Date: Fri, 9 Apr 93 05:48:29 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #443 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 9 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 443 Today's Topics: B*O*R*I*N*G Reading -The Hatch Act Bottled or manufactured? Indiana Pi (long) (was Re: Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint...)) NASA "Wraps" Prefab Space Station? Quaint US Archaisms ~ space food sticks Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle 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 Apr 1993 17:54 EST From: "David B. Mckissock" Subject: B*O*R*I*N*G Reading -The Hatch Act Newsgroups: sci.space For any bored sci.space reader who actually wants to wade through the Hatch-act rules ... The following is directly from Part 733 of the Code of Federal Regulations, on political activity of federal employees. I'll apologize up-front for the non- inclusive language of the code (i.e. "his agency", "identify him"). The first part deals with permissible activities, the second part prohibited activities. PART 733 - POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 733.111 PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES (a) All employees are free to engage in political activity to the widest extent consistent with the restrictions imposed by law and this subpart. Each employee retains the right to- (1) Register and vote in any election; (2) Express his opinion as an individual privately and publicly on political subjects and candidates; (3) Display a political picture, sticker, badge, or button; (4) Participate in the nonpartisan activities of a civic, community, social, labor, or professional organization, or of a similar organization; (5) Be a member of a political party or other political organization and participate in its activities to the extent consistent with law; (6) Attend a political convention, rally, fund- raising function; or other political gathering; (7) Sign a political petition as an individual; (8) Make a financial contribution to a political party or organization; (9) Take an active part, as an independent candidate, or in support of an independent candidate, in a partisan election covered by 733.124; (10)Take an active part, as a candidate or in support of a candidate, in a nonpartisan election; (11)Be politically active in connection with a question which is not specifically identified with a political party, such as a constitutional amendment, referendum, approval of a municipal ordinance or any other question or issue of a similar character; (12)Serve as an election judge or clerk, or in a similar position to perform nonpartisan duties as prescribed by State or local law; and (13) Otherwise participate fully in public affairs, except as prohibited by law, in a manner which does not materially compromise his efficiency or integrity as an employee or the neutrality, efficiency, or integrity of his agency. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not authorize an employee to engage in political activity in violation of law, while on duty, or while in a uniform that identifies him as an employee. The head of an agency may prohibit or limit the participation of an employee or class of employees of his agency in an activity permitted by paragraph (a) of this section, if participation in the activity would interfere with the efficient performance of official duties, or create a conflict or apparent conflict of interests. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES 733.121 Use of Official Authority; prohibition An employee may not use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. 733.122 Political management and political campaigning; prohibitions. (a) An employee may not take an active part in political management or in a political campaign, except as permitted by this subpart. (b) Activities prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section include but are not limited to -- (1) Serving as an officer of a political party, a member of a National, State, or local committee of a political party, an officer or member of a committee of a partisan political club, or being a candidate for any of these positions; (2) Organizing or reorganizing a political party organization or political club; (3) Directly or indirectly soliciting, receiving, collecting, handling, disbursing, or accounting for assessments, contributions, or other funds for a partisan political purpose; (4) Organizing, selling tickets to, promoting, or actively participating in a fund-raising activity of a candidate in a partisan election or of a political party, or political club; (5) Taking an active part in managing the political campaign of a candidate for public office in a partisan election or a candidate for political party office; (6) Becoming a candidate for, or campaigning for, an elective public office in a partisan election; (7) Soliciting votes in support of or in opposition to a candidate for public office in a partisan election or a candidate for political party office; (8) Acting as recorder, watcher, challenger, or similar officer at the poll on behalf of a political party or a candidate in a partisan