Date: Sun, 9 Aug 92 05:01:02 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #088 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 9 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 088 Today's Topics: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v? Atlas and Soyuz Energiya's role in Space Station assem Fermi's Paradox Fountains of Paradise Looking for information on OSC/Pegasus mathematical models Mir Radiation Exposure Modified Tether physics (was Re: Physics of shuttle & tether) More second-hand info on TSS (2 msgs) Russian Comment on Soyuz vs Shuttle Seeding Mars with life Soyuz as ACRV (Posting of previous discussion data) Spacecraft contamination from exhaust plumes Whales and Dolphins 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: 8 Aug 92 21:50:40 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v? Newsgroups: sci.space In article windemut@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Andreas Windemuth) writes: >What has been thought or done about rotating tethers? ... Lots of thought. The ideas you mention aren't new. Distinct lack of doing, so far. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 21:06:00 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Atlas and Soyuz Newsgroups: sci.space In article Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: > In defense of Allen's numbers, he hasn't been quoting numbers for >the Atlas launcher... Sorry. I was taking it as close but acheivable based on the numbers I had (which you reporduce). I also believe there are several RL-10 and Centaur upgrades in the pipe which would reducr risk. >and any modifications desired to extend >Soyuz life beyond the current 180 days. None needed since we rotate vehicles every 90 days. >Not to >mention any other mods necessary to upgrade the unmanned Atlas to a >"man-rated configuration" - with increased mass TBD. No special steps are needed to man rate the Atlas. Its operational record shows it to be as safe as anything. > In my opinion, those masses will probably put the total mass over >the Atlas 7500 kg capability. > But it is close enough to be interesting. Could be. In that case, we go to the backup and use Titan II or III. I don't know if Titan II is up to the task but if it is, I don't think it will add any cost. If we go with Titan III, it will add $300 million per year but is still very worthwile since is will save billions. BTW, using Titan III will give plenty of extra power to add whatever is needed and still some. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------258 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 21:08:50 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5446@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >SSF is in 28.5 deg orbit because congress limited the number of >Shuttle flights, and NASA wants to squeeze as much mass as it can >into each Shuttle. But if you use Energia, mass isn't a problem anymore. The internal NASA report on using Energia has it up with four Energia and Shuttle flights; that leaves plenty for whatever you want. In addition, since you needn't worry nearly so much about mass, the cost and risk of the entire program goes down quite a bit. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------258 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 22:13:07 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Fermi's Paradox Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug07.222732.279421@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: > How fast do inter-stellar colonizers move? (No data) No data... but reaching 10-15% of the speed of light doesn't look impossibly hard. We'll be able to do that ourselves within a century or two. At that speed, the galaxy is only a million years across. > How soon did life-bearing conditions arrive, galaxy-wide? (Other galaxies?) You can probably write off the first billion or two years of the galaxy's life due to shortage of heavy elements. After that, it should be okay in the outer arms, where things aren't too noisy. The center is probably a fairly inhospitable place even today. > What are life-bearing conditions? (Water vs methane, C vs. Si, etc.) Water-carbon is the best bet. Silicon is actually not a viable substitute for carbon; it's just different enough that it does not form long chains. Orthodox organic chemistry works fine in liquid ammonia, with only the most minor changes. Drastic variants of it might work in liquid methane. You might be able to make a silicone (not silicon!) biochemistry work in liquid sulfur or something on that order; silicones are pretty unreactive at our temperatures, but get them seriously hot and they might be good enough. Quite possibly there are other possibilities we haven't noticed. