Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 3 Apr 89 03:17:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 03:17:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #333 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 333 Today's Topics: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? Mir Launch Manifest, 1989 Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? Re: Two questions. Re: Success with cold fusion reported Re: Success with cold fusion reported Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? more on Liberty Bell 7 chauvinism (was : Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?) Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Mar 89 14:54:24 GMT From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu (Matthew T. DeLuca) Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? In article <10245@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com (Ken Trant) writes: > >article <7751@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) says: > >% any *real* aliens would make contact with government officials, and we can >% assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at some elementary >% school, talking about U.S. drug policy. > > We should have talked to you for the best information on alien encounters >since you apparently know exactly what is needed, who the aliens would talk >to. BTW which govt have the ET's decided to contact when the get here?. >Maybe they are democrates and are waiting to talk to the Congress?. :-) C'mon, think about it. You're an alien, attempting to make a friendly contact with Earth. How would you do it? Assume you have a basic knowledge about the political and social structure of the planet. You could (1) tell Dan Rather. Well, remember what happened in 1938, with the War of the Worlds broadcast? Panic across the Northeast United States. Humanity tends to be an irrational crowd at times, and with the recent (over the last few years) spate of nasty alien movies, we night very well have a repeat. If I was an alien (actually, the allegation haas been made :-), I would start from the top down. I think that the population as a whole would take the news better from the government than from Dan Rather. As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be? I would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are the most advanced nation on earth, and (2) the U.N. (for all it's worth) is located here, which (I assume, of course) would be an important location to the aliens, since it is the closest thing we have to anything resembling a world government. Of course, I were the alien, I would come back in about a century; I don't thinkwe're really ready to deal with aliens. A previous poster mentioned that this is not really the appropriate place for this discussion, so if anyone cares to continue it, send me mail. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : Remember, wherever you go, there you are. ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu : ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 17:32:16 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Mir Launch Manifest, 1989 The Soviets have released some information about their Mir schedule for the rest of the year; together with some information from J. Oberg and some estimates of my own, here is the expected activity for 1989-90. Details of the Sep/Oct activity are based on Oberg's scenario. You are warned that all attempts at detailed forecasts of Soviet space activity have traditionally turned out to be totally wrong. Enjoy! Progress-41 undock from rear port Apr early? Soyuz TM-8 launch, dock to rear port Apr 19 EO-4 Crew: Aleksandr Viktorenko, Aleksandr Balandin Soyuz TM-7 undock from front port, land Apr 29 EO-3 Crew: Aleksandr Volkov, Sergey Krikalyov, Valeriy Polyakov Soyuz TM-8 move to front port May 1? Progress-42 launch, dock to rear port May Progress-42 undock Jun Progress-43 launch, dock to rear port Jun Progress-43 undock Jul Progress-44 launch, dock to rear port Jul Progress-44 undock Aug Soyuz TM-8 move to rear port Sep Doosnashcheniya modula launch, dock front port Sep D-modula move to side port 1 Sep Soyuz TM-9 launch, dock front port Oct EO-5 Crew: Not yet selected; possibly Anatoliy Solovyov, Aleksandr Serebrov Soyuz TM-8 undock rear port Oct EO-4 Crew: Aleksandr Viktorenko, Aleksandr Balandin Progress-45 launch, dock rear port Oct/Nov Progress-45 undock from rear port Nov Soyuz TM-9 move to rear port Dec Tekhnologicheskaya modula launch,dock front port Dec T-modula move to side port 2 Dec Soyuz TM-9 move to front port Dec Progress-46 launch, dock rear port 1990 Jan? Long term scenario, caveat emptor: Soyuz TM-10 1990 Apr EO-6 crew replaces EO-5 Soyuz TM-11 1990 Oct EO-7 crew replaces EO-6 Soyuz TM-12 1991 Apr EO-8 crew replaces EO-7 Soyuz TM-13 1991 Oct Visiting crew, with Austrian cosmonaut Soyuz TM-14 1992 Apr Visiting crew, with French cosmonaut Soyuz TM-15 1992 Oct EO-9 crew replaces EO-8 2 more modules to be added in this time period. Mir 2 not expected until late 1990s. .