election; (9) Driving voters to the polls on behalf of a political party or a candidate in a partisan election; (10) Endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office in a partisan election or a candidate for political party office in a political advertisement, a broadcast, campaign, literature, or similar material; (11) Serving as a delegate, alternative, or proxy to a political party convention; (12) Addressing a convention, caucus, rally, or similar gathering of a political party in support of or in opposition to a partisan candidate for public office or political party office; (13) Initiating or circulating a partisan nominating petition; (14) Soliciting, collecting, or receiving a contribution at or in the Federal workplace from any employee for any political party, political fund, or other partisan recipient; (15) Paying a contribution at or in the Federal workplace to any employee who is the employer or employing authority of the person making the contribution for any political party, political fund, or other partisan recipient; and (16) Soliciting, paying, collecting, or receiving a contribution at or in the Federal workplace from any employee for any political party, political fund, or other partisan recipient. 733.123 Prohibited activity; exception of certain employees. (a) Sections 733.121 and 733.122 do not apply to an employee of an educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by the District of Columbia or by a recognized religious, philanthropic, or cultural organization. (b) Section 733.122 does not apply to -- (1) An individual exempted under section 7324(d) of title 5, United States Code; (2) An employee of The Alaska Railroad who resides in a municipality on the line of the railroad in respect to political activities involving that municipality; (3) Subject to the conditions of 733.124, an employee who resides in a municipality or other political subdivision designated by OPM under that section; or (4) An employee who works on an irregular or occasional basis, on the days that he performs no services. 733.124 Political management and political campaigning; exception of certain elections. (a) Section 733.122 does not prohibit activity in political management or in a political campaign by an employee in connection with -- (1) A nonpartisan election, or (2) Subject to the conditions and limitations established by OPM, an election held in a municipality or political subdivision designated by OPM under paragraph (b) of this section. (b) For the purpose of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Office may designate a municipality or political subdivision in Maryland or Virginia in the immediate vicinity of the District of Columbia or a municipality in which the majority of voters are employed by the Government of the United States, when the Office determines that, because of special or unusual circumstances, it is in the domestic interest of employees to participate in local elections. Information as to the documentation required to support a request for designation is furnished by the Office on request. The following municipalities and political subdivisions have been designated, effective on the date specified: {big list of municipalities not typed in} ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 93 18:11:32 CDT From: Bob Kierski Subject: Bottled or manufactured? Newsgroups: sci.space Is the air in the space shuttle bottled and brought with them into space? Or is it created chemicly while they are out there? In either case, what is the capacity (how long can they breath suitable air before they have to return)? -- Have a day, @ @ ( ) bobo ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 93 15:29:29 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Indiana Pi (long) (was Re: Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint...)) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1q1jnm$adh@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > In article <1993Apr8.124332.14392@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: > |I believe he means attempts in the past by your legislature to > |regulate the value of pi *by law* to be 3 (or 9, depending on the > |story) because the round number would be easier to work with. > | > > > Actually, that story is urban Legend. Pat goes on to cite a *different* distorted version of the story. Clue: As Pat suggests, this is in the alt.folklore.urban Frequently Asked Questions, where it is stated: >T.*Indiana House Bill #246 of 1897 would've set pi=3.2, killed in state Senate. The"T" means it's established as true, the * means there's more material in the A.F.U. archive. I'll append it (it's sorta long, like over 400 lines). O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ============================== From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: AFU FAQ archive - pi.indiana In the above-cited article, I write: > I have a couple of long articles online giving some of the history of > the bill and an interpretation of what the author appears to have been > thinking; but here is the full text of the bill for what it is worth. > I'll send the articles to anyone who asks for them in email, but I > don't think they'd be of great interest here. Perhaps they would, however, be of sufficient interest to put in the archive (if only to forestall future email requests for them!). Here they are: Article 15233 of sci.math: Xref: sq sci.math:15233 soc.history:3911 Path: sq!