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 23:06:47 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: Fountains of Paradise Newsgroups: sci.space -From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) -Subject: Physics of shuttle & tether (LONG) (was: Re: Two questions about ...) -Date: 7 Aug 92 20:40:29 GMT -Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics -The result is that things in orbit about one another, tend to want to -stretch along the axis between the things. This is the effect that -creates tides on the Earth (and Moon too!), aligns the LDEF experiment, -and (in an extreme and hypothetical case) would hold up the Space -Elevator[1]. -[1] as described in _The_Fountains_of_Paradise_, another one of Arthur -Clarke's self-important novels. -Craig DeForest: zowie@banneker.stanford.edu *or* craig@reed.bitnet During the in-orbit press conference yesterday, the Shuttle crew actually pulled out a hardcover copy of Fountains of Paradise that they had brought along, and waved it around. They related it to TSS, and commented that many of Clarke's ideas end up being real technology (like geosynchronous communications satellites). John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 19:05:57 GMT From: "Robert B. Sisk" Subject: Looking for information on OSC/Pegasus Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets In article <1992Aug8.164031.18834@panix.com> reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds) writes: >I would like to build a model of the OSC/Pegasus, but I have no scale >information. The sci.space FAQ doesn't really provide much >information. Can anyone give me the address or phone number for OSC >so that I can request some information? Does anyone know of a model >of the Pegasus? I recall that Monogram re-released their B-52 carrier >aircraft / X-15 model substituting a Pegasus for the X-15, but I >really don't want to build the B-52. Did Monogram ever release the >Pegasus as a separate kit the way they issued the desktop version of >the X-15? > >Thanks in advance. > >-- >Brian Reynolds >reynolds@panix.com >NAR# 54438 >IPMS# 30162 The new NCR Catalog list a scale model of the OSC Pegasus. The lenght of the model is 32", width 2.70", wingspan 14.25", and weight 16oz. Recommended motors F25-6, F50-6, G40-7, and G80-7. Bob -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert B. Sisk PhD Internet: rbs@virginia.edu NAR #53448 UUCP: uunet!virginia!rbs TRIPOLI #1583 CIS: 71501.1651@CompuServe.COM ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 92 00:31:03 GMT From: "R. Kym Horsell" Subject: mathematical models Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9208080254.AA27946@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >-There are thus no ``mathematical formulas for evaluation of >-the probability of a hypothesis''. Various statisticians will >-give me an argument. But they are wrong. :) > >Predicting a future event is different from evaluating the degree of >confidence that a given distribution model is correct. I don't know about >you, but if I had a coin that came up heads a million times in a row, I'd >be pretty dubious about the model that it's a fair coin. :-) In my example of something happening n times out of n I asked ``what is therefore the probability of that event happening again''. Very loose talk for -- come up with its probability. As I said, there is no formal method for doing so. (Or more exactly -- there are too many of them :). Certain probabilities just must be taken on faith -- the rest are calculated based on these. I'm afraid the same problem applies to making tests on distributions -- i.e. ``evaluating [its] degree of confidence''. Which also leads into the (in)famous ``inversion of the implication'' often performed in statistics: we know that ``if a then b'' does not imply ``if b then a'' although this is common (just watch TV)! Traditional statistics does somewhat the same ``if X has distribution D then parameter THETA will be Y'' does not mean ``if parameter THETA has value Y then X has distribution D''. As I understand it Jones sorted most of this out for QP. -kym ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 17:04:51 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Mir Radiation Exposure Newsgroups: sci.space Recently, there were questions about radiation exposure on Mir. Here's some numbers I've run across for radiation exposure on long duration missions on Salyut 7 and Mir. This kind of data is usually found translated in the periodical NASA CR-3922. Soyuz T-9 long duration mission / 149 days - Salyut 7 Launched : June 27, 1983, 1:12 P.M. Crew : Vladimir Lyakhov & Aleksandr Aleksandrov Reported were exposed to 1755 mrad radiation. Soyuz TM-4 Long Duration / 12 months - 3rd Main Mir Expedition Launched : Dec. 21, 1987, 2:18 P.M. Crew : Vladimir Titov & Musa Manarov The radiation environment over the entire flight was rated as calm. The total radiation exposure amounted to 12.2-14.0 rems or 7.6-8.7 rads. Soyuz TM-8 Long Duration / 5th Main Mir Expedition Launched : Sept. 8, 1989 1:38 AM Crew : Aleksandr Victorenko & Aleksandr Serebrov Between Sept. 29 and Oct. 24, four major solar flares. Mir's orbit, then at 387 * 407 km. and 51.6 inclination, is protected somewhat by the Earths magnetic field. On Sept. 29, during the worst of the flares, the cosmonauts experienced 600 mrem compared to the normal 15 to 40 mrem per day. Dangerous levels to health were considered to be 50 rem per day. If high levels of radiation were detected in orbit, the cosmonauts were told to enter the Kvant module for added protection which could lower exposure by about 2 to 3 times. The cosmonauts did go into Kvant as a precaution when Mir passed over the South Atlantic Anomaly where the Earths magnetic field weakens to allow increased radiation to penetrate to lower altitudes. This lasted from 6 to 12 minutes typicially. The Moscow Institute for Biomedical Problems has a Space Radiation Group or Radiation Safety Service checks solar activity and the threat to cosmonauts in space. It started service for the ASTP flight in 1976 and has operated ever since. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Product Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 19:03:00 GMT From: seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Modified Tether physics (was Re: Physics of shuttle & tether) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article , zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes... >kilian@cray.com (Alan Kilian) writes: Craig I don't mean this to flame, just explain tether dynamics from the folks who did the experiments. > 1) The shuttle is at one end of a conductive wire. The satellite is at > the other. If the wire moves through a magnetic field you can generate > an electric potential. Now how do you measure the potential? > They were hoping for 5000 Volts on a 12 Mile tether but got 40 Volts > on a 750 Feet tether. This is from the Tethers in Space Second Edition 3.4 Electrodynamics 3.4.1 General Electrodynamic tether systems can be designed to produce several useful effects by interacting with magnetic fields. They can be designed to produce either electrical power or thrust (either a propulsive thrust or a drag). They can also be designed to alternately produce electrical power and thrust. In addition, they can be designed to produce ULF/ELF/VLF electromagnetic signals in the upper atmosphere, and shape-stability for orbiting satellite constellations. 3.4.2 Electric Power Generators The discussion of electric power generation by tether systems will begin with electrodyncmic systems in LEO. Consider a vertical, gravity- gradient stabilized, insulated, conducting tether, which is terminated at both ends by plasma contactors. As the system orbits the Earth, it cuts ACROSS the geomagnetic field from west to east at about 8 km/s. An electromotive force (emf) is induced across the length of the tether. This emf is given by the equation: V = [integral sign] (v x B)[dot product] dl where V = induced emf across the tether length (volts). v = tether velocity relative to the geomagnetic field [vector quantity] (m/s) B = magnetic field strength (webers/m2), [vector quantity] dl = differential element of tether length-a vector pointing in the direction of positive current flow (m) For the special case where the tether is straight and perpendicular to the magnetic field lines everwhere along its length, the equation for the emf simplifies to: V = (v x B) dot product L; where L = tether length- a vector pointing in the directionof positive current flow (m) The equation for the induced emf across the tether in this special case can also be written as: V = L v B sin theta; where theta is the angle betwee v and B (from these equations it can be seen that equatorial and low-inclination orbits will produce the largest emfs, since the maximum emf is produced when the tether velocity and the magnetic field are PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER). The emf acts to crate a potential difference across the tether by making the upper end of the tether positive with respect to the lower end. In order to produce a current from this potential difference, the tether ends must make electrical contact with the Earth's Plasma environment Plasma contactors a the tether ends proved this contact, establishing a current loop (a so called "phantom loop") through through the tether, external plasma, and ionosphere. Although processes in the plasma and ionosphere are not clearly understood at this time, it is believed that the current path is like that shown in figure 3.19. > 2) Why does the ball (It's easier than satellite) keep moving away from > the shuttle as you unwind the tehter? > >This is a pretty cool effect, and it can be explained in two equivalent >ways. > >First, one can say that the ball, being at a different altitude than the >shuttle, `wants' to orbit with a different period, so will pull `ahead' >(if, as on this flight, it's lower than the shuttle), or `behind' of the >shuttle. The tether pulls it back against this tendency, so is kept taut. On TSS 1 the tether was deployed upward at an angle of 22 degrees from the vertical, The end mass is in a higher orbit than the shuttle so its velocity (but not orbital momentum) is lower than the shuttle. Since it is a two body system, the tether is constrained to the orbit of the shuttle and therefore the composite orbit of the system is at the center of mass of the system. This means that the Shuttle is orbiting in a slightly lower orbit than it should be and the endmass is orbiting in a much higher orbit than it should be based upon the actual orbital momentum of the objects taken individually. This ratio is exactly equal to the ratio of masses, which in this case is about 185/1. That means that for every 185 meters of deployment, the center of mass of the system shifts one meter AWAY from the CG of the orbiter. This is the primary source of the tension of the tethered system. >Alternatively (and perhaps better), the space around the shuttle is >subjected to a gravitational gradient. That is to say, the gravitational >field (due to the Earth) in the vicinity of the shuttle, changes with >altitude above the Earth. The ball, being closer (farther) to (from) the >earth than is the shuttle, is pulled more strongly (weakly) by the earth >than is