Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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, 25 Sep 89 05:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 05:24:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #73 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced Re: Mars Mission ship design ISECCo Update #8 Re: RTGs for use on earth Re: Fearmongering about Gallileo (Long) Re: What's Wrong With HR2674. (long) Re: Private launch costs Re: does this proposal make sense ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Sep 89 20:30:59 GMT From: rti!xyzzy!gross@mcnc.org (Gene Gross) Subject: Re: Analysis of Martian "Face" Announced In article <938@censor.UUCP> jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) writes: >harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper) writes: >> In article <6103@ingr.com> tdj@ingr.com (Ted Johnson) writes: >> >> 2. The authors pulled in facts from all over to justify, amplify and >> expand the significance they see. Any theorist knows that, given enough >> parameters, any observation can be explained. > >> Could you perhaps point out the bits of the said article that are >> wrong, and could you say why they are wrong? Are the `facts from all >> over' incorrect ones? Is there anything inherently wrong with doing >> such a thing? Jeff, before I go any further, I must tell you that any definitive statements one way or another concerning the "Face" and other anomalies would be quite premature either way. The anomalies come from photos taken with a camera that did not provide great resolution. Nonetheless, the people who have been examining the photographs have found more than one anomaly, and they are continuing to study the many photos taken during the Mars missions. To find such anomalies to be true artificial artifacts would fly in the face of current wisdom, much like a round world flew in the face of those convinced that the world was flat. By the same token to jump up and make the statement that the anomalies are genuine artificial artifacts of some civilization of some distant eon past is unwarranted. IMHO, it smacks of tabloid journalism. The evidence is mounting that something unusual appears on the Martian surface. But I'd want more conclusive evidence that it is of an artificial source and not the happenstance of natural geologic activity. > > I read an article Hoagland wrote for Analog several years ago. >He started with the picture of the face. It's pretty crude and >doesn't contain enough detail to draw many conclusions. Unfortunately, that particular photo was used far too often. I have gotten better copies that have gone through the computer enhancement systems. These photos do make you pause and wonder a bit. One thing you should be, and probably are, aware of is that when the "Face" was first discovered by the folks at JPL, they said that it was the result of light and shadows and would be unlikely to appear again. Yet photos taken of the same area in the morning sun gave the same results--a face. Using various imaging techniques and computer enhancement programs, researchers were able to use both photos to produce a three-dimensional rendering of the "Face." It was those photos that got me to look at the whole business. I also contacted the Mars Project for additional copies of the photos and information on the research under way and the people involved. If you would like to contact them yourself, send me email and I'll get the address off to you. > > So he started in on nearby objects. There's a hill (to the north?) >that is roughly like a five-sided pyramid. The faces are all about the same >length, and fairly flat. Hoagland pointed out the resemblance in proportion >to Da Vinci's famous sketch of man in a circle. He concluded that the >hill was a reinforcement of the face directing a message to mankind. > I think it looks more like a giant Pontiac commercial. Guess it could make a good TV commericial, hadn't really considered that. Wonder what Iacoca would think of your proposal? Chrysler products are out of this world! Naw--stretches my imagination too far. I'm a Chevy man myself. 8-) 8-) > > He then started in on a nearby ridge saying it was "obviously >artificial". There's a notch in the ridge, and if you line it up with >the eye of the "face" (or the main street of the "city", I forget) you >get a completely useless direction. > But wait! If you calculate back in time as Mars' poles precess >the notch will eventually line up with some star or other on the >vernal equinox, or the summer solstice. Hoagland picks one of these >matches and thereby "proves" that the whole complex was created at some >ancient date. > > This goes on, but the pattern is the same. At the time I was >vividly reminded of the fact that you can reach *any* conclusion from >any data as long as you are allowed to use completely 'ad hoc' rules. > > It's too bad, because until then I had thought Hoagland was >an informed, if unconventional, commentator. After reading that article >I concluded that the Pauling effect had set in. Personally, I'd recommend that you read "The Monuments of Mars" before dumping on Richard. Granted he is unconventional to say the least, but he isn't a Von Daniken. In the book, he goes into great detail over his thought process from the very beginning of his study and research into the objects. Having read the book, I'm impressed with his work, but not totally convinced that the anomalies are anything more than that. I did come to the conclusion after reading the book and getting the photos to look at myself that there was adequate reason to do some study and research of the anomalies. They are unusual, but then so is a lot of what we've been discovering about our Solar system over the past couple of years due to the fly-bys. IMHO, if the anomalies on Mars turn out to artificial, I think there will be a lot of rethinking going on. But again, I reiterate that I'm not convinced that they are artificial in origin. But they sure are a bit strange. I'd like to hear from some geologists out there who have looked at the photos as to what they think would be plausible