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!ukma!ghot From: ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) Newsgroups: sci.math,soc.history Subject: Re: Mathematical Scandals Message-ID: <1991Mar27.214332.29378@ms.uky.edu> Date: 27 Mar 91 21:43:32 GMT Sender: ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences Lines: 165 Lorenzo Sadun paints the legislation of pi = 3 (or 3.14) as reasonable. I happen to have in my files a copy of an article by Will E. Edington of De Pauw University, entitled "House Bill No. 246, Indiana State Legislature, 1897", which appeared in the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. I don't happen to have written the year of the article. I vague recall it being in the 1950's, but I might be mistaken. Edington's article is based on " the bill itself,..., the Journals of the House and Senate for 1897, and the files of the three Indianapolis papers for January and February, 1897." He also draws on an article of Prof.Waldo in the Proc.Indiana Acad.Science in 1916 on the subject. The author of the bill was Edwin J. Goodwin, M.D. It was introduced into the House by Mr. Taylor I. Record, Representative from Posey County, on Jan.18, 1897. The following is the statement of the bill: "HOUSE BILL NO. 246 "A bill for an act introducinga new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted and adopted by the official action of the legislature of 1897. "Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side. The diameter employed as the linear unit according to the present rule in computing the circle's area is entirely wrong, as it represents the circles area one and one-fifths times the area of a square whose perimeter is equal to the circumference of the circle. This is because one-fifth of the diameter fils to be represented four times in the circle's circumference. For example: if we multiply the perimeter of a square by one-fourth of any line one-fifth greater than one side, we can, in like manner make the square's area to appear one fifth greater than the fact, as is done by taking the diameter for the linear unit instead of the quadrant of the circle's circumference. "Section 2. It is impossible to compute the area of a circle on the diameter as the linear unit without tresspassing upon the area outside the circle to the extent of including one-fifth more area than is contained within the circle's circumference, because the square on the diameter produces the side of a square which equals nine when the arc of ninety degrees equals eight. By taking the quadrant of the circle's circumference for the linear unit, we fulfill the requirements of both quadrature and rectification of the circle's circumference. Furthermore, it has revealed the ratio of the chord and arc of ninety degrees, which is as seven to eight, and also the ratio of the diagonal and one side of a square which is as ten to seven, disclosing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four; and because of these facts and the further fact that the rule in prresent use fails to work both ways mathematically, it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in its practical applications. "Section 3. In further proof of the value of the author's proposed contribution to education, and offered as a gift to the State of Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of the trisection of the angle, duplication of the cube and quadrature having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in this country. And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend." I think the text of the bill should dispell any illusions as to its resasonableness. Note the mention of the American Mathematical Monthly: I don't know whether the Monthly actually published what this bill claims. If it did, that might be a scandal worthy of Kenton Yee's list. Edington describes the fate of the bill in the committees of the Indiana legislature. First it was referred to the House Committee on Canals, which was also referred to as the Committee on Swamp Lands. Notices of the bill appeared in the Indianapolis Journal and the Indianapolis Sentinel on Jan. 19,1897, both of which described it a a bill telling how to square circles. On the same day, "Representative M.B.Butler, of Steuben County, chairman of the Committee on Canals, submitted the following report: "Your Committee on Canals, to which was referred House Bill No.246, entitled an act for the introduction of a mamthematical truth, etc., has had the same under consideration and begs leave to report the same back to the House with the recommendation that said bill be referred to the Committee on Education." The next day, the following article appeared in the Indianapolis Sentinel: "To SQUARE THE CIRCLE "Claims Made That This Old Problem Has Been Solved. "The bill telling how to square a circle, introduced in the House by