the shuttle. > >The result is that things in orbit about one another, tend to want to >stretch along the axis between the things. This is the effect that >creates tides on the Earth (and Moon too!), aligns the LDEF experiment, >and (in an extreme and hypothetical case) would hold up the Space >Elevator[1]. > This gravity gradient force differential is on the order of magnitude of 1 X 10-7 g wheras the gradient due to the center of mass shift and momentum transfer is on the order of 1 X 10-5 g, a much greater force. [craigs stuff deleted] >There's one more effect we need to describe. That's the reason why the >conductive loop was *really* *large*, instead of just (more-or-less) >shuttle-sized. > >When a charged particle moves at right angles to a magnetic field, it >`feels' a force at right angles to the motion and to the field. The result >is that its motion (if there's no electric field) is circular. But *any* >motion can be resolved into a component at right angles to the field, and >one along the field. So any charged particle travelling through a magnetic >field (in the absence of collisions and electric field) will spiral around >the field lines themselves. > >If you stand far back and squint (ie you care only about really long >distances), this means that electrons travel *only* along magnetic field >lines. The only ways to conduct across the field lines involve a high >electric field, or collisions between charge carriers. So it's really easy >to conduct electricity along magnetic field lines and hard to conduct it >across them. The magnetic field lines act almost like wires! > >The conductive loop in the tether experiment consists of (a) the tether >between the shuttle and the ball; (b) the (REALLY LONG!) field line >extending from the shuttle to the nearest magnetic pole of the Earth; (c) >some small resistive elements between nearby field lines (which get really >close as you get closer to the poles); and (d) the field line extending >back to the ball from the magnetic pole. > >The ball is, well, a conductive ball, so it has a lot of surface area to >collect electrons from the surrounding space. > This explanation is wrong for the reasons stated in the equations above. The max emf is generated when you are traveling at right angles to the magnetic field in question not along it. The best orbit is one that is equatorial and very low to increase both v and B to their max values. > >[1] as described in _The_Fountains_of_Paradise_, another one of Arthur >Clarke's self-important novels. Reference here is the Tethers in Space Handbook -Second Edition- National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of Advanced Program Development, NASA HQ Code MD (now code DD) Washington, DC 20546 [Book produced under NASA contract # NASW-4341. Edward J Brazill, NASA HQ contract monitor. Also see NASA Conference Publication 2422 Applications of Tether in Space Workshop Proceedings Vols 1 and 2. [Proceedings of a workshop held in Venice, Italy, Octover 15-17, 1985] >Craig DeForest: zowie@banneker.stanford.edu *or* craig@reed.bitnet Hope this helps to clear the confusion up on tether power generation and this also gets me off the hook with Henry and Allan for the references I promised you guys about six months ago! Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 22:00:49 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: More second-hand info on TSS Newsgroups: sci.space In article cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) writes: >Running 12 miles of cable off a spool doesn't seem to be a particularly >difficult task, even in zero G. Why is it that we have another >over-engineered solution that has apparently failed? Is this really any >more difficult to engineer that an elaborate fishing reel? ... The first fishing reels didn't work very well either. The problem with a project like this is not solving any particular engineering problem, but *understanding which problems must be solved*. There really is no substitute for trying the thing out and finding out what breaks. The reason the solutions are over-engineered, at colossal cost, is all the people who cry "incompetents!" when something being tried for the very first time doesn't work. The natural response is to put more money and effort into trying to avoid failures. This cripples projects even when ample funding is available. Worse, it doesn't really help much. Progress requires setbacks. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 23:43:43 GMT From: "J. D. McDonald" Subject: More second-hand info on TSS Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) writes: >>Running 12 miles of cable off a spool doesn't seem to be a particularly >>difficult task, even in zero G. Why is it that we have another >>over-engineered solution that has apparently failed? Is this really any >>more difficult to engineer that an elaborate fishing reel? ... >The first fishing reels didn't work very well either. >The problem with a project like this is not solving any particular >engineering problem, but *understanding which problems must be solved*. >There really is no substitute for trying the thing out and finding out >what breaks. >The reason the solutions are over-engineered, at colossal cost, is all >the people who cry "incompetents!" when something being tried for the >very first time doesn't work. The natural response is to put