Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 05:01:34 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #127 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 20 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers Commercial Space Early Warning of missiles and meteo (2 msgs) EJASA Back Issues Now Available via Anonymous FTP Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and... GPS Info ... NASA SETI Private space ventures Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Saturn dreams Soyuz as ACRV Space Digest V15 #122 Space probe information Space Station SPS feasibility / Astrophysical Engineering SPS feasibility and other space development statistical significance superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other space development) To anyone who is interested in science 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: 19 Aug 92 18:08:26 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug19.152732.3835@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? >And wait how many years for MM to develop a comparable system? *Time* No need to wait since they developed their system along with Douglas. We can insure that both are available if we buy from both providers. >critical missions go on the first *available* transport, Since we also sign long term contracts with both parties for maybe one launch each this isn't a problem. BTW, Martin's commercial Titan buisness says they can make money on one launch per year. >There is no market for *two* >HL systems today, only Fred, and a possible return to the Moon. Winner >takes all. Since I am allocating costs in quanity one I can decide to buy from whomever is out there or give contracts to both parties. Since both companies use their existing MLV production facilities to build both the MLV and HLV both can respond quickly. compared to Shuttle costs, there is enough money to provide for several HLVs. 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?" | +----------------------247 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 92 21:25:32 From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Commercial Space Newsgroups: sci.space dann cutter writes: >Could anybody out there please tell me the current status of the >private space industry world wide. What comapnies exist... what >they have done... thanks Listing individual companies is a bit difficult, since there are several thousands of them. For a general overview, from Commercial Space News #15 , which I posted a month or so ago... 1- COMMERCIAL SPACE BUSINESS INDICATORS UP The annual issue of "Space Business Indicators" published by the Department of Commerce's Office of Space Commerce is about to be released. As compiled from the Office of Business Statistics, the U.S. Commercial Space Industry saw another record year of space sales, and is expected to reach about $5 B in sales in 1992. A summary of the results are: (est.) 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- Commercial Satellites 550 900 1000 1300 1100 Satellite Services 600 750 800 1200 1500 Fixed Services (600) (700) (735) (1115) (1350) Mobile Services ( 0) ( 50) ( 65) ( 85) ( 150) Satellite Ground Equip 600 790 860 1350 1700 Fixed (600) (690) (715) (970) (1200) Mobile ( 0) (100) (145) (380) ( 500) Commercial Launches 0 150 570 380 500 Remote Sensing 90 115 140 170 200 ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== Annual Sales ($M) 1840 2705 3370 4400 5000 To summarize what is included in these groupings: Commercial Satellites - sales of satellites to foreign and non- governmental entities. For example, sales of communications satellites to foreign and commercial customers. Satellite Services - the sale of satellite provided services to customers, including broadcast TV, telecommunications, data and navigation services. Examples of this include TV broadcasts and vehicle tracking services. Fixed services are those to fixed ground sites, such as TV broadcast to home receivers or cable services. Mobile services are sales of satellite service to non-fixed ground sites, such as air-to-ground phone service, ship-to-shore telecommunications, and vehicle tracking. Satellite ground equipment - the sale of satellite ground receiving and transmitting equipment. Examples of this include satellite dishes, mobile communications suites, and navigation boxes. An example of fixed ground equipment is a satellite dish for home satellite TV reception. An examples of mobile satellites ground equipment would be a hand held GPS navigation reciever. Commercial launches - sales of launch vehicles to foreign or commercial customers to launch satellites. This also includes "commercial launch service contracts" to the US government, which are based upon a commercial firm launching the satellite rather than the more typical government practise of procuring a satellite launcher and operating it under government control. Remote Sensing - includes the sale of directly derived Earth observation data by U.S. firms. This is essentially sales of Landsat data through the EOSAT corporation. [Commentary: I could spend the rest of this column discussing the contents of these statistics, but to save bandwidth I will just point out this data represents a average annual growth rate of over 25 % for space-related commercial products and services. A simple extrapolation of the historical data shown above indicates there is still a large up-side to this market. From the perspective of an individual investor in the space market, this data indicates there is are substantial market opportunities in the satellite business. It is also interesting to note that about 90% of this market is driven by satellite communications products of some type. While remote sensing data sales have been growing at over 20% per year, these sales only comprise about $200 M per year. Furthermore, most of the attention paid to commercial space activities seems to be directed at the launch systems segment, which really is a very small part of the commercial activity (about 10%). There's a lot more going on, and I will try to focus more on those other areas in future articles.] ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Maximus 2.00 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 18:09:42 GMT From: dearnsha@wizard.worldbank.org Subject: Early Warning of missiles and meteo Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1469100010@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman writes: > >To: sci.space From: Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org) Re: >Meteoroid Detection Date: 18 Aug 1992 > > [... deleted...] > >Also, over-the-horizon radars are irrelevant to this discussion. >They do not have anything like the sensitivity required to see a >meteoroid against the backscatter of the Earth's surface. > >+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+ >| Mark W. Goodman | What a terrible thing it is | >| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind. | >| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu | | >+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+ > > Bzzzt. Wrong. OTH radars are very sensitive, and are usually located in areas with very low noise floors - they have to be to resolve very weak returns (via a path which exhibits high attenuation), and detect small objects, such as aeroplanes, at very long ranges! As a meteor entering the atmosphere causes ionisation, the "target" is twice as close as a regular target (ie, half way along the propagation path), and will have a much larger doppler shift than an aeroplane (or missile for that matter). The main drawback is that it only detects meteors than enter the atmosphere on the radar's boresight. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 15:41:55 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Early Warning of missiles and meteo Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1469100010@igc.apc.org> mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman) writes: > >Meteoroids also travel faster than ballistic missiles -- tens of >km/sec compared to up to 7 for missiles, at least until they get >vey low in the atmosphere and are below the radar fan -- so >theradar won't have as much time to look. The United States has a >PAVE PAWS radar in Georgia for warning of SLBM attack, which I >think had a good chance of seeing a meteoroid off Daytona Beach. The system at Warner Robbins AFB has only been activated at full power *one* time. The effects at the (then) SAC flight line were such that the system hasn't been turned on since. Can you say boondoggle? I knew you could. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:58:40 GMT From: Larry Klaes Subject: EJASA Back Issues Now Available via Anonymous FTP Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc Back issues of the Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (EJASA), which is posted each month on the sci.astro, sci.space, sci.space.news, and sci.misc USENET newsgroups, are now available via anonymous FTP at: chara.gsu.edu The Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (EJASA) is published monthly by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic, Incorporated. The ASA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of amateur and professional astronomy and space exploration, as well as the social and educational needs of its members. ASA membership application is open to all with an interest in astronomy and space exploration. Members receive the Journal of the ASA (hardcopy sent through United States Mail - Not a duplicate of this Electronic Journal) and the Astronomical League's REFLECTOR magazine. Members may also purchase discount subscriptions to ASTRONOMY and SKY & TELESCOPE magazines. For information on membership, you may contact the Society at any of the following addresses: Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (ASA) c/o Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) Georgia State University (GSU) Atlanta, Georgia 30303 U.S.A. asa@chara.gsu.edu ASA BBS: (404) 564-9623, 300/1200/2400 Baud. or telephone the Society Recording at (404) 264-0451 to leave your address and/or receive the latest Society news. ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS - Article submissions to the EJASA on astronomy and space exploration are most welcome. Please send your on-line articles in ASCII format to Larry Klaes, EJASA Editor, at the following net addresses or the above Society addresses: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net You may also use the above addresses for EJASA back issue requests, letters to the editor, and ASA membership information. When sending your article submissions, please be certain to include either a network or regular mail address where you can be reached, a telephone number, and a brief biographical sketch. