Date: Fri, 28 May 93 11:01:27 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #634 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 28 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 634 Today's Topics: Addr: Tom Wolfe's RIGHT STUFf (2 msgs) August Meteor Shower May Threaten Earth Satellites Comet 1993e Detecting planets in other system Galileo's HGA? Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Hubble vs Keck Jenks Leaves SSP for SSFP Kennedy tour? Moon Base (2 msgs) Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) Neil's words - an analysis (was Re: Neil's first words) Question about B&W markings on US launchers The crew is toast Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program) Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan? (3 msgs) 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: 26 May 93 14:54:12 EST From: KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU Subject: Addr: Tom Wolfe's RIGHT STUFF FROM: Kevin IN ARTICLE "DATE: WED, 26 MAY 1993 03:34:14 GMT FROM: DAVE MICHELSON Dave writes: >In article <1tul9r$3m9@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >> >>Henry makes a comment abou;t grissoms command for apollo. >> >>I assume Grissom, chaffee and white were one single crew. >> >>THey were going to fly Apollo 6, then? >> >>I can imagine his first words on making orbit :-) > Grissom, White, and Chaffee were assigned to AS-204 which was later named >Apollo 1. They were designated command pilot, senior pilot, and pilot, >respectively. >Regarding your comment about imagining "his first words on making orbit": >If that's a joke, it's too obscure for me. Kevin R. Cain, Applications Support Florida A&M, Tallahassee Fl Phone (904) 599-3685 Fax (904) 561-2410 KEVIN @ VM.CC.FAMU.EDU NAUI #1378 ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 93 15:03:49 EST From: KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU Subject: Addr: Tom Wolfe's RIGHT STUFf FROM: Kevin (Sorry about the last one, got out before I was done. DAMN PROFS EDITOR) IN ARTICLE "DATE: WED, 26 MAY 1993 03:34:14 GMT FROM: DAVE MICHELSON Dave writes: >In article <1tul9r$3m9@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >> >>Henry makes a comment abou;t grissoms command for apollo. >> >>I assume Grissom, chaffee and white were one single crew. >> >>THey were going to fly Apollo 6, then? >> >>I can imagine his first words on making orbit :-) > Grissom, White, and Chaffee were assigned to AS-204 which was later named >Apollo 1. They were designated command pilot, senior pilot, and pilot, >respectively. >Regarding your comment about imagining "his first words on making orbit": >If that's a joke, it's too obscure for me. If it was meant as a joke, it was a *DAMN* sick one. I grew up in Cocoa Beach, (Dad was Senior Project Engineer of the CSM) and I'll guarantee that the fire was *not* a laughing matter to any of us living there. Kevin R. Cain, Applications Support Florida A&M, Tallahassee Fl Phone (904) 599-3685 Fax (904) 561-2410 KEVIN @ VM.CC.FAMU.EDU NAUI #1378 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 18:03:48 GMT From: pbrown@uwovax.uwo.ca Subject: August Meteor Shower May Threaten Earth Satellites Newsgroups: sci.space I don't know if the Pegasus satellite detected any increased micrometeoroid impacts during the 1966 storm (or if it was even orbiting), but I do know that some sounding rockets launched during the peak of the 1965 shower showed *no* increased micrometeorite presence on the exposed surfaces of sounding rockets. The appropriate references are Farlow, N.H., et al., JGR, 71, 23, Dec. 1966, 5689 and Blanchard, M.B., et al., JGR, 73, 19, Oct. 1968, 6347. A similar experiment during the 1966 display also showed *no* increased micrometeorite flux (Ferry, G.V., et al., JGR, 75, 4, Feb. 1970, 859), but I have not seen references as yet to in situ measurements of micrometeoroid impact rates during the peak of the 1966 storm. These would be VERY interesting. Peter Brown ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 93 12:39:37 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Comet 1993e Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes: In article , tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes: |> The rest may either become captured satellites or be thrown into short- |> period heliocentric orbits, depending on which side of Jupiter the |> encounter occurs. How big are these comet fragments? If one is dropped into the inner solar system, could it make a good show for Earth? Well, if P/C-S started out at 5km, it could make 100+ 1 km fragments, or more likely order 20 order 1 km fragments and a few thousand 100m fragments... I seem to remember anything under 100m is probably going to airburst too high to do anything, 100m might reach the ground in a Tunguska event. July 1994 could be interesting :-) Has anyone told SDIO^H^H^H^H BMDO yet? Time to strut their stuff! ;-) * Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory * * steinly@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" * * The laws of gravity are very,very strict * * And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 18:40:01 GMT From: Thomas Clarke Subject: Detecting planets in other system Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1993May26.155117.20424@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer