Message-ID: <McN53HW00WBwI4n04N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 03:42:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #689

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 689

Today's Topics:
	       SIGNIFICANT SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 04 JUNE
	     Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??
		 Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
			  Re: Microgravity?
	     Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??
			Re: Fred Vote Thursday
			  Re: Microgravity?
	   Re: INFO: More on Hoagland's Mars - ParaNet File

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 01:46:53 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER)
Subject: SIGNIFICANT SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 04 JUNE
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu"

                        --  MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT  --
 
                                 JUNE 04, 1991
 
                              Flare Event Summary
                          Potential Impact Assessment
 
 
                                    --------
 
 
MAJOR ENERGETIC EVENT SUMMARY
 
     Region 6659 remains a very potent spot complex.  This region exploded
with another very powerful solar flare.  This flare, like the previous event
at 15:20 UT on 01 June, was rated at greater than class X12 and was
associated with an optical 3B classification (very large and brilliant).
This event was associated with moderately strong radio bursts.  The 1695 MHz
burst was 11,000 s.f.u. while the 245 MHz burst was 28,000 s.f.u.. There
currently isn't any data available regarding possible sweeps from this event,
although a Type IV may have occurred (intensity unknown).  The integrated
x-ray flux on this event was very high, estimated at 3.47 joules per square
meter.  The event began at 03:43 UT on 04 June, peaked at 03:43 UT on 04 June
and ended at 06:07 UT on 04 June.  The x-ray levels erupted from a class C1.7
level to the greater than class X12 level (a massive increase) in under 8
minutes. The location of this powerful event was N30E65.  This is a
significant solar flare.
 
     Another major HF radio blackout has occurred with this event.  Data
across the sunlit hemisphere registered blackout or near blackout HF
conditions.  Signals are beginning to fade back in, although absorption
levels will likely remain enhanced for several more hours.
 
     Region 6659 has rotated into better view now and appears as a relatively
large beta-delta group covering over 2,800 million square kilometers.  This
region was unusually quiet over the past 24 hours, only managing to produce a
minor C-class flare prior to todays major X12+/3B Flare.  GOES sensors were
once again saturated during this event.  The actual x-ray intensities which
were achieved is not known.
 
 
POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
 
     This flare could have a low to moderate terrestrial impact, according to
the models.  The models suggest a high probability (90%) of a sudden magnetic
impulse followed by minor geomagnetic storming.  However, we believe this
prediction is too severe.  We are predicting a possible SSC with active
geomagnetic conditions (and a slight possibility for some geomagnetic
storming).  However, there is an equally high probability that no impact
will be observed from this event at all.  Additional analysis will be
required, which may be dependent on whether we intercept any protons from
this event.
 
     There is a small risk for proton activity from this last flare, although
we believe protons probably will not be observed here at the Earth despite
the fact that copious amounts of protons were likely ejected from this flare
(the flare-Earth proton trajectory is not favorable at this time).
Nevertheless, warnings are being maintained for possible future proton and
PCA activity.  HF and navigational operators are warned to be aware of the
increased threat which exists this week for polar and high-latitude related
proton disturbances.  There is a moderately high probability for satellite
proton and PCA activity this week (approximately 50%), dependent on whether
Region 6659 remains capable of producing major flares.
 
     Region 6659 (which is now located at N31E66) is expected to continue to
produce major solar flares over the next week.  Another flare in the X-class
range may not be observed for another 48 to 72 hours, although major M-class
flares are possible at any time.
 
     HF radio communicators are warned of a relatively high risk (65%) for
further major (possibly long-duration) HF radio blackouts in the coming days.
Daytime fading caused by minor and possibly major M-class flaring is also a
distinct possibility.
 
     If Region 6659 continues to produce these very powerful solar flares
over the next week to 10 days, a high risk will exist for strong terrestrial
impacts (ex. major geomagnetic and auroral storming, possibly combined with
potentially strong proton activity).  This is, of course, entirely dependent
on whether Region 6659 continues to remain flare productive.  At the present
time, we see no signs of decay.  Projections are uncertain, although we
believe the risk for continued major flaring from this region is sufficient
to warrant future precautions.
 
     Watch for future major flare alerts and possible terrestrial impact
warnings.
 
 
**  End of Alert  **

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 07:54:28 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!servax0!essex.ac.uk!alan@uunet.uu.net, [Alan@andrew.cmu.edu,
        M@andrew.cmu.edu, Stanier]@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

Also sprach grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
}BTW, I have a copy of the original NASA photo showing the "Face."  It
}is rather grainy, but I simply don't see how you can miss the "Face."
}It is nothing like the Kermit face that someone said they saw on Mars,
}nor is it anything like the face in the moon.  This thing is so
}distinct that it will capture your attention immediately.

Do you have the facilities/time/inclination to scan the picture and
distribute it to the net (preferably in gif format)? I'd be interested
in seeing it, and I suspect others would be.


--
 Alan M Stanier  | tel +44 206-872153 |  If you want a shoulder to cry on,
alan@essex.ac.uk | fax +44 206-860585 | I've got one at home in the fridge.

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 03:34:49 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> This actually isn't an entirely trivial issue:  who's responsible when a
> robotic repair is bungled?

There will probably be a difference between who should be responsible, who
accepts part of the responsibility and who the lawyers stick the blame for a
failure on.  :(

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 01:06:35 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

In article <13150@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?
>The formula I recall would have the gravitational force there approximately
>.9999 g.

