini were starting the approach to Mir when the Kurs autodocking system failed. Kurs (course in English) consists of a radar antenna on the Soyuz, which does not require active transponders on board the Mir complex. Kurs makes initial contact with the space station some 200 Km (125 miles) away, but begins to maneuver the Soyuz 20 - 30 Km from MIr. Kurs was introduced with the Soyuz TM-1 in 1986, but the older system which requires more active action by the station was retained as a backup. A couple of years ago they also discussed experiments with a laser docking system. All that the report stated was that a backup system was employed for the docking, not which one was used. However, it should be noted that the Progress M-13 also had docking problems during a July 2nd attempt, and required a delayed docking until July 4th. Other reports stated that the work slated for Solovyov and Avdeyev over the next few months would involve some of the most complex space walks the CIS has ever attempted, starting with a detailed inspection of the 14 metre tower built on the Kvant module in 1991. July 31 saw the start of a extensive set of biomedical tests on Mir using equipment supplied by the French. These are checking for changes in the cosmonauts immune system due to space flight. Having both long term cosmonauts Alexander Viktorenko and Alexander Kaleri (up for 5 months) to compare with the new crew should give some interesting results. Glenn Chapman School Eng. Science Simon Fraser U. Burnaby, B.C., Canada glennc@cs.sfu.ca ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 92 00:53:53 GMT From: Charles Scripter Subject: Whales (SETI) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9207251435.AA15413@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > Whales clearly lack some of the intellectual capabilities of humans (for > instance, humans don't appear to be prone to mass beachings). I thought this happened every spring in Florida.... ;-) ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Scripter * cescript@phy.mtu.edu Dept of Physics * Michigan Technological University * Houghton, MI 49931 * ------------------------------------------------------------------- With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 061 ------------------------------