Mr.Record, is not intended to be a hoax. Mr. Record knows nothing of the bill with the exception that he introduced it by request of Dr.Edwin Goodwin of Posey County, who is the author of the deomstration. The latter and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Geeting believe that it is the long-sought solution of the problem, and they are seeking to have it adopted by the legislature. Dr. Goodwin, the author, is a mathematician of note. He has it copyrighted and his proposition is that if the legislature will indorse the solution, he will allow the state to use the demonstration in its textbooks free of charge. The author is lobbying for the bill." On "February 2, 1897, ...Representative S.E. Nicholson, of Howard County, chairman of the Committee on Education, reported to the House. "Your Committee on Education, to which was referred House Bill No.246, entitled a a bill for an act entitled an act introducing a new mathematical truth, has had same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back to the House with the recommendation that said bill do pass. "The report was cincurred in, and on February 8,1897, it was brought up for the second reading, following which it was considered engrossed. Then 'Mr. Nicholson moved that the consitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three days be suspended, that the bill may be read a third time now.' The constitutional rule was suspended by a vote of 72 to 0 and the bill was then read a third time. It was passed by a vote of 67 to 0, and the Clerk of the House was directed to inform the Senate of the passage of the bill." The newspapers reported the suspension of the consitutional rules and the unanimous passage of the bill matter-of-factly, except for one line in the Indianapolis Journal to the effect that "this is the strangest bill that has ever passed an Indiana Assembly." The bill was referred to the Senate on Feb.10,1897 and was read for the first time on Feb.11 and referred to the Committee on Temperance. "On Feb.12 Senator Harry S. New, of Marion County, Chairman of the COmmittee on Temperance, made the following report to the Senate: "Your committee on Temperance, to which was referred House Bill No.246, introduced by Mr.Record, has had the same under consideration and begs leave to report the same back to the Senate with the recommendation that said bill do pass." The Senate Journal mentions only that the bill was read a second time on Feb.12, 1897, that there was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the bill by strike out the enacting clause, and finally it was postponed indefinitely. That the bill was killed appears to be a matter of dumb luck rather than the superior education or wisdom of the Senate. It is true that the bill was widely ridiculed in Indiana and other states, but what actually brought about the defeat of the bill is recorded by Prof.C.A.Waldo in an article he wrote for the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science in 1916. The reason he knows is that he happened to be at the State Capitol lobbying for the appropriation of the Indiana Academy of Science, on the day the Housed passed House Bill 246. When he walked in the found the debate on House Bill 246 already in progress.In his article, he writes (according to Edington): "An ex-teacher from the eastern part of the state was saying: 'The case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes a new and correct value for \pi, the author offers to our state without cost the use of his discovery and its free publication in our school text books, while everyone else must pay him a royalty.' The roll was then called and the bill passed its third and final reading in the lower house. A member then showed the writer [i.e. Waldo -AA] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He declined the courtesy with thanks remarking that he was acquainted with as many crazy people as he cared to know. "That evening the senators were properly coached and shortly thereafter as it came to its final reading in the upper house they threw out with much merriment the epoch making discovery of the Wise Man from the Pocket." So much for the bill regarding the value of \pi. Before we laugh too hard at the legislature of Indiana or at the state of education in 1897, I think we should have a moment of silence as we contemplate what fate the bill might have if it were brought up for a referendum today. Allan Adler ghot@ms.uky.edu Article 15360 of sci.math: Xref: sq sci.math:15360 soc.history:3971 Newsgroups: sci.math,soc.history Path: sq!msb From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Indiana Pi Bill (was: Mathematical Scandals) Message-ID: <1991Apr2.021121.11810@sq.sq.com> Followup-To: sci.math Summary: pi = 3.2; annotated text of bill follows Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada References: <1991Mar27.214332.29378@ms.uky.