explanations. Gene ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 89 16:36:00 GMT From: hp-sdd!apollo!rehrauer@hplabs.hp.com (Steve Rehrauer) Subject: Re: Mars Mission ship design In article <18355@ut-emx.UUCP> thompson@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dan Thompson) writes: >Concerning the idea of placing the gravity modules at the ends of long >access tubes, I can see that you could have a problem during the thrust >stages. If they are extended as far as shown in the diagram, I think it >would undergo tremendous torque stress during any substantial thrust. > >Perhaps using a cylindrical design would work better. Admittedly, it would >not provide as great amount of gravity, but it would not suffer from the >above described stress. Um, space/mechanical-ignorant software-jock's first thought here: Why make the connecting tube rigid? Couldn't you do equally well with a flexible tube & cables to hold the modules together, such that the modules could be winched together for periods of thrust? I missed part of this thread -- or was the plan to use a continuous-thrust drive, e.g.: ion? And the engines run perpendicular to the plane of the modules+tube, right? Like I said -- just John Q. Interested-but-Untrained Public's 2 cents' worth. -- >>> "Aaiiyeeeee! Death from above!" <<< | Steve Rehrauer Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168 | Apollo Computer, a ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.hp.com | division of Hewlett-Packard "Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'. Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!" ------------------------------ X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 21:38:07 -0900 Sender: Reply-To: From: "ROBERT J HALE" Subject: ISECCo Update #8 September 10, 1989 ISECCo PROJECT UPDATE #8: Summer activities. In spite of a severe lack of time on the part of local ISECCo personal the summer of 1989 has bee a successful one for our group. Most of our members have been heavily involved with other projects and I have been working 2 jobs, so we consider ourselves lucky to have accomplished anything! During May we had two visitors up from Florida, Debi Wilkinson and Richard Kline. They spent a couple of weeks doing volunteer work for ISECCo and not only got the tractor running again (which will be used for digging the biosphere hole) but move a mountain of paperwork from the 'TO DO' pile to the 'DONE' pile. Their work is greatly appreciated! Any of you who plan to visit Alaska and would like to do a little volunteer work for us should get in touch with me at the address below. June saw the completion of a grant application to the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation for the construction of the biosphere. The grant absorbed considerable amounts of time from Gene and Marilyn Rowley, Robert Hale (THANK YOU!) and myself before it was written to our satisfaction. We will not know if it will beat our 100+ competitors for the grant money, nor will we until around the end of the year. We have asked for $85,000, or slightly less than a third of the gross amount required for biosphere construction (the rest will come from member's donations, use of the TANSTAAFL Inc. tractor, volunteer labor, etc). In July we completed the land lease contract for the land where the Biosphere will be built. This site, which had been cleared in May by ISECCo volunteers, is ready for construction to begin. The first step shall begin occur this fall: digging the hole in which the (buried) biosphere will be built. The heavy equipment (tractor) will be available in the latter part of September, as soon as it is done with a couple of jobs it is out on right now. August was the month in which the IRS finally began to move on our application for nonprofit status. A little, anyhow: they sent us a letter requesting more information and also called us once. It has is approaching a year and a half since we first applied so we sincerely hope they move forward without delay, now that they have started! Also during August we have a major donation: a PDP-11. This minicomputer, capable of up to 16 users (though I have it on good authority that response time dies with more than 5 or 6 users!), will be used to monitor the biosphere functions and possible serve as a bulletin board system for ISECCo and other space-oriented people. While worth over $75,000 new the PDP-11 technology is getting old but by the time you include the disk drives and packs (3 drives and 14 packs), the tape drive, printer/console, and all the other goodies donated along with the computer the value of the machine is close to $10,000. This is, of course, assuming we can get it running: we don't currently have anyplace to put it where we can plug it in and it hasn't been running in two years! It will be worth the time and effort though, for it is well built and should give years of service in spite of it's age. The heavy power requirements may require some funding though! During the summer we also completed our first round of hydroponics experiments and are ready to begin a second round. Some of our ideas worked, and some didn't; the 'ceramic soil', suggested by Jenine Abarbanel is a great success. Hydroponic drip solutions into milk jugs didn't work quite as well. Some redesign is needed if such a system is to be used in the biosphere. Any of you who haven't yet joined and are interested do get in touch with us. Our minimum membership is only $5 for an entire decade. Anyone who wants to join can just send Robert, FNRJH@ALASKA, or myself a note on here (PLEASE include a regular mail address: we have had a number of responses which we have been unable to answer over BITNET!) and we'll send you a letter with the information we'll need. Alternatively you can write ISECCo, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks, AK 99706. --Ray :: President, ISECCo [end] \done ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 20:10:40 GMT From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net (Mark Robert Thorson) Subject: Re: RTGs for use on earth The Mexican incident involved a cobalt source which wound up being used as scrap metal for making table legs and concrete reinforcing rods (rebar). It was only discovered when a truck tried to make a delivery of Mexican rebar to the lab at Los Alamos. They have radiation detectors at the gate (mostly to keep radioactive materials from LEAVING) and this truck set them off. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 89 16:08:53 GMT From: dschuetz@umd5.umd.edu (David John Schuetz) Subject: Re: Fearmongering about Gallileo (Long) In article <9117@zodiac.ADS.COM> adiseker@ADS.COM (Andrew Diseker) writes: > This article appeared in the Washington Post, Sunday 10 September. >The author is Colman McCarthy. Oh. Well, then, we can ignore it. I assume you're familiar with Mr. McCarthy, if you've read the Post for any length of time. I'm not really sure that there are that many people around here who take him seriously, and, fortunately, I don't believe that his column is syndicated. I had a friend who took a class from him here at UMCP once, "Alternatives to Violence." While she thought the class was interesting, she also thought that most of the people in the class were less-than-impressed by his more radical ideas, and didn't like the fact that though he was morally opposed to killing animals for food or anything, he wore a leather belt and shoes. In short, the author, IMHO, has a reputation for going very far out on a limb in exactly the same manner he did here. I read his column for the semester my friend was taking the course, just out of curiosity. I got very quickly disgusted with the man and his ideas. I think this is part of the reason he's on the Style page so often, rather than Outlook.... >The above opinions are mine. I speak for myself and not my employers. And mine are mine. I speak for noone but myself, and I mean to make no slander towards Mr. McCarthy, only to say that I don't put much stock in what he has to say. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 89 17:02:45 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: What's Wrong With HR2674. (long) In article <8909131937.AA05442@trout.nosc.mil> jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: >re Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute ... >... You obviously don't understand the distinction >between cost and price... > ...Clearly, academia has finally done its damage >and all you can do now is emit funny yammering noises to make >it sound like you know something... Despite Kieran's modest lingering connection with U of T, he is employed full-time by a small, struggling Canadian aerospace company these days. I can assure you that he understands costs and prices. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's neither ignorant nor stupid. >> ..probably forming >> a cartel to keep other companies from springing up, >Just because NASA has formed a cartel to prevent all progress in space >for the last 20 years doesn't mean the private companies have the skills, >authority or inclination to do the same. If, somehow, rocket technology or >some critical components could be controlled, the way the supply of oil is >controlled by petroleum producing nations, then there might be some hope. Sure there's hope for a launcher cartel: government regulation. That is the standard way of forming a cartel these days -- just convince the government to regulate the industry, and then a bit of quiet maneuvering puts the regulators in the industry's pocket. In this case, the regulatory agency is already in place with adequate powers. The Office of Commercial Space Transportation has the authority to deny permission to launch for any launch that is not in the best interests of the United States. (What? You thought they could deny launch permission only for safety reasons? Ho ho. Did you notice that HR2674's distant ancestor, the Commercial Space Incentives Act, had a clause in it specifically limiting OCST authority to safety considerations? There was a reason for that.) All that's needed is a sympathetic Administration -- the Reagan Administration wasn't; the Bush Administration hasn't made its intentions clear yet -- which thinks that the well-being of the existing launcher companies is more important than progress in the industry. (After all, the government is increasingly dependent on those existing companies, so we can't let them go broke, even if they are bloated and inefficient...) Don't kid yourself; the *really* private launch industry in the US is very young and small and fragile, and the government could easily step on it "in the national interest". -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 89 14:37:10 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Private launch costs In article <1996@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In general, few things about economics are true. Is that true! -- Annex Canada now! We need the room, \) Tom Neff and who's going to stop us. (\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 01:15:04 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Re: does this proposal make sense To: "tekgen!tekigm2!johnob@zephyr.ens.tek.com"@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu Cc: KFL%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu, space+@andrew.cmu.edu > I am reminded of an old Bloom County strip, where Oliver proposes a > "Star Wars" style "dumb rock" defense scheme, wherein the government > takes five hundred billion one-dollar bills and scatters them in low > earth orbit for ICBMs to collide with ... :-) Each year, about a trillion cigarettes are manufactured. These are very dangerous to health, but the government doesn't dare discourage them too much, since tobacco farmers are a major constituency. The solution is to launch these trillion cigarettes into space. With built-in oxidizer. They could then be ignited with ground-based lasers. Each one of the trillions of cigarettes would then release trillions of microscopic smoke particles into independent orbits. No hostile missiles could possibly get through the thick layer of poisonous smoke in near-space. A sure-fire defense scheme! ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #73 *******************