Message-ID: <IaHtLzi00VcJAOjU44@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 01:39:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #398

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 398

Today's Topics:
		       Addressing space digest
		      Re: The Vatican Connection
	Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)
		      Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #396
			   Re: Naming Stars
       Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 05/10/90 (Forwarded)
	Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)
		      Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #387
		Galileo Update - 05/11/90 (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:       Mon, 14 May 90 15:31:13 EST
From: BAXTER_M%RMC.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu
Subject:    Addressing space digest

This is a test, (sorry to waste bandwidth)

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 90 17:09:51 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mrsvr.UUCP@ucsd.edu  (Russ Brown)
Subject: Re: The Vatican Connection

From article <memo.353588@lynx.northeastern.edu>, by davidbrierley@lynx.northeastern.edu:
> 
> 
>      This seems to show a marked change in the Church's attitude toward as 
> astronomy.  Centuries ago it persecuted Galileo and only made its formal
> apology for doing so just a few years ago.  Know the Church is funding
> telescopes!  In my opinion, it would suggest that the Church feels that
> astronomy is a way towards understanding God better.  Any comments?
> 
	Actually, the Catholic church has always been a great supporter of
astonomy. They funded many early astronomers in order to improve the
calendar. They supported Tycho Brahe and even worked closely with Galileo
in his studies (partially funding him too, I beleive). It seems that
church officials realized Galileo was right, but they wanted to break the
news slowly (to limit damage to church credibility perhaps). Galileo
would not cooperate, so the church turned on him. I don't have figures
handy, but I would bet MOST of the renaissance observatories were funded
by the church.

	If you fear the effects of organized religion on the freedom of
scientific thought and education (I know I do), you may want to direct your
opposition at fundamentalist groups, not the Catholic Church, which is
fairly progressive. A case in point: I went to a Catholic grade school for
1st through 8th grade, and they taught us evolution. Not "equal time", just
evolution. I never realized there were people who actually beleived the
creation story was anything but just a story until I got into high school
and college. For comparison, my wife went to a PUBLIC high school which
taught "equal time".

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 90 01:54:02 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mrloog!dant@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)

neufeld@physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes:
>>
>>A lot of people have been suggesting getting water from planetary rings
>>or satellites for Venus.  I think a better source would be to get
>>comets.  To get them you'd have to go out to the Kuiper Belt/Oort
>>Cloud, find them, change their orbit, wait for them to fall a ways,
>>correct the orbit, etc.
>>
>   I think it would be more practical to catch a comet which was already
>penetrating into the inner solar system, knowing when and where it would
>return based on previous observations. I don't know exactly how far out
>the Oort cloud is believed to be, but the number that sticks in mind is
>some 0.5 to 1.5 light years. Now, if you cancelled all the orbital
>velocity of a given comet at 0.5 light years out, it would fall into the
>inner solar system in about one million years.

Good points.

However, waiting for a comet to return can be a real drag too.
Cometary orbits fall into two classes: periodic and non-periodic.
Periodic comets all have periods of less than about 100 years.  There
are a couple hundred known periodic comets but they tend to waste away
rather quickly (some have even been known to break up and "disappear").

Non-periodic comets do not have well established orbits mainly because
a very long eliptical orbit is not very distinguishable from a
hyperbola during the relatively short time we can track them.  Those
whose orbits have been calculated have periods (if any) on the order of
10,000 to 100,000 years.

However, we see about 1 non-periodic comet a year, so what we'd really
like to do is find them in the outer solar system and divert them to
our chosen destination.  This involves several difficult tasks: finding
the things, getting to them, matching velocities and changing the
orbits, all of which must be done before the comet gets too close to
the sun to make changing the orbit too difficult.

Better, would be to wait for them to go past the sun (makes them easy
to find) and then catching up on the outward leg.  Then we can change
its orbit into some reasonable period so that it can be of use in the
doers lifetime.

>>This would require a lot of comets, because you'd want Venus to have
>>about as much water as Earth does just to ameliorate the climate.
>>... However, if you
>>got the comets to impact correctly, you could speed up Venus' rotation
>>somewhat (not by much though).  The impacts may also remove some excess
>>CO2 for you too.
>>
>   Each 100km diameter comet would put about 1[meter] of water over the
>surface of Venus, if spread uniformly. Speeding the rotation noticeably
>is pretty well out of the question. A comet that size probably comes
>along only once in a century, even if you look for comets with very
>large apehelia.