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 15:18:42 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and... Newsgroups: sci.space In article <16qgt2INN2gn@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: >In article <1992Aug17.154937.24078@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>Indeed. If we follow the plan of using Soyuz and HL Deltas, the Shuttle >>fleet is *gone*. That's Sherzer's plan anyway. With this plan 3/4 of the >>Shuttle fleet is available for other work than servicing Fred. Now if >>your plan includes operating the full Shuttle fleet in *addition* >>to Soyuz at the station, then *never mind*. Expensive though. > >3/4 of the shuttle fleet will not be available for non-station duties. >Since the long duration flights screw up the shuttle turnaround, >you only get about half the previously-available flights. Is that >worth it? Maybe. In a sense Shuttle is priceless. It can do some things that no other vehicle currently available, or in the pipeline, can do. We have to make a value decision on whether those things are worth doing at the price. I think some of them are. >Soyuz prices might well go up. They won't likely go past (installed >on a US Vehicle, inclusive of integration exclusive of vehicle) >$30 million per Soyuz. Even at $30 million, total vehicle cost >is only $80 million on an Atlas. If the price stays low for >a while, we're looking at my quote of $65 million. > >Satisfied? Yeah. Using Soyuz for ACRV *is* a cheap way to get the capability now. It may even *remain* a cheap way to get the capability by the time we need it. But we are depending on a very unstable situation for what could be a critical mission requirement. I'd feel a lot better if they could be manufactured here under license as a *second* source. Even at the higher price, it's cheaper than developing an entirely new vehicle. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 92 21:27:38 From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: GPS Info ... Newsgroups: sci.space Jeff Bytof states: >I have just read the famous 76-page brochure on GPS put out by >Trimble Navigation. It hardly qualifies as a manual or technical >documentation. When I call Trimble Navigation for information, they >give me the phone number of a guy that won't be back for two weeks. >According to the brochure, US taxpayers are "investing over $12 >billion" on the system. I would think there would be at least an >address I could write to for a good bibliography on the system >without having to go through some company that makes it money >keeping public information away from the public. Rather than asking someone else do your research for you, why don't you try a good local library. Since Trimble is only in the business of providing receivers and user-specific applications hardware and software, I don't think they need to provide random callers with technical specs on GPS. From your net address (rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu), I am assuming you are near UCSD, which has an excellent technical library. I'll bet you money you could find 50 or more references in 15 minutes by looking in any of the following ... - IAF abstracts - STAR (scientific and technical abstracts report) - AIAA abstracts - NTIS data base (National Technical Information System) - Aerospace data base. All of the above are available in hard copy (except for the last) at just about any significant technical library. All are available on CD-ROM, or on-line. And they'll give you just about anything you want to know from spacecraft constellation specifics and design, to full technical specifications for any part of the system. And if you still don't want to do any of the (minimal) legwork, ask the reference librarian at the library what would be the easiest way... She/he is paid to help answer questions like this -- but she/he doesn't know exactly what questions you want answered. Sorry Jeff, but I'm in a rotten mood tonight. I've just read through about 50 K of useless drivel, posturing, and meaningless speculation. Your question can be answered simply, and I'm surprized no one else has recommended you just look up the data in any of the standard data bases. If you really want to go the horse's mouth, call the GPS Joint Program Office (GPS JPO) at Air Force Space and Missiles Command in El Segundo, California. But all they'll do is reference to some of the reports and papers you'll find in the above data bases. -------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Maximus 2.00 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 20:59:07 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: NASA SETI Newsgroups: sci.space Is NASA's Microwave Observing Project still dead in Congress or have they managed to revive it? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 14:43:27 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Private space ventures I'm afraid you are a bit out of date on Astrotech. Willard Rockwell's efforts peaked just prior to the Challenger, at which point efforts to commercialize the shuttle collapsed. The venture was backed privately by the Rockwell fortune in Pittsburgh. Willard, having led Rockwell Corp through the years during which the shuttle was built wanted to fly one commercial. He was the sort of billionaire who dreams great dreams. All my interactions with him left me thoroughly impressed with him as a person, a manager and a dreamer. He is one of us. And he puts money where is mouth is. He also donated money for many space education projects as well. Just prior to the Challenger tragedy the company president, E. Doug Ward had told me they could cut the cost of a shuttle launch by 50% on the day they took it over. In hindsite I realize that even at 50% it would still have required massive subsidies to run it on a commercial basis because it is still, to this day, essentially an X plane masquerading as "DC3 of space" (yes that phrase was used). Astrotech was diversifying at the time and looking towards a complete vertical integration of space operations. They bought a materials and electronics company; they built the first commercial Payload Processing Facility at Cape Canevaral (Astrotech Space Operation Inc); they were attempting to buy a shuttle or to act as the fleet marketing agent; they were looking at building upper stages in joint venture with MacDac or one of the others; they were studying small co-orbital SPSS platforms to generate and beam energy to Fred or other platforms in need of high power. I could go on. The last I heard before leaving Pittsburgh was that they were going into other business lines. ASO was sold off and is still operating at the Cape. That may be where you heard of them since I believe they still bear the name "Astrotech". As far as I know everything else was shelved. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 17:44:27 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > There > is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability. Sure, I believe you. I'm curious to know: what is the demonstrated need? How is it demonstrated? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 21:44:44 GMT From: Brett Vansteenwyk Subject: Saturn dreams Newsgroups: sci.space >No if you had looked at my posts you would have seen a progression of >launch vehicles starting with one in the Titan V class and progressing >upward toward and surpassing the Saturn V of the sixties capability. There >is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability. I started with the single >engine F1A engined bird as a justification for restarting the line, as was >done for the Delta and Atlas programs at Rockewll after Challenger. The two >engine version would use two F1A's with a Lox/H2 upper stage (as would the >one engine verison) to double the payload to orbit without major retooling >of the manufacturing jig for the tanks and external skins. This would >put us up in the real Heavy lift league (110,000 to orbit) for only an >incremental cost, in the spirit of Allen Sherzier. Then as the need generated >the opportunity the second phase would be implemented which would build a >new jig for the larger diameter tanks on the first stage & second stage for >a three engine version with 180,000 to orbit. Then the same incremental >philosophy would hold for stretching the tanks and adding engines till the >full up Saturn V configuration could be reached with only incremental costs. > >That is the reason that is backed up by the same market dynamics that Allen >pursues. My only argument with Allen is that the HL Delta and Atlas is >fundamentally limited to his next step. The path that I propose begins with >Allen's next step and goes upward from there as the need and political >will develops. > >Thats all for now folks >Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville One more possibility for expanding the market for such a vehicle--is it possible to use the first stage of the single engine version as an LRB? Vague memory tells me that you can re-design the Shuttle ET to accept 3 boosters without inordinate costs. However you feel about the Shuttle, it may be a way of getting more money. I would suppose that these boosters would then be useful on other designs, even on a future Saturn class booster, let alone on a Titan system. --Brett Van Steenwyk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:09:49 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Soyuz as ACRV Newsgroups: sci.space In article jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes: >mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov writes >> Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a >> possible water landing. We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia >> to land in like the Russians. > >Uhhh, this may be stupid, but why not just land on the steppes of >Asia, or any other flat land surface that happens to be within reach >when an emergency hits? It's not like the capsule would be reused, >nor need we worry about the Russians getting their hands on new >technology :-) Heck, they'd probably appreciate the return of their >raw materials. > >Jonathan H. The problem is, you'll be re-entering from low-inclination orbits. Most of the Asian steppe is north of the 40th parallel. Check a map to see how much land-vs-water you have between the 30N and 30S parallels. The Russians launch into high inclination orbits because they start at high latitude. The US takes advantage of having low-latitude facilities to get more payload into orbit at low inclinations. -- ||)) Dump the Whatizit! Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))| ||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))| ||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))| ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:05:06 EDT From: WALTER SHERRILL Subject: Space Digest V15 #122 I am very interested on the subject of GPS. Global Positioning Systems will have many benefits now and in the future. I assume GPS operates through the use of Geosychronous orbiting satellites which relay a signal containing the satellite's latitral and longitudinal position to a receiver on earth. The uses of this system in the military are promising. I think that this system would be of use to anyone who wants to know their exact location through the use of Geosynchrounous Satellite Triangulation. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 92 22:08:40 GMT From: Tucson Al Subject: Space probe information Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Does anyone out there know of a simple routine to compute the launch angle and speed for a space probe, once the routine is given the current positions of the launch and destination planets? Gravitational effects should be taken into account. Where is such a thing located, if no one has it online? This is for my research project to graduate with a B.S. in Computer Science. -Doug geiger@niktow.cs.canisius.