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 02:11:21 GMT Lines: 227 This article is cross-posted as part of a cross-posted thread; followups are directed to sci.math. Before I start I should point out that this topic is in fact covered in the master Frequently Asked Questions list -- I wrote the entry there -- and that nobody has yet mentioned this. Everyone posting to the net should be familiar with this and the other articles that are regularly reposted to news.announce.newusers! However, I think it's okay to post this article, as it goes into rather more detail than can appear there. > ghot@ms.uky.edu (Allan Adler) writes a long and informative article > about the 1897 Indiana legislature almost passing a circle-squarer's > "corrected" value of pi, and included the text of the bill. I did not > know about this bill, and I stand corrected. > > (BTW, from the text of the bill I couldn't quite figure out what the > value of pi was supposed to be. If somebody could sift through > the bill and answer that I'd appreciate it.) David Singmaster's article (Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 7 (1985) #2, p.69-72), which was mentioned in another posting in this thread, takes each mathematical statement in the bill at face value and derives a value of pi by comparing it to the truth. I don't think this is fair; it seems clear to me that the author's model of the world had more deviations from reality than the value of pi. At the end of this article I explain why I consider the bill to assign the value 3.2 to pi. I posted some information about the affair to the net in about 1985, and still have it online. As with Allan Adler's posting, which also included the text of the bill, my source for this was Will Edington's PIAS article -- I don't have a date either, but a reference in the text means that it must have been the second half of 1935 of thereabouts. I hadn't read Singmaster's article at the time. Anyway, I have edited down most of what I wrote about the story behind the bill, as much of it duplicated what Allan posted. I have retained some bits that he didn't mention, and some other bits needed for continuity. One interesting difference between today's Usenet and those days -- I originally felt it necessary to post this in three parts because of its length! (Edited old posting follows.) I have been unable to find any reference by Martin Gardner to the story, neither in "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" nor in his Scientific American columns. Gardner did write a column about pi in July 1960. I have seen brief references to the story in several places, including the Guinness Book of World Records. Frequently these references give the *wrong* wrong value of Pi. It was 3.2, not 3 as the Bible seems to suggest, nor 4 as Guinness says. THE STORY The author of the bill was Dr. Edwin J. Goodwin, an M.D., of Solitude, Indiana. It seems that he was a crank mathematician. He contacted his Representative, one Taylor I. Record, with his epoch-making suggestion: if the State would pass an Act recognizing his discovery, he would allow all Indiana textbooks to use it without paying him a royalty. Nobody in the Indiana Legislature knew enough mathematics to know that the "discovery" was nonsense. In due course the bill had its third House reading, and passed 67-0. At this point the text of the bill was published "and, of course, became the target for ridicule", "in this and other states". By this time a real mathematician, Prof. C. A. Waldo, had learned what was going on. In fact, he was present when the bill was read on February 5, 1897. ("...imagine [the author's] surprise when he discovered that he was in the midst of a debate upon a piece of mathematical legislation. An ex-teacher was saying ... 'The case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes a new and correct value for Pi, the author offers ... its free publication in our school text books, while everyone else must pay him a royalty'", Waldo wrote in a 1916 article.) But the House had passed the bill. Fortunately, Indiana has a bicameral legislature. The bill came up for first reading in the Senate on Thursday, February 11. Apparently in fun, they referred it to the Committee on Temperance. The Committee reported back on Friday, February 12, approving the bill, which then had its second reading. The Indianapolis Journal reported what happened: "The Senators made bad puns about it, ridiculed it, and laughed over it. The fun lasted half an hour. Senator Hubbell said that it was not meet for the Senate, which was costing the State $250 a day [!], to waste its time in such frivolity ... He moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, and the motion carried. ... All of the senators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition. [In the end,] it was simply regarded as not being a subject for legislation." ANNOTATED TEXT OF THE BILL /* Following is the text of Indiana House Bill #246 of 1897, with my * own annotations (in comment signs and exdented, like this text). * In my annotations, A, r, d, c, and s are respectively the circle's * area, radius, diameter, circumference, and the side of the inscribed * square. */ A bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is ac- cepted and adopted by the official action of the leg- islature of 1897. /* You normally have to pay royalties on mathematical truths? * The Pythagoras estate must be doing well by