I was thinking in terms of thousands of, say, 10-50 km comets.  Earth
has enough water that if spread evenly over the surface would be about
1km deep.  We'd want similar amount of water on Venus.  Getting 1000
comets to crash into Venus is no trivial task.  I imagine that by the
time we could do that, we'd find much better things to do with the
comets.

I just had the thought that we could use Chiron.  It's large (probably
at least 100km), has a well known orbit and does not come close enough
to the sun to evaporate quickly.

>   It would take a lot of effort to consume even one 10km comet for
>water, reaction mass, fusion fuel, oxygen distillation, or whatever. A
>comet that size, if it were pure water, would contain 520 billion tons
>of water.

How much water will an O'Neil (sp?) colony require?  How many of them
will we build?  Never underestimate the ability of humans to consume all
availiable resources.

---
Dan Tilque	--	dant@mrloog.WR.TEK.COM

------------------------------

From: AZM@CU.NIH.GOV
Date:     Mon, 14 May 90  10:49:27 EDT
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #396

> >  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.
>
How fortunate for them.

> 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.
>
The current, and forever into the future trend in world population is up.
Fortunately, this too is a self-limiting process. Rampant disease, grind-
ing poverty, and starvation will reduce the total number of humans on
Earth.

> 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.
>
After all, look at how well we're doing at it. If Earth is taken as a
"typical planet," then not only is the human race on its way to quiet
oblivion, but the entire universe, and all the beings in it are as well.

> I think the real question on E.T.'s is why don't they want to be seen.
>
Now, why wouldn't a race of extraterrestrials want to be seen by us?
Let's see if we can analyze that question.

If you are on a camping trip in the wilderness, protected by a flimsy
nylon backpacking tent, and you discover,just around nightfall, that
you are directly in the path of a hungry, savage, salivating, snarling
pack of large, ferocious wolves, you do absolutely everything within
your power to render your presence, and the visibility of your pro-
tective shelter, and any possible odors, aromas, or fragrances that
you might be producing, and any and all possible sources of light
alien to the environment, and every single, possible sound however
minute, invisible, and then cringe in fear through the night hoping
that you will not be discovered, and the wolf pack will pass you by.

That would seem to explain the aliens reluctance to encounter humans.

                                         Derd Valpar
                                   aka   Marlen
                                         AZM@NIHCU

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 90 16:22:47 GMT
From: netnews.upenn.edu!linc.cis.upenn.edu!rubinoff@rutgers.edu  (Robert Rubinoff)
Subject: Re: Naming Stars

In article <12877@motpe.phx.mcd.mot.com> mikec@phx.mcd.mot.com (Michael P. Collins) writes:
>In article <1990May11.234515.2595@wam.umd.edu> jfloyd@wam.umd.edu
>(Jason Edward Floyd) writes:
>
>>	I have heard that it is possible to name a star or galaxy. Is this
>>true? If so how does one go about doing it?
>
>  There is at least one organization, the International Star Registry,
>which will, for a fee, provide anyone with a very authentic looking
>certificate assigning your name to a designated star.  ISR is sure to
>tell you that, once named, a given star will not be renamed -- by them.
>If you question them carefully, or check the small print in their
>agreement, you'll learn that their registry of star names is not
>referenced by anyone in the world's astronomical community.  In other
>words, for their price, you get a fancy piece of paper.  Nothing more.
>If it's worth the money to you, go for it. 

Actually, they also periodically put out a "catalog" listing all the star names
they have assigned (since the last catalog, I guess, or maybe they're
cumulative).  I would imagine that only the people that get stars "named" after
them ever buy a copy.  

It's a harmless novelty, as long as people don't think that these names become
"real" names used by astronomers.  At least they get their names printed in a
book that probably gets a few thousand copies sold, and they can show their
copy around and impress their friends.  It's true, though, that the ads give
the impression that the "Star Registry" is some sort of official astronomical
organization, so they probably have misled some people.

    Robert

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 90 23:16:17 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Greg S. Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 05/10/90 (Forwarded)

In article <797@fsu.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
#Just how outdated was this chart, anyway?  Even Tycho Brahe managed to do 
#an order of magnitude better than this.