more money >and effort into trying to avoid failures. This cripples projects even >when ample funding is available. Worse, it doesn't really help much. >Progress requires setbacks. >-- >There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry But how hard would it be to carry several spooling systems, and try them all? Doug McDonald ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 21:16:04 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Russian Comment on Soyuz vs Shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space In article Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: > According to the trade press, cosmonaut Anatoly Artsebarsky >stated at a press conference in Chicago last Tuesday, regarding the >Buran: > "We need it (Buran) to bring back (to Earth) materials and >experiments from the station... When using the Soyuz spaceship, we >have to abandon some experiments and materials due to its limited >(return) capability." But at what cost? The Shuttle is killing the entire program. We can't design a replacement because Shuttle operations costs are so high that is uses all the money which might go to a replacement. We won't go anywhere so long as we have this millstone around our necks. I think what he ment was that they needed the ability to return larger payloads. That doesn't mean it MUST be Buran. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------258 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 23:26:59 GMT From: Kenneth Tolman Subject: Seeding Mars with life Newsgroups: sci.space It appears that with today's technology an attempt to begin terraforming Mars could begin now. Terraforming Mars could be begun by flying in a landing craft which carried on board a diverse spectrum of biological entities. The biological entities would include: Bacteria which currently lives in the ice pack Genetically engineered bacteria for the conditions which exist on Mars Bacteria which lives in extreme conditions currently, such as from thermal vents, deep in rock strata The landing craft would not have to be too terribly sophisticated, but presumably would have some sort of MIRV like entry for multiple dispersion over a wide area (perhaps targeting specific temperate regions). The colonization bacteria would have ZERO competition for resources, and if any of it survived it would begin mutation and development. Presumably, aneorobic bacteria would be best to start, with plenty of photosynthesizers going along. At the very worst, this project would fail to implant life. At the worst of the best, life would exist elsewhere in our solar system even if it took billions of years to evolve further, and at the best of the best life could begin to raise the temperature and free up oxygen for eventual multi species colonization. What do you think? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 23:01:27 GMT From: "Paul J. Gravestock" Subject: Soyuz as ACRV (Posting of previous discussion data) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug06.105130.236241@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: >In other words he's a REAL engineer? Personally, I'd need to do the >shopping in at least a Busy Beaver DIY store in a major american >city... :-) :-) Either that or he's a member of the A-Team. B-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paul J. Gravestock | email: paulg@griffin.demon.co.uk Hertfordshire | pgravestock@cix.compulink.co.uk England | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 92 00:43:14 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Spacecraft contamination from exhaust plumes Newsgroups: sci.space > Henry Spencer writes: > Sorry, Dennis, that exhaust velocity is an *average*. There is always > some small fraction which emerges at much lower velocity. Hence the > well-known problems with plume contamination of things that are far away > from the exhaust nozzles. One of the nicest propellants for an ion engine is mercury - the ion mass is high and the energy needed for ionization is low. Unfortunately, a mercury ion engine ends up contaminating the space craft on which it is mounted. Mercury therefore is not used in most ion engine designs, which use xenon (very good, but very expensive) or argon (not so good, but not expensive). -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 92 19:35:56 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: Whales and Dolphins Newsgroups: sci.space -From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) -Subject: Re: Whales and Dolphins -Date: 6 Aug 92 20:47:31 GMT -Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA -In <9208040138.AA10420@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: ->Human search parties won't go out to rescue one person if the expected ->outcome is that several people *will* die in the attempt. (Unless it's ->the President or something.) -Nonsense. Look at the motto of the USAF pararescue: "That others -may live." How many times have you seen firefighters go into a burning -building on the evening news? -...Humans are -not rational animals, they are rationalizing animals. Reread what I posted. Humans take calculated risks, and sometimes there are mistakes in the calculations. Individuals are prone to miscalculation in the heat of the moment, which is why a rescue *party* (as I specified) really should have some form of organization or