Message-ID: <sb-bXra00VcJQ2dE44@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 1990 01:21:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #505

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 505

Today's Topics:
			    CCCP in space
			   Re: FITS images
     NASA renames Execllence Award for George M. Low (Forwarded)
   Re: NASA renames Execllence Award for George M. Low (Forwarded)
			 Re: Theory for Life
      Navstar GPS Full 24-hr., 2D Coverage for NA by End of Year

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 06:05:30 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil  (S Schaper)
Subject: CCCP in space

Why have a number of recent soviet crews to Mir had the same first names? or
are
they last names? Is this humor? secrecy (as to who is on the radio)? marriage?
:-)
  but Why? really?


s
Zeitgeist Busters!

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil
INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.com

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 20:19:09 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucdn!gilla@uunet.uu.net  (Arnold G. Gill)
Subject: Re: FITS images


     If you wish to see a paper detailing the exact FITS format, look up the
following:

     FITS:  A Flexible Image Transport System, Astronomy and Astrophysics
          Supplement Series 44, 1981, pg 363.

     Since this is already 9 years old, there may have been some slight
enhancements.  The people to contact about this would be NRAO (National
Radio Astronomy Observatory) in Charlottesville, Virginia.
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|  Arnold Gill                        |   - If I hadn't wanted it heard,      |
|  Queen's University at Kingston     |         I wouldn't have said it.      |
|  InterNet:  gilla@qucdn.queensu.ca  |   - Astrophysician in training        |
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

Date: 24 Oct 90 22:04:09 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA renames Execllence Award for George M. Low (Forwarded)

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.              October 24, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-8956)

RELEASE:  90-143

NASA RENAMES EXCELLENCE AWARD FOR GEORGE M. LOW

     NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly today announced that the 
NASA Excellence Award has been renamed the George M. Low 
Trophy.  It is NASA's quality and excellence award to honor one 
of America's outstanding space pioneers.

     "George Low represented quality and excellence like few 
others....If NASA is synonymous with excellence, George Low is 
synonymous with NASA", Truly said.  He added that during Low's 
nearly three decades of service to NASA, he was "involved in 
every success the American space program had."

     Truly's remarks came in his keynote address opening the 
Seventh Annual NASA/Contractors Conference in Grenelefe, Fla.  
The two-day conference features panel discussions on implementing 
Total Quality Management (TQM) within NASA and the aerospace 
industry.

     Truly said that the American space program today "stands at 
a crossroad.  We are entering a new age of space exploration 
where we will find countless doors of opportunity...to learn more 
about this precious planet we live on, about our neighboring 
planets and about what lies beyond the solar system.  We have the 
opportunity to establish a permanent presence in Earth orbit, 
colonize the Moon and explore the planet Mars."

  NASA Deputy Administrator J.R. Thompson will announce the 1990 
recipient(s) of the George M. Low Trophy tonight.  The award 
recognizes NASA prime contractors, subcontractors and suppliers 
for outstanding achievement in quality and productivity 
improvement and TQM.

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 21:15:07 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aries!mcdonald@ucsd.edu  (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: NASA renames Execllence Award for George M. Low (Forwarded)

In article <1990Oct24.220409.887@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>
>  NASA Deputy Administrator J.R. Thompson will announce the 1990 
>recipient(s) of the George M. Low Trophy tonight.  The award 
>recognizes NASA prime contractors, subcontractors and suppliers 
>for outstanding achievement in quality and productivity 
>improvement and TQM.

Predicted winner: Hughes Danbury Optical Systems, for producing the
Hubble Space Telescope primary mirror, thus providing a make-work
project for NASA for years to come.

Doug McDonald

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

Date: 27 Oct 90 22:08:50 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!kuento@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Theory for Life

In article <1990Oct27.045445.28533@midway.uchicago.edu>, chi9@quads.uchicago.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
> In article <1050400042@cdp> dyurman@cdp.UUCP writes:
>>This is a reply to a posting from Daniel Mocsny on the subject
>>of THEORIES NEEDED FOR LIFE.  I would like to add a couple of
>>points.
>>

As an invertebrate biologist (I specialize in bees), I would also like
to add a couple of points to this discussion - considering the
numerical superiority of invertebrates on our own planet, I tend to
view them as more likely models of lifeforms elsewhere. I have taken
some specific excerpts I'd like to address.

>>2nd: the creature must be a predator, otherwise it's species will
>>spend too much time avoiding being something else's supper.  This
>>will not leave any time for rocketry.
> 
> 	Does not follow.  Perhaps avoiding being someone else's supper might
> be a strong selection for intelligence and the development of technology (to
> be used against whomever was trying to make supper out of the technological
> species).  This doesn't seem to have been the primary selective force for the
> development of intelligence and technology on Earth, but that doesn't mean it
> couldn't be.
> 
>>                                       It must be at or very near
>>the top of the trophic web not only for its niche, but also for
>>the planet.
> 
> 	Why?  See above.

I concur that this is an unnecessary condition. I think it could be
agreed that among invertebrates, the Cephalopods (octopi, squids, and
their relatives) are probably the "smartest", and yes, they are indeed
predators. BUT: (a) they are also preyed upon by quite a number of
other, less intelligent organisms (b) bees, which would probably come
in second in the intellect ratings, feed on pollen - purely
herbivorous, preyed upon by numerous organisms, and quite bright for
organisms with brains the size of pinheads!(all you Zippy fans...). If
these organisms can get so far without fulfilling the proposed
"requirements", I don't see why they, or organisms like them, could
not, under other conditions, go "all the way" to technology. Can you
consider hive-or-nest-building a primitive technology?