writes: > In article <1993May25.223554.8207@Princeton.EDU> Stupendous Man, > richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU writes: .. discussion of detecting planets via occultation > > > Assuming a solar-type star, Borucki finds the expected signal > >to be a 1% decrease in light for Jupiter, 0.1% for Uranus and 0.01% > >for Earth. These are really tough limits; solar-type stars themselves > >tend to vary by ~ 0.1% or so (= 0.001 mag = 1 millimag) on short time > >scales, which makes looking for Earth-sized planets very hard indeed. > > > I understand all of that. A quick geometric calculation will show that, > for the parameters of the Jupiter-sun system, the chance of catching an > alignment capable of producing a 1% occultation is about one in five > million! In a recent issue of Science there is a discussion of a project to look for MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects - things like planets, brown dwarfs, or even black holes in the galactic halo that might account for some of the missing mass). The scheme for detecting MACHOs is to look for a micro-gravitational lensing event as the MACHO passes in front of a distant star. To make the statistics workable they have put together a 64 million (!!!) pixel CCD which will be mounted on an otherwise little used 50-odd inch worn-out telescope. The CCD will then stare at the large Magellenic Cloud (LMC) to look for microlensing events. They expect a jupiter-sized object to enhance a stares brightness for a day or two, a week or two for dwarfs, and possibly months for a black hole. The point, of this is that maybe the same detector will inadvertantly succeed in detecting planets. It would be ironic if the first detection of a Jupiter-sized planet were in the LMC! -- Thomas Clarke Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826 (407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 93 19:14:11 GMT From: G C Lyons Subject: Galileo's HGA? Newsgroups: sci.space What's the status of the high gain antenna? I haven't been on the Net for awhile and haven't heard anything elsewhere. -Glenn lyons@us17501.mdc.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:31:03 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space In <1ttm8j$90i@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >|prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >|>Ken seems fixated on this measure of performance. >|>I would suggest that we not look at mass returned, but Useful >|>Cargo Returned. >|>In that Case we have, 1 LDEF, 4-5 SpaceLab flights, and probably >|>appx 100 GAS Cans. >>>Not a lot for 12 years of missions. The soviets probably have >>>returned as much using capsula vehicles and with soyuz. >Nobody gunned down my thumb sketch. Well then, a small caliber bullet: I don't know that I'd include the SpaceLab as 'cargo' -- it's just another matter of having to haul facilities up and down that would be better if we could simply leave the same facilities on orbit. >Ken, >Justify the STS program on the basis of mass returned. >pat. >Don't include contingency satellitte return missions. It would have >been cheaper to build new ones and pop them off. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1993 18:24:55 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: Hubble vs Keck Newsgroups: sci.space I would mention two more advantages of Hubble over Keck 1. After the fix it will give you 0.1 arcsec resolution all the time. No ground telescope can get this, even with adaptive optics. (I am talking about resolution in visual light). 2. From Hubble you get better signal to noise ratio, because your only noise is a photon statistics. With keck your photon statistics is better (larger mirror), but you also get atmospheric scintillation and sky bacground noise. This last one is going to hurt you specially for the fainest objects. Of course, Hubble has one major disadvantage over Keck: it will last for only 15, maybe 20 years. Keck can be used for 100 years, with its instrumentation being constantly upgrated. Pawel Moskalik ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 93 18:42:43 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: Jenks Leaves SSP for SSFP Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics.space Dear Friends, I have left the Space Shuttle Program Office for a new Civil Service position in the Space Station Freedom Program. I'm now working in the JSC Mission Operations Directorate, Systems Division. I'm in DE44, the Maintenance and Logistics Section. I will be working as an SSF Operations Support Officer in the Consolidated Control Center (consolidated between SSFP and SSP). I've been planning this move for several months, and I'm quite pleased that it's now come to fruition. This is technically a temporary, six-month reassignment, but I hope to get a permanent job here. However, if I can't, or if the SSFP dies suddenly, I can go back to Shuttle. It's a good safety net. I'm learning a thousand new things a day about the SSFP, and I will be posting some of them to the 'Net. I'm looking forward to sharing my new experiences with you. -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "The primary mission of the Space Station Freedom is to provide supporting functions and operations to multiple users. These functions and operations provide a capability for: 1) material processing research 