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, 14 May 90 01:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 14 May 90 01:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #396 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 396 Today's Topics: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus) Carl Sagan's Bugs Re: why there are no ETs Re: why there are no ETs Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus) Re: Dirigible launchers (was Re: Pegasus launchers, space-going DUCT TAPE) Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus) Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus) Re: Voyager Update - 05/08/90 Re: Sex in space Re: why there are no ETs Re: Sex in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 May 90 01:55:39 GMT From: crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen@uunet.uu.net (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus) In article <1990May10.134424.4275@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> Roman@Mthvax.CS.Miami.Edu writes: | Great idea! Now, when will someone figure out as practical a way to | terraform this planet? (only 1/2 a :-] on that one) We're doing a pretty good job now, aren't we? -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me ------------------------------ From: davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu Date: Sun, 13 May 90 21:30:42 EST Subject: Carl Sagan's Bugs Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Carl Sagan suggested using microorganisms in _Cosmos_ (I believe). He suggested using dark-colored bacteria at or near the poles of Mars. The bacteria would live on ambient moisture and gas there. Their darkness would allow them and their environment to absorb heat, hopefully raising the temperature. If successful, the polar ice caps would melt to liberate water and gases for an atmosphere. These ideas were proposed by Carl Sagan, and I do not necessarily concur with them. Of course, the ideas may not have even been Sagan's - he may have just been writing about the theories of others at the time. David R. Brierley Northeastern University Geology davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 90 20:56:41 GMT From: decvax.dec.com!zinn!ubbs-nh!siia!drd@mcnc.org (David Dick) Subject: Re: why there are no ETs acad!megalon!peb@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Baclaski) writes: >It just occured to me that one of the possible reasons we have not discovered >extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe is that they have >created full fledged virtual reality systems and feel no need to >go exploring space because they have enough fun exploring the inner >space of their collective minds. A problem we may encounter, also--collective navel contemplation isn't very effective in helping to solve little problems like environment-destroying meteorites or other calamities. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company(sm)] ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 90 04:26:36 GMT From: eb1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Joseph Bennett) Subject: Re: why there are no ETs >bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) wrirtes: > What are the odds of two civilizations existing at the same time? >Earth is at least 3 billion years old, and we have been using radio for >maybe 100 years. Assuming no change in the world population trends we >will no longer have resources for space exploration in another 100 >years. That leaves a very small window for an intelligent race to >discover us. This overly pessimistic and has many flaws. First, I thought one of the reasons for developing space is to expand are supply of resources. In our solor system there are huge supplies of metals, energy, etc., etc. Second, Assuming no change in world population trends may be flawed. The US for example in the past century has went from large population growth to negative population growth (Our small population growth is from immigration). Likewise most other 'Developed nations' have. It is only third world nations that have a population boom. If we end the cold war and channel efforts to bring education and birth control (and economic progress in general) to these regions there is no reason to assume current population trends. Third, The big problem we have is not really a lack of resources but unequal distribution of resources, inefficient use of resources, and armed conflict. The world can easily produce enough food to feed everyone many times over but the US pays farmers to leave fields empty. Lets treat Earth as a typical planet. It seems that civilizations will becoming into space technology just as many other problems are starting to become acute. The question is what is the probability that a civilization will adress these problems and solve them before it is too late. (avoid blowing themselves up, destroying the enviroment, and overpopulating themselves). I personally would say the probability of this is at least 1 in 10 civilizations would make it and extend their window well beyond the 100 years you give them. I think the real question on E.T.'s is why don't they want to be seen. Certainly any civilization with interstellar travel capabilities would certainly have the technology to escape our primitive means of detection if they so wished. Probability is that their are E.T.'s visiting and they are not allowing themselves to be detected (or at least not confirmed). So can we think of a theory that would explain why they wouldn't want to be detected. Ed ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 90 04:05:21 GMT From: eb1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Joseph Bennett) Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus) Since we our allowing for the possiblility to divert coments from their orbits, remove moons from Saturn, and build blinds big enough to shade all of venus I'll throw my far out idea out for cooling Venus. Simply move it farther from the sun. Now I don't know what kind of imapact this would have on Earth but while we are moving it why don't we let the Earth and Venus orbit each other as a binary planet system. We can do whatever with the moon if it would complicate things too much. This might be a real bad idae. I don't know if an orbit could be found to that wouldn't dramatically change the Earth climate and tides. Also if you use the Venitian blinds approach mentioned before you could also solve the problem of having the days be too long. Just open and close the blinds in a cycle that simulated an Earth day. I suppose you could even simulate seasons this way. Ed ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 90 01:59:59 GMT From: crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen@uunet.uu.net (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Subject: Re: Dirigible launchers (was Re: Pegasus launchers, space-going DUCT TAPE) In article <884@odin.cs.hw.ac.uk> adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) writes: | Even the B-1B can go faster and higher than a B-52, although in its military | role it probably wouldn't do so. The B-52 can't go beyond Mach 1; the B-1B | can; and the B-1A could go at Mach 2. The B-52 can't get over 50,000 feet; | both B-1 types can get over 60,000 feet. The XB70 could go mach 3 in the 60s. I wonder how hard it would be to retool the design and convert the bomb bay to passenger space. I see that Boeing is going to spend (I believe) 35 million on evaluating the development of a new SST to replace the Concorde. The XB70 was twice as fast as the goal of this new system, and appeared to have a much higher cargo (weight) capacity. I suppose that like so much technology it has been lost or classified. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 90 05:02:34 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!uluru5!danielce@uunet.uu.net (Daniel Ake CAROSONE) Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus) In article , eb1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Joseph Bennett) writes: > [..] my far out idea out for cooling Venus. Simply > move it farther from the sun. Now I don't know what kind of imapact this > would have on Earth but while we are moving it why don't we let the > Earth and Venus orbit each other as a binary planet system. We can do > whatever with the moon if it would complicate things too much. This > might be a real bad idae. I don't know if an orbit could be found to > that wouldn't dramatically change the Earth climate and tides. The place you are looking for is at one of the Langrange points of the Earth's orbit. The idea is that we get Venus to execute the same orbit as Earth with a time delay. Orbits that have such configurations (a delay of 60 degrees of arc) are stable. Putting the Venus/Earth system into a binary orbit would indeed be a Very Bad Idea, unless the Earth's biosphere gets so bad that we have to reverse Terraform Terra. Then just about anything goes. (no smiley. This is serious) danielce@ecr.mu.OZ.AU ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 90 16:32:51 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watcgl!watnow!mark@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Earnshaw) Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus) In article eb1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Joseph Bennett) writes: >Since we our allowing for the possiblility to divert coments from their >orbits, remove moons from Saturn, and build blinds big enough to shade >all of venus I'll throw my far out idea out for cooling Venus. Simply >move it farther from the sun. Now I don't know what kind of imapact this >would have on Earth but while we are moving it why don't we let the >Earth and Venus orbit each other as a binary planet system. Wouldn't a simpler solution be to place Venus in the same orbit as Earth, but on the opposite side of the sun? I have no idea how this would affect the other planets (if at all). My guess would be that it wouldn't have any negligible effect though. Of course, this solution would make travel to Venus somewhat difficult unless you just stopped dead in space and waited the 182.5 days for Venus to reach you (might have to do some maneuvering to counter-act the sun's gravity). :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Earnshaw, Systems Design Engineering {uunet,utai}!watmath!watnow!mark University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada mark@watnow.waterloo.{edu,cdn} ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 90 03:44:55 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!rick@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Rick Ellis) Subject: Re: Voyager Update - 05/08/90 In a message of , Lance Michel (lmm@cci632.UUCP) writes: LM> > One Week Propellant Remaining Output Margin LM> > Spacecraft (Gm) (Kg) Watts Watts LM> > Voyager 1 42 36.5 + 2.0 370 59 LM> > Voyager 2 6 39.6 + 2.0 374 66 LM> ^ LM> Okay, I give... What is this? Grams of propellant used per week. -- uucp: Rick Ellis Internet: rick@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 90 22:47:30 GMT From: netnews.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu!pravin@rutgers.edu (Pravin Maheshwari) Subject: Re: Sex in space In article <1990Apr30.160047.29207@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <21753@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> ccmay@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Chris May) writes: >>... a friend and I are interested in knowing whether anyone has >>had sexual intercourse while in orbit... > Wasn't there some discussion a few months ago about some NASA experiments! __________________________________________________________________________ pravin maheshwari pravin@eniac.seas.upenn.edu pravin@cwsys2.cwru.edu aj586@cleveland.freenet.edu (215)387-8543 (h) (215)898-3211 (o) ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 90 01:54:20 GMT From: crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen@uunet.uu.net (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) Subject: Re: why there are no ETs In article <482@megalon.UUCP> acad!megalon!peb@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Baclaski) writes: | | It just occured to me that one of the possible reasons we have not discovered | extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe is that they have | created full fledged virtual reality systems and feel no need to | go exploring space because they have enough fun exploring the inner | space of their collective minds. What are the odds of two civilizations existing at the same time? Earth is at least 3 billion years old, and we have been using radio for maybe 100 years. Assuming no change in the world population trends we will no longer have resources for space exploration in another 100 years. That leaves a very small window for an intelligent race to discover us. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 90 04:09:19 GMT From: elbereth.rutgers.edu!bschwart@rutgers.edu (Trashy) Subject: Re: Sex in space In article <21753@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> ccmay@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Chris May) writes: >... a friend and I are interested in knowing whether anyone has >had sexual intercourse while in orbit... The latest figure I heard for "space shuttle sex" is that it has been done at least seven times. Apparently it is a difficult process. You need a third person to steady you. -- Barry Schwartz bbs@hankel.rutgers.edu (When I am in Canada, try {...rutgers}!utai!lsuc!nrcaer!alzabo!trashman) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #396 *******************