----------------------------------------------------------------. | Jonathan McDowell | phone : (617)495-7144 | | Center for Astrophysics | uucp: husc6!harvard!cfa200!mcdowell | | 60 Garden Street | bitnet : mcdowell@cfa.bitnet | | Cambridge MA 02138 | inter : mcdowell@cfa.harvard.edu | | USA | span : cfa::mcdowell | | | telex : 92148 SATELLITE CAM | | | FAX : (617)495-7356 | '----------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 89 19:37:01 GMT From: amdahl!nsc!ken@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Ken Trant) Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? article <7751@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) says: % Xref: nsc sci.space:10486 rec.ham-radio:1579 talk.rumors:907 misc.headlines:11954 % In article <4440@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: %%On Tuesday March 14, 1989 at 6:42 am the following message was received by a %%UFO investigator in Baltimore through WA3NAN (Goddard) amateur radio %%transission from the orbiter Discovery. "Houston, this is Discovery. We %%still have the alien space craft, uhh, under observance." The transmission %%was picked up on a Radio Shack scanner tuned to 147.45 mhz. %% % This is patently ridiculous, thinking that this is actually an alien spacecraft % sighting. Most likely, this was either a bit of humor, or the 'alien' % spacecraft is 'alien' only in the sense that it was not made in the US (most % likely Soviet). First of all, if there really was an alien craft, and the crew % wanted to say something to Houston about it and wanted to keep it secret, they % would *not* broadcast over an open, unencrypted channel that every Tom, Dick, % and Harry with a $99.95 scanner could pick up. More likely, if an alien ship I think the poster suggested that the "fire on board" statement might have been prearranged code to switch to another channel. Not to unlikely. % did appear near the shuttle, the crew would turn around and head for home, under % orders from the ground, since they're not equipped for alien contact. Finally, what equipment would you take to an alien encounter?. How are the astronauts not equipt to handle an encounter with aliens?. % any *real* aliens would make contact with government officials, and we can % assume that this didn't happen, since at last check, Bush was at some elementary % school, talking about U.S. drug policy. We should have talked to you for the best information on alien encounters since you apparently know exactly what is needed, who the aliens would talk to. BTW which govt have the ET's decided to contact when the get here?. Maybe they are democrates and are waiting to talk to the Congress?. :-) -- PATH= Second star to the right, {...Ken Trant...} and straight on till morning National SemiConductor, 1135 Kern Ave. M/S 7C-266; Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Uucp: ...{pyramid,sun,amdahl,apple}!nsc!ken ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 18:33:40 GMT From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net (Wayne D. T. Johnson) Subject: Re: Two questions. In article <3288@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu () writes: > >1. I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids >towards earth was really neat. Question: won't it be awfully hard to >get the exact trajectory of the asteroid correct? Good thought, kind of like playing intergalactic billards with egg shaped balls. >2. If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't >it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a >merrily burning fusion reaction? Alternatively, shoot it into the >center of the sun. Alternatively, shoot it at the stars. Why have we >only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far? The only easy hot fusion that I know of (given my admittedly limited knowlage on the subject) is that in an H-Bomb, the side effects of this would be a bit dramatic (as well as noisy). The idea of launching the wastes into space has been thought of by others, but can you imagine what would have happened if the Challenger was carrying up a load of spent fuel cores. There would be radioactive pellets scattered about most of the eastern seaboard. Does anyone know how far away from the Cape that pieces of the Challenger were found? Even with the use of a rail launcher the risks would be high. There is still a chance that a structural failure or failure on the part of the power supply that could dump the load in the middle of someones lap. The idea is good but the risks make it unusable. -- Wayne Johnson (Voice) 612-638-7665 NCR Comten, Inc. (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or Roseville MN 55113 johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 11:14:58 GMT From: sgi!shinobu!shinobu.sgi.com!watson@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David Watson) Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported In article <1008@blic.BLI.COM> miket@blic.BLI.COM (Mike Tossy) writes: [...] depending upon the technology, it maybe cheaper to build less capacity and use the existing powergrid to load balance than it would be to build enough capacity for each site to meet its peak demand. (My house uses little energy during the day and my office uses little power at night. Today with centralized power production we can share the installed power plant capacity - not so without a power grid.) This implies something that deserves explicit mention: there is nothing I know of that makes a "grid" incompatible with decentralizing energy production. In at least some places, individuals with windmills sell their surplus power back to a utility. If each household made enough power on the average, couldn't we still use the "grid" just to balance the load? What if utilities stopped producing and became brokers? -D. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 15:07:28 GMT From: pdn!rnms1!ard@uunet.uu.net (0000-Akash Deshpande(0000)) Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported In article <11685@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> kring@washoe.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kring) writes: >In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes: >> Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of >> land into mirrors. > > 1> Deserts get cold at night because there is little vegetation or > 2> If the greenhouse effect were a problem, then much of the reflected and spacecrafts and airplanes will have a real problem. Gives a new meaning to mirage, though. And isn't there a plane called mirage, tying all these together? -Akash Akash Deshpande ATT Paradyne uunet!pdn!ard Mail stop LG-129 (813) 530-8307 o Largo, Florida 34649-2826 Like certain orifices, every one has opinions. I haven't seen my employer's! ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 17:18:41 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!dover!waters@rutgers.edu (Mike Waters) Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter? In article <10245@nsc.nsc.com> ken@nsc.nsc.com (Ken Trant) writes: >I think the poster suggested that the "fire on board" statement might have been >prearranged code to switch to another channel. Not to unlikely. Yes I think that would be the LAST code I would pick. Something like "I need to send you some numbers" would get far less unwelcome attention and is just as distinctive. Airports use similar codes in paging, they NEVER announce: "Fire and Bomb Squad report to gate 6". It comes out as: "Mr Williams please meet your party at gate 6 right away." The reasons are pretty obvious in both cases. If Mr Williams is the head to the fire and bomb squad for that shift it is both secure and known to everyone who needs to know. -- *Mike Waters AA4MW/7 ...!sun!sunburn!dover!waters OR moto@cad.Berkley.EDU* "Calvin Coolidge was the greatest man who ever came out of Plymouth Corner, Vermont." -- Clarence Darrow ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 89 18:29:09 CST From: hmueller@cssun.tamu.edu (Harold E Mueller) Subject: more on Liberty Bell 7 April issue of "Skin Diver" (p. 122) has a note about the planned recovery of Liberty Bell 7. Note says Subsurface Technologies (Subtek), a Fort Worth, TX organization specializing in underwater artifact recovery, has been given NASA sanction to recover the capsule. Subtek has created the Liberty Bell 7 Recovery Foundation to run the operation. Capsule will be located with a Subtek-developed device called EMS-3; no details on it. Capsule is at 5000 meters, "the deepest manned recovery ever attempted." Recovery will be carried live from "a deep diving research submarine with specially designed underwater television cameras" and a "floating marine archaeology facility with live television broadcasting capabilities." Subtek also plans to recover Spanish treasure ships and give artifacts to museums. Contacts: Robert Fuller or Larry Moore, Liberty Bell 7 Foundation, 6618 Azle Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76135, (817) 237-5490. Hal Mueller hmueller@cssun.tamu.edu Grad Student, CS Dept. n270ca@tamunix (Bitnet) Texas A&M University (409) 846-5462 ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 22:18:38 GMT From: att!cbnewsl!sw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Stuart Warmink) Subject: chauvinism (was : Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?) In article <7787@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes: > [...] > As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be? I > would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are > the most advanced nation on earth, [...] I think you are lucky that usually postings to sci.space are restricted to the USA, otherwise you would soon be buried in flames by a lot of Europeans and Japanese, and quite a few other nationalities too. Canadians are probably too polite to even comment on your statement, :-), but it really bugs me... I can't believe that attitude, it usually goes hand-in-hand with "the USA is the only real free country in the world", etc.... Contrary to popular opinion, people can (and do) say anything they like (without resorting to libel and slander, of course) in quite a few other countries around the world. I suppose any further discusions in this vein should be restricted to sci.politics or whatever; I don't read those groups anyway. |-O -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE" ("WHAT'S NEW") | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <----------- ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 89 06:09:20 GMT From: att!alberta!ncc!atha!rwa@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ross Alexander) Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications? In article <1989Mar26.003753.11770@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Nonsense. Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big > deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems > is certainly a nuisance. [...] > You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem: better > space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, or just being As a matter of fact, if your propulsion technology is good enough, it will supply artificial gravity all by itself - one gravity constant boost is artificial gravity by any reasonable definition of the term. :-) Ross ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #333 *******************