2) life sciences research including permanently manned presence 3) a permanent observatory" -- Space Station Freedom Program Definition and Requirements, SSP 30000, Section 3, Revision L, page 1-2 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 15:14:48 -0400 (EDT) From: PPORTH@hq.nasa.gov (Tricia Porth (202) 358-0171) Subject: Kennedy tour? Hi y'all! My husband and I have last minute plans to visit Kennedy on Monday, June 7. We have never visited and would like a tour - I hope those are available. Does anyone have any details or advice on what we MUST see. We have the whole day free to tour. Thanks for the advice! Tricia Porth NASA HQ ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 93 17:40:24 GMT From: Gopinath Kuduvalli Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May25.184814.27360@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: [...] > >Since when are "flags and footprints" and mining the only alternatives? >There are many other reasons for long-term of permanent presence, that >have nothing at all to do with mining. > Pray tell, what *are* these other reasons for long-term permanent presence on the moon, mars or wherever in space? Cheers, -- Gopi Dr. Gopi Kuduvalli |e-mail: gopinath@mda.ca MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates |Phone: (604) 278 3411 (Office) 13800 Commerce Pkwy | (604) 241 1689 (Home) Richmond, BC V7C 1G4, CANADA |Fax: (604) 278 0531 ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 93 19:52:24 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >Careful Gary, >you are starting to sound like szabo :-) >pat At the World space congress during the opening session the VP of the US (er called Quayle I think) gave a typical we will do everything election speech. The interesting point was that as he boosted each sub activity of space (Freedom, the Moon, Mars etc.) a completely different and compact section of the audience cheered, while for the most part all others were silent. Sorry but if space exploration is to proceed at all there has to be acceptance that "if we do not hang together, then gentlemen we shall most assuradly hang separately" (B. Franklin, sometime postmaster, scientist and traitor, -I stand to be corrected ). At the moment space enthusiasts are spending more time running down those that should be allies. I personally think that if a coherent vision (for want of a better word) does not emerge from the space community world wide in the next couple of years to replace the cold war justificiation of super technology at any price for the sake of national pride, aerospace profits, and military ability, then there won't be much space activity by 2001! To me the Moon seems the best bet as attainable, scientifically viable, and with a little effort salable both to the public and any commercial interests that have an attention span longer than a quarter. The key is lower launch costs, and getting rid of a lot of management overheads, that are no longer appropriate, if they ever were. -- Dave Stephenson Geological Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3* Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:39:48 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) Newsgroups: sci.space In pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes: >>"Boys, Joe didn't do nothin' illegal here. I do hear tell that them Alpha >>Centoorians are gonna kill every fourth man woman and child unless we show them >>how bad we feel about it. Okay, Joe, you're free to go." >I was being facesious in the statements you're following up to... >>Get the picture? ;-) >Get this: a man murdered a Japanese exchange student in BR and >was acquitted. A great miscarriage of justice. But he got away >with it, and the student wasn't even shooting at a Martian. Get this: first, this has nothing to do with space, and second, you appear to have received some sort of immaculate reception of information in this case, since from everything I've heard it sounded like justified protection of himself and his property (due to the actions of the person in question, no matter how mistaken the shooter may have been about his actual intent). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:36:56 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Neil's words - an analysis (was Re: Neil's first words) Newsgroups: sci.space In noe@cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes: >In article DOCOTTLE@ukcc.uky.edu ("Darryl O. Cottle") writes: >>One poster stated that the "a" WAS said but too softly for the radio >>equipment to pick it up. >It was spoken, although hurriedly, and is easy to miss because of >radio interference. I can hear it. >>If my memory serves Neil himself was the FIRST one to say that he had >>not said what he had intended to say. >You have a reference for that? I've heard Armstrong speak on this >subject (albeit many years ago) and what I recall him saying is that >he did say "for a man", as intended. I've heard something similar, but I think that he's misinterpreting a remark made in exasperation at people continually telling Armstrong that they don't hear what he claimed to have said -- which was on the order of, "Well dammit, that's what I *meant* to say." Note that he does *not* say that he did not say what he meant to say -- more a loss of patience with people who are trying to argue with him about what he actually *did* say. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1993 18:33:20 GMT From: "C. D. Tavares" Subject: Question about B&W markings on US launchers Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,sci.space In article <19930526070819.Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu>, Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu (Roger Wilfong) writes: > In one of the rocket history books, the author credits the color schemes on > the Saturns, Redstones and Jupiters to Werner von Braun's conviction that > rockets should be 'black and white'. Luckily, von Braun died well before 1995, when the NASA film library was purchased by Ted Turner. -- cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 93 15:42:57 EDT From: "Darryl O. Cottle" Subject: The crew is toast At last, the opening I've been looking for for over a year now. (Didn't want to start a completely NEW thread as a first time poster, but since I got my feet wet earlier this week and I still have my head I'll try it.) Fred J McCall writes: > If something happens while the solid (rockets??) are lit, the > crew is toast. No way out that's feasible. I watched some of the proceedings of the Senate (or was it House?) committee investigating the loss of Challenger and was immediately struck by something in their VERY detailed film of the explosion and shower of debris. The man with the pointer was identifying various parts of the shower and one of the objects he pointed to he identified as the crew cabin with its wiring harness trailing behind it. (Don't ask me his name - I didn't write it down and I don't remember what it was.) I looked at that and visualized a crude parachute of some sort that could be attached to the various parts of the wiring harness to slow the fall. I've torn apart enough no-longer-working electronic assemblies to know just how strongly a wiring harness is attached! Something like very tough, thin, flexible material (hopefully very light as well) or perhaps deflated balloons with compressed helium capsules that could be triggered if the pressure holding them in place was suddenly removed (as in the disintegration of the craft). A newspaper here ran a very long article (many pages) about the loss of Challenger and it was strongly implied that evidence existed that at least some of the crew were still alive until the impact with the Atlantic ocean. My kid brother used to work as a roofer. (This IS relevant - bear with me.) In his training they were taught that, if they started to fall to grab something - anything - even if they KNEW it wouldn't hold them, because doing so would SLOW their fall. True they might still break something (or several somethings!) but they would still be alive to recover from it. No tree branches or drain spouts in the atmosphere to grab hold of, but, if the fall could be slowed just enough to allow the crew cabin to hold together, and with the crew strapped in, they might have been able to survive. Sure its off the wall. It might be the stupidest idea anyone has ever proposed. But there might be some kernel in here that an engineer could latch onto and come up with something that WOULD work. Challenger's crew deserves that much. Doc Afterthought: No use directing any questions about this to me. I've already stated all I know about it. About all I could do would be to look up the newspaper article. If someone wants that I'll be glad to do so. +- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -+ |/CAUTION//////////CAUTION/|"I don't know what I'm doin'!| (voice) | |////U/N/D/E/R/////////////| If I ever DO figure it out,| 606-257-7577 | |/C/O/N/S/T/R/U/C/T/I/O/N//| I'll prob'ly go HIDE!!" | or | |/CAUTION//////////CAUTION/| "Brother" Dave Gardner | 606-254-8914 | +- --- --- --- --- --- --- + - --- --- --- --- --- --- --+ --- --- --- -| | docottle@ukcc.bitnet or else try docottle@ukcc.uky.edu | +- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -+ ------------------------------ Date: 26 MAY 93 19:04:44 GMT From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books Mark Taranto writes: >The only Wolfe I've read was BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES. I thought it a >fascinating book which had lots of interesting things to say about >society (paricularly about New York society). But I thought the book >was *very* poorly written -- a classic example of substance winning >out over style. _Bonfire_ is not poorly written at all! I can see how one might think so, however, if one is unfamiliar with Wolfe's idiosyncratic style. >From Jeff's comment, I gather that THE RIGHT STUFF is >more than substance. Is this true? WHat about Wolfe's other works? Like all of Wolfe's works, it's a balancing act between style and substance. Wolfe's most brilliant stroke, in my opinion, was the discovery of Chuck Yeager, who was, to most people, a footnote in the history books up to that point. Granted, Yeager has a lot of substance, but it was Wolfe's style that brought that substance out vividly. (Check out Yeager's own book, called -- what else? -- _Yeager_. Good stuff, particularly the bit about his time with the French Resistance, and his escape from occupied territory.) Other Wolfe books I'd recommend: _Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers_ _The Painted Word_ You might also try _In Our Time_, a book of Wolfe's own drawings, which are great. Heather HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 93 19:26:50 GMT From: "joseph.l.nastasi" Subject: Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May18.174340.