It isn't the depth. If you just DROP something down the shaft, it will be
in free fall untill it reached the bottom. For a 710-m "drop tube," 12
full seconds of free fall can be simulated. (By the way, I personally find
the lengths necessary to do limited microgravity work on Earth rather
ammusing...)

					       Frank Crary

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 06:08:05 GMT
From: netcomsv!tim@decwrl.dec.com  (Tim Richardson)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

In article <1991Jun3.205520.9344@dg-rtp.dg.com> grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes:
=In article <1991May31.215411.19074@nntp-server.caltech.edu> carl@hamlet.caltech.edu writes:
=>In article <1991May31.022927.35@bilver.uucp>, dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes...
=>Hoagland is noted mainly for being a zealot who's rediscovered the fact that if
=>you take enough random data, you'll be able to find a correlation with
=>something in it.  I've been able to spot SEVERAL humanoid faces in the
=>acoustical tile on my ceiling.
=
=Actually, Hoagland didn't rediscover anything.  The first viewing of
=the "Face" was while the assembled "horde" waited for the photos to
=come back from Mars to JPL.  When the shot with the "Face" was put on
=screen, the assembled scientists and journalists were a bit stunned.
=You could have heard a pin drop during the few seconds that it took
=for some bright scientist at JPL to quip "amazing what light and
=shadows will do."
=
=BTW, I have a copy of the original NASA photo showing the "Face."  It
=is rather grainy, but I simply don't see how you can miss the "Face."
=It is nothing like the Kermit face that someone said they saw on Mars,
=nor is it anything like the face in the moon.  This thing is so
=distinct that it will capture your attention immediately.

I have a GIF of the 2 frames of the "face" including these 2 frames
which have been processed by Loren Carpenter (formerly of PIXAR).  I 
have included a couple of his comments regarding these pictures and
will be happy to email the GIF picture to anyone who wants it.  Loren's
comments are below.


From Loren Carpenter;

>"A few years ago when I was with Lucasfilm, I was asked by Mr. Hoagland
>and associates if I would participate in the "Mars Project".  This was
>to be an informal group of technically capable people who could tinker
>around with the "face" and "city" pictures in their spare time.  Work
>being what it was, my spare time evaporated and I drifted away from the group.

>"Both images in this posting are >100x100 excerpts from 35A72 and 70A13 
>respectively.

>"The data is exactly as I received it.  It's pretty noisy and there is an
>obnoxious riseau mark in one of the images.  Most of the noise appears to
>be caused by "broken bits", i.e. 1 (or maybe 2) bits toggled somewhere
>in the pixel.  I wrote a smart median filter and it cleaned them up fairly
>well.

>"I haven't done anything serious with these images, so please don't flood me
>with questions.  Personally, I think it's just a pile of dirt.

-- 
Tim Richardson
Technical Network Products, Inc.  "techNET"
email: tim@netcom.com   {apple, amdahl, claris}!netcom!tim
*******************************************************************************
    "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
     deserve neither security nor liberty".   ------   Benjamin Franklin
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 14:22:36 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela!aws@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Fred Vote Thursday

In article <30555@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>Just as a point of information, the tiebreaking authority of the Vice 
>President is in the Senate, not the House.

Stupid mistake on my part, thanks for the correction.

>Maybe this near-death will scare the Freedom people into getting some 
>hardware built...

I hope so too. Even now there is a lot which could be done to reduce
program costs. I hope they will be looked into.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   aws@iti.org   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 23:31:01 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!shamash!timbuk!sequoia!gbt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Greg Titus)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

In article <13163@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <1991Jun4.164829.10226@dsd.es.com>, bpendlet@bambam.dsd.es.com (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>> In article <13150@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> > In article <406.284B619D@nss.FIDONET.ORG>, freed@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Bev Freed) writes:
>  
>> > > A 710-meter shaft set deep into the Earth forms the centerpiece of a 
>> > > new microgravity experimentation facility ...
>  
>> > I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?
>
>> Not a problem. You put the experiment in a high density streamlined
>> container and you DROP it 710 meters. During the fall you get
>> microgravity. At the end you get macrogravity. :-)
>
> ... is this better than taking to 
>a substantial height (we do have ways to get drops of well over 7000 meters)
>and it is not necessary to get quite as much macrogravity at the end?  Also,
>one could even have good observing methods along the way instead of merely
>removing the product from a canister.  How long a really low-gravity fall
>would we get from the height at which the SR-71 could be flown?

In air, the container rapidly reaches terminal velocity, at which
point you have full-strength gravity inside it.

If you have a hole in the ground, you can just line it and then
pump out the air.  Presto!  No terminal velocity, no gravity all
the way down.  (Until the sudden stop at the end of course, as
Bob pointed out.)

greg
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com)             Compiler Group (Ada)
Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 00:19:07 GMT
From: dweasel!loren@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: INFO: More on Hoagland's Mars - ParaNet File


	We don't get that one here ^^^^^

	Good Grief!

	Although I am certainly interested in the question of alien
artifacts in the Solar System, I think that the field deserves a lot
more critical sense.

	I wonder if Hoagland and other "Mars Face" enthusiasts are
willing to acknowledge the possibility that the feature will turn out
to be just another mountain? Are they even capable of acknowledging
that their claims might be in error?

	I myself have been willing to consider the possibility of
alien artifacts, and I am perfectly happy to concede failure in
finding any. Are the Hoaglandites?

	One last thing:

	Has Hoagland taken a look at the "alien strip mines" of
Miranda?

	Of the "smokestacks" of Triton?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov

Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:

loren%sunlight.llnl.gov@star.stanford.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #689
*******************