leadership, to make as accurate an assessment as possible with the available data, and to decide when the rescue should be abandoned because the danger is too great (in other words, the expected loss is greater than the expected gain). Those firemen don't go into the building expecting to die - they know they're taking a risk, but the risk is managed so that generally they survive. Whales that beach themselves entirely seldom if ever survive (though on the "R-rated Gory Animal Videos" series commercials on television, they show a killer whale getting its head out on the beach to chomp a sea lion). If whales have anything akin to human intelligence, and if they have a community that communicates and passes down lore, then they must realize that if they beach themselves, they're going to die, and they're not going to be able to do anything to help the one that's already stranded. If what the whales do is deliberate suicide, it's even less akin to normal human behavior. There are cases of extended human families all committing suicide because of the grief following the death of a family member, but that's extremely rare, while mass beachings appear to be comparatively common among some species of whales. Tell you what - find me some specific examples where a group of rescuers deliberately sacrificed themselves to save a much smaller group of people of no particular merit. ("We lost five firefighters, and the abandoned corset factory burned to the ground," the fire chief told the press, "but we rescued the wino who set the fire, and we're glad - we'd do it again in a minute. We're just lucky we didn't lose ten firefighters, like we had expected to before we went in.") That would fit in with your theory of rationalization, since it's in their interest to claim they made the best possible decision. -If you want further proof, look at the -amount of money NASA is planning to spend on a lifeboat, which probably -won't ever be used, for Space Station Freedom, and think about how -many lives that money could save if spent in other ways. A good point, in the general case. It's politically popular to maintain the illusion that there are infinite amounts of money and resources available to save people, and that money and resources mean nothing in comparison to human lives, but in fact if that were the case, society could not function. Money and resources are a result of human lifetimes of effort, and if you treat them as valueless, then you're still throwing away human lives, but in a more subtle fashion. People realize this in general, but they don't like to think or talk about it. This is what lawsuit lawyers thrive on - they maintain that even the slightest injury or inconvenience to one person is grounds for claims of many millions of dollars against anyone even peripherally connected to the injury or inconvenience. There's a tendency to think of these as isolated events, but the cumulative effect is to distort the US economy by hundreds of billions of dollars, to the general detriment of most of the public. I think the valuation that has been shown to be workable over the long run is something like $1-2 million dollars per human life put at risk. It might be argued that the level might be higher for humans who are highly selected and trained, and who are in a uniquely valuable position. So perhaps one might justify $10-20 million dollars per astronaut for rescue expenses, or an even larger amount for the publicity value of rescuing the astronauts. To be fair, throwing money at safety issues has some merits. Americans pay a lot of taxes for sophisticated military equipment, but they're also fairly unlikely to be drafted or to be killed in battle. But that's only thousands of dollars per person, not millions. ->Anyway, the discussion was whether whales have *intellect* comparable to ->humans, not *emotion*. -To be precise, the question was whether the fact that whales engage -in mass beachings proves they are not intelligent. (Somewhat analogous -to the question of whether the fact that millions of Americans smoke -cigarettes proves that they are not intelligent.) You've forgotten the subject of my earlier post. The initial discussion had been on indications of the intelligence of whales, then I introduced the topic of mass beachings as part of a specualtion on whether whales show emotion to a degree that it overrides whatever intellect to a degree greater than that typically shown by humans. ->Humans often have the intellectual capability to realize that the ->action most strongly prompted by emotion would defeat its own purpose ->if carried out. -If so, they very seldom use it. (At least, I seldom noticed it during -the two years I worked as an ambulance attendent. ;-) So - in keeping with your philosophy, when rushing to the aid of a person about to expire, was your ambulance invariably driven with the accelerator shoved to the floor, without regard to road or traffic conditions? And each of the first ten times the ambulance was wrecked, did the boss call the crew in, and say "you totalled your vehicle, injured yourselves, and the patient died before we could get another ambulance there, though he probably would have lived if you'd driven a little more slowly and carefully, but you did the human thing, and I'm proud of you"? :-) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 088 ------------------------------