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:50:26 EDT From: WALTER SHERRILL Subject: Space Station I connected to NASA's spacelink database and requested addtional information about the Spacestation Freedom program. NASA somehow sent me a document containing Spacestation Freedom stats, pictures, management graphics, and mission plans. I would recommend requesting one from them. Here's the address: Spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 17:33:02 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: SPS feasibility / Astrophysical Engineering Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1548@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes: >gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>Numbers could be 2X either way. That's still a near *planetary* body >>we're talking about plating with solar cells in any case. That's so >>unreal I'm surprised *anyone* would seriously consider it. > >I'm working on a book that discusses DISMANTLING planetary bodies >(and rebuilding them more to our liking, sigh - all that wasted >mass inside planets doing nothing more useful than holding >atmospheres down, sheesh what poor design). > >(1) The energy required to dismantle a planet is 0.6Mgr, where >M is the mass, g is the surface gravity, and r is the radius. > >(2) If we calculate the amount of solar energy falling on a >planetary body, and relate it to the disassembly energy, we can >derive a natural time constant: how long will it take to dismantle >a planet using the sunlight falling on an area the size of the >planet? > (0.8)d.r^2 / F(e) where d is density, r is radius, F(e) is energy flux in units/unit area/time. I was looking for the result to be independent of radius, but it was not to be.....The Earth would take 22 times as long as the Moon, in case there are any Vogon wannabe's listening. -- ||)) Dump the Whatizit! Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))| ||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))| ||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))| ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 17:25:12 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development Newsgroups: sci.space In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > As for quasi-religious; why are you so hung up on that phrase? Does it > have some special meaning for you? My religion or lack thereof does not > enter in to this discussion. Yes - it means faith prevailing over reason. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 20:53:48 GMT From: "R. Kym Horsell" Subject: statistical significance Newsgroups: sci.space Apropos of something is was yammering about a week ago the following is reposted here -- without the permission of the authors :-) -- from another newsgroup. I'm afraid I don't know Jerry, but Herman Rubin is at least a mathematician with statistical leanings. ;-) -kym === From: jerry@ginger.hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal) Newsgroups: sci.math.stat Subject: Message-ID: <1992Aug19.123601.304@ginger.hnrc.tufts.edu> Date: 19 Aug 92 17:35:58 GMT References: <1992Aug18.152355.16237@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <57241@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University Lines: 13 In article <57241@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > As for statistical significance, neither I nor anyone else has been able > to come up with any good reason to use it; it is a leftover from the time > when it was misinterpreted. I agree whole-heartedly. The real problem is that many people have come up with good *ways* to *mis*use it, from requiring statistical significance as a prerequisite for publication to concentrating on statistical significance while ignoring practical significance. I see no quick way out of these traps, although things seem to be improving ever so slightly over the long haul. (Like the hour hand on the clock, you don't see it move, but it moves.) === ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 18:35:11 GMT From: Alan Carter Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other space development) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: |> > P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or |> > may not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes |> > faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of |> > what two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and |> > others are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it |> > severely strains the notion of causality... |> > |> Now all we have to do is find a pair of superstrings. Details, |> details.... :-) I thought the density variations of matter suggested by the COBE data are very early quantum phenomena, and not at all like what would be nucleated (if that is the word) by superstrings or textures looping around and producing statistically different kinds of density variations, and this had done great damage to the case for the existance of superstrings. Perhaps it is not causality that is the problem, but the heuristic that 'anything not forbidden is compulsory'. That is, we live in a universe where if only we had a superstring or two, FTL travel would be allowed by the physics, but as no-one can make a superstring in this epoch, FTL remains in an elsewhere of physics, allowed but inaccessable. Or might 'redundant' physics be like causality, not necessarily real, but to do with how human minds interpret reality. I'm half joking, but I'm half not, too. Alan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls. Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 11:13:16 +0400 From: "Naumenko M.V." Subject: To anyone who is interested in science Newsgroups: sci.space We apply to everybody who is interested in future Russian science; who would like to assist it to integrate in the World science society. We need information about Foundations and other organizations those are interested in attraction russian science organizations into a science research but also about conditions of participation russian scientists in this projects. Besides we would like to know about questions of finance. We hope on establishment of interaction and development of international cooperation. Best regards. M. Naumenko ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 127 ------------------------------