>>3rd: assuming carbon-based life, sensory organs must be seated as
>>close as possible to the brain in order to provide the shortest
>>possible response time between reception of input and reaction to
>>it.  See predator concept above.
> 
> 	For some environments, a factor other than response time might
> dominate the placement of sensors relative to the brain.  For example, imagine
> an organism in a very treacherous and abusive environment.  If the organism
> could regenerate parts, it could deal with repeated loss of sensors, but even
> with regeneration major brain damage would be majorly bad news for retaining
> memories needed for civilization.  Therefore, it would make sense to either
> have the brain as far away as practical (and behind as much shielding as
> practical) from all of the common types of abuse, or to have a distributed
> redundant form of memory storage so that even a drastically mangled organism
> would have a good chance of containing at least one complete copy of its
> memories.
> 
I might add that proximity is not the only thing that increases the
speed of responses - nerve impulses (in nerves as we know them) travel
at a greater speed in neurons of greater diameter. A great many types
of invertebrates have independently developed "escape neurons" - cells
of great diameter which run directly from a sensory structure to a
motor center. Examples include lobsters, squid, and cockroaches (which
is why they're so tough to step on 8-). In fact (SERIOUS TRIVIA ALERT)
the largest single cell on the Earth is the escape neuron ("giant
axon") of the Giant Squid, _Architeuthis_, which can be around 20 feet
long and an inch in diameter in the larger individuals (presumably to
help them escape from Sperm Whales).
     Additionally, the "redundancy" idea expressed above is precisely
the sort of mechanism seen in most Arthropods, in the possession of
segmental ganglia which take care of most motor & reflex responses.
No, not memory storage *per se*, but certain ganglia are capable of
"learning", independently, and so the possibility certainly isn't too
far-fetched. Just watch an insect with its head cut off some time >|-p.

>>5th: from what we know of the processing power of our own brains,
>>there is a trade off of energy expended between physical
>>coordination or limbs and manipulation of abstract concepts.
>>This suggests that a creature with four arms or eight elephant
>>like trunks might spend all its time worrying about where the
>>parts of its body were and what to do with them, and less time
>>about its future as a life form or the meaning thereof.
> 
> 	Our own brains should not be taken as ultimate examples -- that is, we
> should not assume that they represent the full range of what can be done with
> a nervous system.  To be sure, an organism with more limbs would probably need
> a somewhat bigger brain to use them all as well as an organism with fewer
> limbs and equal intelligence and equal efficiency of utilization of brain
> weight and space, but this does not mean that that is impossible.  Also, no
> reason exists why a multi-limbed organism could not evolve so as to be able to
> choose at will whether to distribute its motor coordination to all limbs or
> concentrate most of it on a few so that less brain weight would be required to
> control them.  As a matter of fact, we can do this to some extent.

See my comment on ganglia above, for one, as to relegating motor
activity to peripheral neural structures. Also, squid and octopi seem
to do rather well, for creatures with numerous, extremely dextrous
appendages, don't they?

>>6th: the creature must have the ability to develop abstract
>>thinking [see #1 above on storage of information] else it will
>>fail to develop methods for organizing information, and thus fail
>>to develop technology.  This suggests a protective shell of some
>>kind for the brain or equivalent, else the creature will never
>>have its mental abilities survive long enough to get the
>>abstractions built much less communicated.  [. . .]
> 
> 	A protective shell would certainly be useful for this, but not the
> only means of making memory non-perishable.  Having distributed redundant
> memory would also work; if suitable high-data-rate communication were a
> biological feature of an organism, memory and even thought could be
> distributed over multiple physical individuals, so that logical individuals
> need not correspond to physical individuals (-: brains like a Sequent :-).
> 
Again, look at an octopus for a perfect example of an organism with NO
hard covering for its brain, and considerable intellect. I see no
reason they would need to evolve a tougher covering in order to have
greater memory capacity. It does not follow.

> |   Lucius Chiaraviglio    |    Internet:  chi9@midway.uchicago.edu
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Yanega        (Snow Museum, Univ. of KS, Lawrence, KS 66045)
My card: 0 The Fool                        Bitnet: Beeman@ukanvm
"This is my theory, such as it is....which is mine. AAH-HEM!"

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 13:16:12 ADT
From: LANG%UNB.CA@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU
Subject: Navstar GPS Full 24-hr., 2D Coverage for NA by End of Year
Apparently-To: <SPACE+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>

With the launch of the next Block II satellite, North America should
enjoy full 24-hr. 2D coverage with Navstar GPS.  A minimum of 3
satellites will be above a 5 degree elevation angle as viewed from sites
in North America,  permitting height-constrained determination of
latitude and longitude as well as synchronization of the GPS receiver
clock.  Trimble Navigation hopes to have an FAA technical standard order
for a hybrid GPS/Omega/VLF navigation system they have developed which
will take advantage of this improved coverage for instrument flight
rules flying.
 
(Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, 1 October 1990)
 
================================================================================
 Richard B. Langley                            BITnet: LANG@UNB.CA or SE@UNB.CA
 Geodetic Research Laboratory                  Phone:  (506) 453-5142
 Dept. of Surveying Engineering                Telex:  014-46202
 University of New Brunswick                   FAX:    (506) 453-4943
 Fredericton, N.B., Canada  E3B 5A3
================================================================================

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #505
*******************