Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 24 Jun 91 04:31:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 04:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #699 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 699 Today's Topics: Still more on Freedom Vote Re: orbiter production Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?? Jonathan's Space Report, Jun 5 Why would I stick a face on Mars... GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPGRADED TO MAJOR CATEGORY STORM Re: Crary's Quick Debunkings ComStore: What happened? Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures 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: 5 Jun 91 18:06:56 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Still more on Freedom Vote The vote by the full House is still scheduled for Thursday. The amendment to be offered has changed. Currently the amendment will freeze NASA spending at '91 levels. This will give Freedom just under $2B while not touching other programs in HUD, VA, and the other agencies. This will give the amendment a lot more support. The vote is still very close, changing the mind of one Representative could change the outcome (either way). Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 91 19:13:16 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Doug McDonald) Subject: Re: orbiter production In article <1991Jun5.165136.2047@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >A fresh set of structural spares is underway at the moment, but once again >the time is approaching when facilities will close down and people will be >let go and the cost of a new orbiter will skyrocket. > >I don't think it is a particularly bright idea to let the orbiter line close >when there is no replacement even in development, much less ready. >-- I agree. The whole shuttle system is a botch but at the moment it is the biggest we have, and the only manned one. It was stupid to make it impossible to restart the Saturn. Let's don't do that again, evem for as flawed system as the shuttle. Keep it going until a proper replacement is actually in place and working. Doug McDonald ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 91 18:57:03 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!swbatl!jburnes@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Jim Burnes - 235-7444) Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?? grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: > > 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. C'mon guys...I am not about to start a UFO bashing contest (partly because something like that appears to exists), but there is a special part of your brain that is dedicated to doing nothing but recognize faces. Anything that has 2 "eyes", 1 "mouth" and is round will be recognized as such. Really...if someone wanted to send us a message why didnt they just encode it in symbology like we did on voyager. Jim -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- Jim Burnes, UNIX SysAdmin ! "The Nineties SWBell Advanced Technology Labs ! are gonna make the Sixties (314) 235-7444 ! look like the Fifties..." jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com ! author unknown... -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 91 15:48:07 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!freedom!xanth!mcdowell@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Jonathan's Space Report, Jun 5 Jonathan's Space Report Jun 5 1991 (no.75) ---------------------------------------------------- Launch of STS-40/Columbia occurred on June 5 at 13:24:51 UT approximately. Crew are Bryan O'Connor, Sid Gutierrez, Dr. Rhea Seddon, Dr. Jim Bagian, Dr. Tamara Jernigan, Dr. Mille Hughes-Fulford, Dr Andrew Gaffney, several rats, and many jellyfish. Soyuz TM-11 undocked from the Mir complex and landed on May 26. Aboard were the long stay crew Viktor Afanas'ev and Musa Manarov, and Soyuz TM-12 researcher Helen Sharman of England. The Mir/Kvant/Kvant-2/Kristall/Soyuz TM-12 complex is now crewed by Anatoliy Artsebarksiy and Sergey Krikalyov. The Progress M-8 cargo craft carrying supplies and fuel for the station was launched from Baykonur on May 30. Musa Manarov landed with 540 days 22 hours and 31 minutes spaceflight time accrued over two missions to Mir, beating Yuriy Romanenko's record for cumulative spaceflight time by over 100 days, and the US record by over a factor of six. The 10th Resurs-F remote sensing satellite was launched on May 21 from Plesetsk. It carries an MK4 multispectral camera, and is based on the Vostok spacecraft. Kosmos-2149 was launched on May 24 from Plesetsk. It is an imaging recon satellite and will remain in orbit for 2 months. It replaced Kosmos-2138 which was deorbited on May 24 after 59 days in space. Aurora 2, a communications satellite for GE Alascom, was launched by a Delta 7925 on May 29. The GE 3000 class C-band comsat will replace the Aurora 1 which was launched in 1982. TIP 2, a US Navy experimental navigation satellite, reentered on May 26. It was launched in 1975. Kosmos-151, an electronic intelligence satellite launched in 1967, reentered on May 6. Delta 