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/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 30 Oct 89 05:23:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 30 Oct 89 05:22:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #176 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 176 Today's Topics: biotechnology in space Re: finally! Re: The true value of Galileo Evolution and space travel NASA Headline News for 10/23/89 (Forwarded) Re: TDRS vs military Radar astronomy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Oct 89 15:22 -0600 From: bradley thompson Subject: biotechnology in space I have been reading some of the comments on pharmaceuticals in space with some interest. Having been in this particular game [some say scam] for longer than I care to remember, I thought I would post a few thoughts. There "seems" to be potential for some sort of use of reduced gravity environments as sites of activity in biotechnology. Hence past interests in CFES and current intersts by people like Genentech. The areas of potential [deliberately use this word alot] include several: 1- human disease research- in particular low gravity induces degenerative effects similar to a number of diseases. Dgenerative muscle, bone, immune system, reproductive system, and body fluid control diseases all have analogue symptoms in low gravity. 2- large protein crystal formation- as pointed out in the net, it appears as if we can grow larger, better protein crystals in low gravity that can be used on the ground for diffraction studies. LOTS of drug company interest here. 3- complex tissue regeneration- a new one. In studies on complex plant structures [embryos, my work] and complex organ tissue from animals [intestine] it appears as if extremely low shear environments allow single cell suspension cultures to regenerate into differentiated tissue like the cell source. In plain language functional intestinal tissue or whatever from single cells. Transplants. Work is going on at several places on this. 4- some other bits that are less medical. Examples that I am familiar with include biosensor production, biologically mediated fine metal powder formation, biologically mediated catalyst formation, and biochip production. I am flying stuff on the first three on STS 37. 5- basic research in production and purification processes- CFES in particular. The key in all of this is to remember that almost all of it won't work or will work and cost too much. We need large sample numbers, lots of attempts, and quick turn around times. When I was out in Siberia earlier this year, the group I was visiting showed me the first 6!!!!! versions of their equipment that they had flown. I should be so lucky. Brad Thompson ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 89 18:54:08 GMT From: crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen@uunet.uu.net (Wm E Davidsen Jr) Subject: Re: finally! In article <1437@syma.sussex.ac.uk>, andy@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Andy Clews) writes: | Thanks for the information, Henry, but, uh, haven't you slipped into the | "I must be the first person in the world to announce this" trap? I'm | sure most of us heard about the launch etc. on TV and radio before | your posting got around. I'm just as happy to get the info before I get out of work. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 89 19:55:02 GMT From: microsoft!davidle@uunet.uu.net (David Levine) Subject: Re: The true value of Galileo The questions was "what else could Galileo have been launched on besides the shuttle". The Ruskies offered to launch Galileo. Their heavy lift vehicles would have had no problem with its mass. I understand the reason we declined was not technical, although there might well have been important reasons why their vehicle was not suitable. They even offered to allow US personal to be present at all times to ensure they did not peek inside (although the technology on Galileo is surely not so advanced that this would be a problem). Instead, the reason given was purely political! "Of course we won't let them launch it, it's our baby and those commies are not going to steal the show!" was the gist of the objection. I'm not trying to start a controversy, but it might have been possible for Galileo to fly years earlier on a higher boost orbit and arrive six or seven years earlier at Jupiter. David Levine ============================================= This is me, not my company talking here. ============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 18:33:36 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Evolution and space travel >From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!radio.astro!helios.physics!utpsych!michael@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Gemar) >Subject: Re: Human contamination >In article <8910051922.AA02161@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >>An evolutionary change does not have to benefit the individual organism, as >>long as it benefits the species as a whole. If it turns out that spores are >>capable of crossing interplanetary or interstellar distances and seeding new >>planets (several mechanisms for this have been proposed), then such an ability >>in microorganisms (which could later evolve into more complex organisms) would >>indeed be important. [...] >*SIGH* Not to attack John, or anyone else personally, but I am rather >dismayed at the level of understanding of evolution displayed in this >newsgroup. In response to the above point, evolution in the vast, >overwhelming number of cases documented, occurs at the level of the >*individual*, and *not* the species. This is because the mechanism of >evolution works through increased "fitness" or reproductive success of >individuals - *not* through the (rather abstract entities called) species. >To argue otherwise is to invoke a rather outdated, although still popular, >in non-biology circles, notion of