The way I heard it was that the chart was epoch 1954, however the 37
arcmin pointing error sounds large even assuming they got the
precession exactly backwards, as I also heard it. 


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 90 23:02:00 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!xylogics!transfer!lectroid!jjmhome!cpoint!frog!john@ucsd.edu  (John Woods)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus (was: Manned mission to Venus)

In article <44694@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James) writes:
> ]historic buildings. The Rings have a value where they are.
> ]						JDN
> Personally, I'd dismantle the rings in a New York minute if I
> could terraform a planet in the process.  This puts me at the
> opposite pole.

What you need to do is get an -> art <- grant for terraforming Venus...

-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 90 16:51:16 GMT
From: mojo!SYSMGR%KING.ENG.UMD.EDU@mimsy.umd.edu  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re:  SPACE Digest V11 #387

In article <9005141453.AA00923@alw.nih.gov>, AZM@CU.NIH.GOV writes:
>oning person. The percentage of materiel being lifted into orbit that is
>of a military nature is increasing logarithmically. The u.s. "space program"
>has been completely militarized (the desired outcome of the Challenger affair),
>and with deployment of SDI weapons systems on the way,

I guess NASA is putting up all those communications satellites and the
grand observatories (Hubble, et al..) for warmongering purposes, huh? 
Same with the Spacelab series.

Nobody has "deployed" SDI. It's still in R&D. Given the current budget crisis 
I think it'll stay in R&D for a long, long time. 

Did you sleep through the fall of Eastern Europe, or what?

>has been replaced by the "space program" that explores new and better
>ways of launching new and better weapons systems into orbit around the
>Earth, that will eventually lead to confrontation and nuclear-armed
>conflict in space. There are no benefits for mankind to be derived from
>this course of action, unless you loosen the definition of mankind to
>include the profiteering weapons-builders who derive their vast incomes
>from producing horrifying devices to kill humans on a massive scale.

Sorry, we have a budget crisis here at home, so even the profiteering
weapons-builders are caught in the crunch.

[cut the wishlist of items which someone else will go shred]

>. And all of this develop-
>ment shouldn't take more than another two or three thousand years. Now, con-
>sidering that at our present rate of destruction of the planet Earth, we have
>perhaps between 50 and 100 years left to exist, well..., you get the idea.

Are you a survivalist? Am I missing something? 

>THE main problem with the u.s. "space program" is that everyone is being
>fooled by this misnomer. It should immediately be corrected to the far
>more truthful, "orbital weapons deployment program." Then everyone can stop
>pipe-dreaming about colonizing space, and concentrate on being scared
>s**tless of nuclear death from the skies.

Even far-fetched rags such as "City Paper" fail to reach the overexaggerating
heights which you have obtained...perhaps we should all end our lives now
rather than live the the desparaging world which you have so eloquently
painted....

Me, I'm going to stick around for a while and see what kinda pictures Hubble
and the Jupiter probe (no, I can't remember how to spell that guy's name)
come up with, and maybe look at plans for international cooperation on
future space exploration. 

								Dgou

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 90 15:49:47 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 05/11/90 (Forwarded)

ASSOCIATED PRESS -- MAY 11
 
"The Galileo spacecraft, looping through the solar system on the
way to its 1995 exploration of Jupiter, fired its thrusters today
in a major maneuver meant to steer it near Earth late this year."
 
AP says it is the second of three or four maneuvers needed to
bring Galileo within 1,000 miles of Earth to alter the
spacecraft's path so it will eventually be headed for Jupiter.
The wire says without the maneuver, the spacecraft would miss the
Earth by more than one-and-a-half million miles.
 
AP says Galileo is currently travelling about 66,000 miles per
hour and the maneuver slowed it by about 25 mph.  The wire says
Galileo is now about 96 million miles away from Earth with its
flyby to take place on December 8, this year.
       _   _____    _
      | | |  __ \  | |       Ron Baalke           |  baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
      | | | |__) | | |       Jet Propulsion Lab   |  baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov
   ___| | |  ___/  | |___    M/S 301-355          |
  |_____| |_|      |_____|   Pasadena, CA 91109   |

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #398
*******************