111, the second stage of the launch vehicle which orbited Nimbus 6 in 1975, exploded into hundreds of fragments about May 14. The Delta stages of that era had a habit of exploding years after launch, due to the detonation of left over propellants. More recent Delta launches have burned up all their propellants to avoid this problem. ___________________________________ |Current STS status: | |Orbiters | | | |OV-102 Columbia LC39B | |OV-103 Discovery OPF Bay 1 | |OV-104 Atlantis OPF Bay 2 | |OV-105 Endeavour VAB Bay 2 | | | |ML/ET/SRB stacks | | | |ML1/STS-43 VAB Bay 1 | |ML2 | |ML3/STS-40/ET/OV-102 LC39B | ----------------------------------- 10 years ago: 31 May 1981. The Indian Space Research Organization launched Rohini RS-D-1, a remote sensing satellite. Problems with the launch vehicle left the satellite in a low orbit from which it reentered in one week. 20 years ago: 30 May 1971. Mariner 9 was launched on its way to orbit Mars and map its surface. Mariner 8 failed earlier in the month. (c) 1991 Jonathan McDowell. Information in this report is obtained from public sources and does not reflect the official views of NASA. .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. | Jonathan McDowell | phone : (205)544-7724 | | Space Science Lab ES65 | uucp: | | NASA Marshall Space Flight Center | bitnet : | | Huntsville AL 35812 | inter : mcdowell@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov | | USA | span : ssl::mcdowell | '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 91 00:29:30 GMT From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mark William Hopkins) Subject: Why would I stick a face on Mars... In article <1991Jun4.185703.19747@swbatl.sbc.com> jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com (Jim Burnes - 235-7444) writes: >...there is a special >part of your brain that is dedicated to doing nothing but recognize >faces. Anything that has 2 "eyes", 1 "mouth" and is round will >be recognized as such. Really...if someone wanted to send us a >message why didnt they just encode it in symbology like we did >on voyager. Because we're much better at recognizing faces... What would you have? An objective scale of facialness constructed with a probability metric assigned for natural formations, in order to prove that this is worthy of attention? The point is: you've made no falsifiable assertion to this object's nature. Merely saying it's random is irresponsible: you need to provided an objective means by which one can determine this, such as what I've described above. In fact, I will bet you that ANY neural net successfully trained to distinguish a face from a non face out of a large and sufficiently complete corpus of test cases with more than 99% accuracy will, when applied to the photo of the formation on Mars, classify that as a human face with more than 99% probability. There. I've just provided a falsifiable test. You haven't. As a general principle in my development of language independent software, I make it a point to make the interface as non symbolic and visual as possible, because humans are so much more adept at seeing images than reading (which has to be trained in school even). If I wanted to communicate with aliens, even to tell them how to bootstrap my language, I'd have to use imagery (assuming they process images too), since it is the most error-tolerant and efficient means of communication we have. In Hungary, foreign students are taught Hungarian from a text written completely in Hungarian. The bootstrapping technique used is so efficient as to make that nation the most adept in whole area second language accquisition. The first few pages are virtually all images. As you yourself said, an image will attract attention much quicker than a sequence of symbols. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 01:30:24 MDT From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER) Subject: GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPGRADED TO MAJOR CATEGORY STORM X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ GEOMAGNETIC STORM UPDATE STORM UPGRADED TO MAJOR CATEGORY /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 07:00 UT, 05 June ------------- STORM UPDATE INFORMATION: Major to severe geomagnetic storming is currently in progress (07:00 UT, 05 June). Conditions intensified around 05:00 UT and have reached severe storm levels over the middle and high latitudes. Significant geomagnetic and auroral storming are being observed. There is a high probability for low-latitude auroral observations this evening (04/05 June) and tommorrow evening (05/06 June). Continued major geomagnetic storming could be observed if solar Region 6659 continues to produce strong solar flares. Major flaring is expected to continue. A polar latitude HF radio blackout has been observed due to intense solar proton bombardments. Absorption over the high latitude and polar regions will remain capable of producing long-duration HF blackouts over the next 24 to 48 hours, at least. Further major flaring could degrade conditions even further. A significant probability for VHF auroral backscatter exists over the low, middle and high latitude regions. Conditions are very favorable for VHF backscatter communications over widespread areas. Auroral storming is very high at the present time. This is a very strong geomagnetic and auroral storm. No significant improvements are anticipated over the next 12 hours. Conditions over the sunlit hemisphere will be less severe than conditions on the nightside. An update will be posted later this UT day. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 91 07:26:02 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!rex!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Coffman) Subject: Re: Crary's Quick Debunkings In article <2106@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p515dfi@mpirbn.UUCP (Daniel Fischer) writes: >[Sorry for not using the F-command for attributing the earlier articles here, > but the machine keeps replying "interp buffer overflow!" and cancels rn - > does someone know what this kryptic error message wants to tell me?] It's trying to tell you that the current thread has gone on too long and the entries in the References line exceed it's buffer capacity. If you are a clever hacker, you can go into your /usr/spool/news/sci/space directory and edit off some of the offending references. If you are a nice net person, you'll start a new topic or take it to Email. :-) Gary ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 91 00:08:07 GMT From: agate!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!widener!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!mike@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Smithwick) Subject: ComStore: What happened? [] Anyone know what happened to the JSC-Video BBS, Comstore? It was up for the last mission, but now, the phone just rings and nutt'n happens. Also, what happened to Peter Yee's postings of the NASA News summaries? I haven't seen them for a couple of weeks. Anyone have the xpnder and time of the spacenet 1 TV-Sat rebroadcasts of the STS-40 video? Enquiring minds want to know. mike -- "There is no problem too big that can't be solved with high explosives"-Rush Mike Smithwick - ames!zorch!mike ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 91 15:58:37 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!helios!sheaf@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Sheaf) Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures In article <18153@venera.isi.edu> rogers@wlf.isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers) writes: > > A space station capable of repairing and refueling ordinary >satellites probably would make an excellent base for assembling >interplanetary probes. No more need for VEEGA orbits -- just launch >the probe, propulsion and fuel separately, assemble in orbit, run a >systems check, then launch for Mars, Jupiter, etc. > > Thus, the space station under consideration here is desireable >from both economic and scientific considerations. > > Craig Milo Rogers In theory, this is a nice idea, but I think you're forgetting that the whole reason for the Galileo VEEGA orbit is that liquid boosters were deemed too volitile to be carried in the shuttle's cargo bay. If this continues to be the case, having a space station is sort of pointless if you can't lift the proper components up to it. Of course, we could stick to solid propellants, but I seriously doubt we could use them for manned missions, and if Galileo is any indication, they are a waste of time and possibly money to use on unmanned probes. I mean, here we are in 1991 waiting eight years for Galileo's arrival at Jupiter, when in the mid-seventies we got Voyager there in two, with alot less risk. So, lets say your solution is to build a heavy launch vehicle to transport volitile components to the station for assemby. Well, once you've developed that, you mind as well use it to put up satellites and space probes directly, and avoid the cost and risk of using the shuttle/ space station combination. Don't get me wrong, I think the shuttle is worthwhile project, but have to get away from our dependence on it. Also, the technologies involved in Fred should be developed, but I really think were jumping the gun on building it. It might be nice to have, but do we really NEED it ? is there anything that it would do that couldn't be done better and more inexpensively by satellites ? I don't have any figures, but I suspect that for the unbeleiveable cost of building and maintaining Fred and expanding the shuttle program, we could instead develop a heavy launch vehicle and accomplish a program of unmanned probes and landers to explore the solar system thouroughly, and do everything possible before risking peoples lives on it. I certainly don't think putting up satellites is, and I suspect that if Fred is built, the money for most new HLV and exploration projects will dry up rather quickly. Someone tell Mr. Bush that 1960's science fiction doesn't dictate what 1990's science fact should be. (Even though 3 1/2" floppy disks do look an awful lot like ones on the original Star Trek...) S. Sheaffer -"...just waxing astronomic..."- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #699 *******************