evolutionary change. (Granted, there >are some models of evolutionary mechanisms which use "group selection," >rather than individual variation, as the driving force, but such models >are rare, and the types of cases of change they cover are not like that >mentioned above.) I'm not sure I really understand the nature of your objection, since you didn't really specify it, but I will try to reply, insofar as evolution may be related to the ability (if any) of life to propagate across interplanetary or interstellar space. Both this posting and the previous one probably contain terminology that would be considered "loose" or "sloppy" by a purist, though I will try to make my point clear. After all, a mathematician might refer to "the limit of f as x approaches infinity" rather than the more proper "the limit of f as x increases without bound", and still expect his colleagues to understand his point. I was referring to two phenomena: the physiological ability of an organism to expand its "range", and any behavioral trait of a motile organism that might tend to expand the geographic range of that type of organism. Since any species has a maximum stable population density for a given habitat, we often judge the "success" of a particular species on its geographic range as well as its population density. For success of this type, any species which tends to "spread out" while maintaining a stable population in its original range has a clear advantage. For one thing, this allows the total "stable" population of the species to increase. For another, if various regions within the habitat should periodically become uninhabitable, the larger, more mobile population can adapt more quickly and is less susceptible to extinction. Thus, at any given time, the kinds (if "species" makes you uncomfortable) of creatures that you are likely to find the greatest numbers of within a given ecological niche are the ones which occasionally move about and increase their territory, and these are therefore the ones which are likely to have the greatest number of offspring. I believe that this could be considered an "evolutionary advantage". In fact it could be such a strong advantage that all or nearly all current species possess this trait, and it is not noted in biological studies as being anything of great interest. In the previous posting, I referred to several water-dwelling animal species among which an occasional individual will (for no immediately obvious reason) undertake a hazardous journey over land, and will sometimes locate another body of water to inhabit. The motives of such individuals may not be clear (crowding, search for better food, neighbors kicked them out, etc.), but the net effect is that these species tend to spread out into all available habitat. The specific wording of your posting *seems* to imply that such a trait is of no advantage unless the prospects of success are better for every individual than if it had remained in its original location. I submit that this is *not* necessary. It could well be that nine out of ten of such wanderers will perish on the way, and yet the fact that a few *do* make it is of overall benefit to the group as a whole. A similar argument could be made for the European colonies in North America. A high percentage of the original colonists died, but the descendants of the survivors were able to spread out into a large area and build up a large population. My hypothesis was that the fact that many humans would like to move into space is due in part to inherited human behavioral traits that have been reinforced by natural selection for billions of years. You may feel that this is a trivial conclusion, but I think that it establishes a link between evolution and the potential for the expansion of the range of earth life beyond the boundaries of the earth. As far as microorganisms are concerned, assume for the sake of argument that there is a fairly heavy distribution throughout a galaxy of planets with suitable conditions for simple organisms. Further assume that some micro- organisms are able to survive a trip from one planet to another by the mechanisms described. Now suppose that the chance of life spontaneously arising on any given planet is much lower than we had supposed - perhaps once per hundred billion planet-years. If one were to look at this galaxy after billions of years had passed, one might find life on most of the aforementioned planets, and discover that in most cases, the planets had originally been colonized by "traveling" life forms from other planets. In other words, while only a small percentage of the life forms to come into existence may have been types that could "travel", these types and their descendants would eventually become the predominant life forms throughout the galaxy. A discovery that microorganisms from earth can indeed survive long trips through space raises the estimated probability that life on earth originally came from somewhere else. If you have any more detailed objections to this revised posting, I would be happy to see them, though perhaps Email would be most appropriate. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (Internet) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 89 17:09:23 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 10/23/89 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monday, Oct. 23, 1989 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Monday, October 23rd...... The crew of the space shuttle Atlantis this morning is making plans for a landing at Edwards Air Force Base, California...now scheduled this afternoon for 12:32 P.M., Eastern time. Forecasts of head winds gusting up to 35 miles an hour this afternoon at the landing site, have forced flight controlers to trim the five-day mission by two orbits, to bring the shuttle in during the morning hours in California. There has been fog over the desert lake bed this morning, but forecasters believe it will burn off before the scheduled landing. Yesterday, during a live interview with the Cable News Network, Atlantis Commander Don Williams said the predicted high winds at the landing site do not concern him, "Because we know it's been done before and it's been done safely." Officials at the Kennedy Space Center are investigating the circumstances surrounding an incident early Saturday morning which resulted in damage to one of KSC's two payload canisters. A mobile crane being used to remove a 20-ton concrete weight--used to simulate a payload's cargo--apparently failed, causing the weight to fall...striking a door a glancing blow as it fell to the floor of the canister. There were no injuries and an inspection of the canister to determine the extent of the damage is underway. KSC officials say the temporary unavilability of the damaged canister is not expected to impact space shuttle operations as the remaining canister can be scheduled to move payloads between processing and pad facilities. The canister had been used most recently to conduct fit checks at complex 39-A, now being being readied to support launch of Columbia on the STS-32 mission in December. Meanwhile KSC technicians in the Vehicle Assembly Building are preparing the orbiter Discovery for it's rollout to launch pad 39-B...currently scheduled for this Wednesday. Discovery is to fly a Defense Department mission later next month. *********** ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select television. All times are Eastern. Today, October 23..... 12:32 P.M. Atlantis landing at Edwards Air Force Base. a post-landing press conference will be held about an hour-and-a-half later. Thursday, October 26.. 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 89 21:17:36 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!has@uunet.uu.net (H.A.Shaw) Subject: Re: TDRS vs military Who needs Retrograde Orbits? Just launch a couple of tons of fine sand in a plastic bag into low earth orbit and fire the hand grenade you left in the middle. A couple of hours later nobody don't launch nothing for thousands of years and all your (and their) spy sats have gone. To be serious for a moment... There are about 20-30 thousand trackable (bigger than 4cm diameter) objects in low earth orbit at pressent. A good number are the remains of 1960s and 1970s anti-satelite tests. (The ones that never happened) Each hyper-velocity impact (greater than about 4km/s) of a small particle (less than 0.1 gramme) on a larger one (such as one of the 20-30 thousand) causes about 100-400 times the impacting particle's mass to be ejected from the hole as many small particles. This then goes into orbit. Of the tens of thousands of small particles collected by the NASA U-2 flights very few (about 10 ??) were of space origin. That was BEFORE the smoke the Shuttle spews out got up there. (Yet one more reason for BANNING SOLID FUEL ROCKETS) I work in the Space Sciences Group at U.K.C. but everything I say is, of course, my own opinions. Even if I knew what my boss thought, I couldn't spell it. Email: has@ukc.ac.uk | Howard Allan Shaw. Phone: +44 227 764000 Extn: 3834 | Room 111A, Physics Laboratory, | The University, | Canterbury, England. CT2 7NZ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 19:19:02 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Radar astronomy As I was reading about advances in "radar astronomy" of the planets and moons of the solar system, an idea occurred to me, and I would like to know if anybody is working on it: A recent article describes radar probes of Saturn's moon Titan. The Goldstone antenna was used as a transmitter, and the Very Large Array was used as a receiver. It makes sense to use an array of receivers, so that the exact direction of the received signal can be determined, identifying it as the intended target. The article emphasized the extreme weakness of the received signal, due to the spread of the original beam and the extreme spread of the reflected signal. Even a transmitter with a large dish puts out a wide beam at radio frequencies. It seems to me that it would be possible to greatly increase the intensity of the beam striking the target, thus allowing observation of much smaller or more distant objects. You may have noticed arrays of terrestrial transmission towers arranged in a linear configuration. If the broadcaster sends the same signal through all of these towers, with a carefully calculated phase relationship for each tower, it is possible to put out a signal which is much stronger in some directions than in others. In other words, an array of omnidirectional transmitters is used to produce a directional signal. Similarly, I understand that today's fashionable early-warning military radar installation looks (from a distance) like a flat wall. The wall is covered with small receivers, which are phase-correlated so that the array is "looking" in a specific direction at any given time. I'm not sure, but I think that similar control of the phased array can be used to transmit in a specific direction. There are at least two astronomical installations (Goldstone and Arecibo) which can put out transmissions for radar astronomy, and probably others. If multiple transmitters were pointed at a single target and were to send out a signal with the proper polarity and phase, it seems to me that the signal reaching the target would at least be the sum of the separate signals. Furthermore, since the aggregate signal would be more "directional", there would be less reflection from nearby non-target areas, possibly resulting in less computation needed for the received signals, or greater resolution of the reconstructed image. With dozens or hundreds of transmitters, considerable signal strength and directionality would be possible. It seems feasible, but I have not heard of anyone trying it. Comments, anyone? John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #176 *******************