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: > In article <1tb0uo$qpe@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > > Von Brauns original plan was to have the capsule fully automatic, > > with the occupants, performing a few bio experiments. > > Did Wernher von Braun actually have anything to do with the Mercury > program, or did pat just see *The Right Stuff* too many times? (A > lousy way to get your history, by the way...) > Van Braun had very little to do with Mercury. For a very good review of the political and technological decisions in the early space program, read David Baker's "The History of Manned Spaceflight" It was written in the very early eighties and most of the facts are still valid today... Joe Nastasi nastasi@mtgpfs1.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:24:26 GMT From: "Matthew R. Feulner" Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May26.094319.3298@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: |> |> I don't like him because he usually lets his politics dictate his |> science. His nuclear winter theory was bogus scientifically but he |> pushed it because it agreed with his politics. He opposed human |> exploration of space saying it wasn't good science. Then he decided |> the cold war would end if the US and USSR went to Mars together. |> Suddenly, humans in space was GREAT science. |> Anyone catch him on Nightline (or another) during the Gulf War when the Iraqis were burning oil wells? He was preaching global impact for years to come. When it turns out to have little but local impact, where was he? "Irresponsible" is the word I'd use - he used the press to tout his theory which turned out to be wrong, at least in that case, and issued no retraction or apology from what I know. "Damn it, Jim, I'm an astronomer, not an atmospheric scientist!" Matthew Feulner matthew_feulner@qmlink.draper.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 18:57:10 GMT From: Alan Carter Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26MAY199312492387@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov>, bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert S. Hill) writes: [Discussion of value of popularization deleted] |> Still, perhaps I am allowed a few mild worries. The gee whiz approach |> can backfire. People in general are smart enough to know that science |> isn't magic, and that we slog away at a desk or bench every day like any |> other white-collar worker. So when we try make ourselves look like |> alchemists who are in search of the philosopher's stone, or perhaps even |> worse, the `face of God,' they know perfectly well that we are talking |> like idiots or snake-oil salesmen. |> |> Did Sagan contribute to this problem, or did he help fight it, or |> was he neutral? Or did he make a negative contribution that was |> outweighed by the positive one? This last I think is likely, but |> we have no way of knowing for sure. Perhaps there is a useful distinction between gee-whizzing that which we have learned or suspect, which includes many topics that certainly still gee-whiz me, and gee-wizzing the people that learned these things, and/or suggesting that these people bathe specially in the reflected glory of the universe. As an example of the distinction, compare Gleik's "Chaos", wherein all discoveries seem to be made serendipitously, or as blinding flashes of revelation as the mathematician-priests walk in the park, and the same author's "Genius", which talks about the history, the politics and the human frailties, but lets the work and the exceptional talents speak for themselves without hyperbole. In this context, it looks like Sagan's got a bit of an ego there, so I would agree with the -ve outweighed by +ve likelihood. Regards, Alan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 Belle Vue Court |"We've entered a synchronous | Home: 0684 564438 32 Belle Vue Terrace | orbit above the southern | Away: 0628 784351 Great Malvern | pole." | Work: 0628 794137 Worcestershire | | WR14 4PZ | Lt. Commander Geordi LaForge | Temporary: agc@bnr.ca England | Star Trek The Next Generation| Permanent: alan@gid.co.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 19:03:45 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan? Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993May26.094319.3298@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >I don't like him because he usually lets his politics dictate his >science. His nuclear winter theory was bogus scientifically but he >pushed it because it agreed with his politics. He opposed human >exploration of space saying it wasn't good science. Then he decided >the cold war would end if the US and USSR went to Mars together. >Suddenly, humans in space was GREAT science. My feelings *exactly*. Given his record of late, I'm left feeling that Dr Sagan left his scientific integrity somewhere in the swirl of publicity quite a few years ago. He lets his political agenda drive the analysis of data and the conclusions he claims to 'prove' with it; an odious habit in a scientist, to say the least. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 634 ------------------------------