now... */ SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the cir- cumference, as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side. /* The part after the last comma is a remarkable way of saying * "as 1 is to 1". In other words, this says A = (c/4)^2, which * is the same as A = (pi*r/2)^2 = (pi^2/4)*r^2 instead of the * actual A = pi*r^2. */ The diameter employed as the linear unit according to the present rule in computing the circle's area is entirely wrong, as it represents the circle's area one and one-fifth times the area of a square whose perimeter is equal to the circumference of the circle. /* The formula A = pi*r^2 is interpreted as A = d*(c/4), which is correct. * The author claims that the d factor should be c/4, so the ratio of * the area by the author's formula to the area by the real formula * is c/(4*d), that is, pi/4. Since he believes pi = 3.2, this ratio * is 3.2/4, which is 4/5. Therefore the area by the author's rule * is 1/5 smaller than the actual area. Now he apparently thinks that * the reciprocal of 1-1/5 is 1+1/5, and thus that the other area is * 1/5 larger than his area, which of course would actually require * the ratio to be 5/6. */ This is because one-fifth of the di- ameter fails to be represented four times in the circle's circumference. /* In other words, c = (1-1/5) * (4*d); consistent with pi = 3.2. */ For example: if we multiply the per- imeter of a square by one-fourth of any line one-fifth greater than one side, we can in like manner make the square's area to appear one fifth greater than the fact, as is done by taking the diameter for the linear unit instead of the quadrant of the circle's circumference. /* He says that if we consider the area of a square of side x to be * (4*x)*(x/4) and we replace the second x by (1+1/5)*x, we get an * area 1/5 too large, and this is analogous to using d in place of * c/4 with the circle. */ SECTION 2. It is impossible to compute the area of a circle on the diameter as the linear unit without tresspassing upon the area outside the circle to the extent of in- cluding one-fifth more area than is contained within the circle's circumference, because the square on the diame- ter produces the side of a square which equals nine when the arc of ninety degrees equals eight. /* I can only assume that "nine" is a mistake for "ten". See also * the annotation after the next one. */ By taking the quadrant of the circle's circumference for the linear unit, we fulfill the requirements of both quadrature and rectification of the circle's circumference. /* Getting repetitive here... */ Furthermore, it has revealed the ra- tio of the chord and arc of ninety degrees, which is as seven to eight, and also the ratio of the diagonal and one side of a square which is as ten to seven, disclos- ing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the di- ameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four; and because of these facts and the futher fact that the rule in present use fails to work both ways mathematically, it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in its practical applications. /* The meat of the bill. He says that s/(c/4) = 7/8, and d/s = 10/7, * therefore d/c = (10/7)*(7/8)/4, which he reduces only as far as * (5/4)/4. Of course this is 5/16, and gives pi = c/d = 16/5 = 3.2. * It also implies that the square root of 2 is 10/7. */ SECTION 3. In further proof of the value of the author's pro- posed contribution to education, and offered as a gift to the State of Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of the trisection of the angle, duplication of the cube and quadrature of the circle having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in this country. /* When I first posted this I assumed that the A.M.M. must have had a * policy of politely acknowledging crankish submissions, but apparently * at one time they simply printed whatever they were sent. I haven't * checked this out. */ And be it remembered that these not- ed problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend. /* "Given up" is not the same as "proved insoluble"! */ -- Mark Brader "Sir, your composure baffles me. A single counter- SoftQuad Inc. example refutes a conjecture as effectively as ten. Toronto ... Hands up! You have to surrender." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Imre Lakatos ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 21:32:08 GMT From: Dave McKissock Subject: NASA "Wraps" Newsgroups: sci.space Earlier, I had written ... >>As I understand it, there is a specific line item in the NASA >>budget to pay the salaries for all NASA civil servants. So, when >>people quote a figure like $8 B, or $30 B for SSF, I do not >>believe those numbers include civil servant salaries. It turns out I was wrong. In a July 1992 GAO report called "Space Station, Status of Financial Reserves", they wrote To develop and operate the redesigned facility through Fiscal year 1999, NASA's current $30 billion cost estimate includes almost $20 billion for known research and development requirements and related financial services. Construction of station support facilities, shuttle flights to assembl and maintain the station, salaries and benefits of NASA personnel working on the station, and costs incurred through fiscal year 1991 are among the items that comprise the remaining costs in NASA's $30 estimate. So, I guess if you look at the printed NASA budgets, to get the $30 billion total you must take the SSF line item, and add in all of the stuff in the last sentence, which are all on other line items. I still don't see any evidence of Allen's point, though. Where are these billions of dollars that are allegedly in the SSF budget but are being "wasted" actually going? -- ----------------------------------------------------- dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 93 17:56:51 CDT From: Bob Kierski Subject: Prefab Space Station? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pl3f8$ivc@iris.mbvlab.wpafb.af.mil>, carol@edfua0.ctis.af.mil (Andy Carol) writes: > > Since one of the largest expenses of Freedom will be the many trips > required to get the pieces up, and the many EVAs required to put > the whole thing together, why do they not consider a lesson from > SkyLab? > > I'm sure that a from scratch design would be expensive, but how many > re-designs does Freedom need? It's going to cost a fortune, and I > think we are underestimating the difficulty in EVAs being used to > actually build it. Never mind the safety issue, with the dozens of > launchs and risky EVAs. Forgive me for asking a stupid question... But what's an EVA? -- Have a day, @ @ ( ) bobo ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 18:26:46 CDT From: Bob Kierski Subject: Quaint US Archaisms ~ Newsgroups: sci.space Over the last few weeks I've heard arguments for Metric and English wrench standards. Mostly what I've heard is that "My car takes X number of wrenches" and "Your car takes Y number of wrenches" and doesn't it suck that Y is more than X and its because the Y car was made with Metric sizes and the X car was made with English sizes. Isn't it really the manufacturer that decides what size bolts they use in their car. So if the manufacturer of the Y car wanted to, they could use just one size. And is the decision about how many bolt sizes they use inherint in the scale they decide to use? On another note: I was working on my car (English scale) with my Brother-In law. He tried a 3/8" wrench and found it too big so he asked for a 7/16. He obviously didn't major in math and had gotten confused by the fractal representation of the size. I didn't have the chance to test him, but my guess is that he would know the size relationship between a 15mm and a 16mm wrench without haveing to count it out on his fingers. I thought the point behind using metric wasn't that it was better, or that English was worse, but that both systems were widely used and choosing a standard measurment system meant that a common guy like me didn't have to buy two sets of wrenches. -- Have a day, @ @ ( ) bobo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 17:52:50 GMT From: Jeffrey David Hagen Subject: space food sticks Newsgroups: sci.space In article <8APR199309102094@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, tpcliff@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (RODGER CLIFF) writes: |> In article , jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (John Elson) writes... |> >Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" This |> |> I remember these; tacky packaging; tasted worst. |> |> >was apparently created/marketed around the time of the lunar expeditions, along |> >with "Tang" and other dehydrated foods. I have spoken with several people |> >who have eaten these before, and they described them as a dehydrated candy. |> ^^^^^ |> Only if you like vegamite. |> |> >Any information would be greatly appreciated. |> > |> >Thanks. |> >John |> |> I don't know if these wre actual NASA type food or just some manufacturer |> cashing in on the space fads of the time. (My impression was the latter). |> I remember peanut butter and chocolate flavors in a rubbery stick, each |> individually packaged. My mom bought one box of each flavor ( and never |> bought any more.) Probably one of those things (like disco, bell-bottoms, |> leisure suits, etc.) that should not be resurrected. |> |> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |> Rodger Cliff | |> Analex Corp. at | All standard disclaimers |> NASA Lewis Research Center | |> | apply here |> (216) 977-0036 | |> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Philistine! Space Sticks were great. I haven't seen any in more years than I can remeber. If any one knows were to get them or can remember who made them, please tell. Jeff Hagen Rice University ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 22:00:02 GMT From: TS Kelso Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set: Space Shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when possible). Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space. STS 56 1 22621U 93 23 A 93 98.33263830 .00057138 00000-0 16539-3 0 34 2 22621 57.0030 178.4496 0006414 267.4548 344.7850 15.92517503 10 -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 443 ------------------------------