Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:01:51 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #300 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 9 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 300 Today's Topics: A Brief History of Time (movie) Alleged Benefits of Military $ (2 msgs) All systems are what? (was Re: Mars Observer Update #2 - 10/07/92) Controversy over V-2 anniversary Don't forget the Other Guy Drop nuc waste into sun Impact in AD 2000? LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap Magellan Pioneer Venus Update - 10/08/92 Population Re : Carl Sagan SETI positive? UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan (2 msgs) What use is Freedom? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Oct 92 05:27:07 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Newsgroups: sci.space In article , steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > In article <1992Oct6.195549.1733@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes: > > If it hadn't been for inter-department politics in the US government, > the Soviets would have had the *second* satelite, but the US was (as > stated policy) in no hurry, and the Soviets wanted to be first at all > > Actually I like the rather devious argument I first heard recently > - probably on the net ;-) - that the US was quite happy to be second > as they wanted the Soviets to establish precedent on limits to > airspace, at the time it was not clear if air space restrictions > extended up to orbit, would have been most inconvenient if pushed by > somebody like the Soviets. This is the thesis presented by Walter McDougall in his political history of spaceflight, *The Heavens and the Earth*. The book won a Pulitzer prize and has been pretty widely read. > But then again I doubt anyone had much of a coherent policy taking > such factors into account... McDougall doesn't think so, though he stops short of saying that Eisenhower *deliberately* dragged his feet on satellites in hopes that the Russians would launch first. Bill Higgins | If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't Fermilab | we put a man on the Moon? -- Bill Engfer higgins@fnal.fnal.gov | If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't higgins@fnal.Bitnet | we put a woman on the Moon? -- Bill Higgins ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 18:10:37 GMT From: Mark Bixby Subject: A Brief History of Time (movie) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9210080216.AA16820@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >The literary reference reminds me - the long-awaited Sci-Fi Channel is now >up and running. It's mostly fiction, but it also has some science fact shows, >including "The Science Show" and "Inside Space" - the latter hosted by a >famous science fiction celebrity. Last week's episode included a segment on >virtual reality (with interesting video), and a clip from the *movie* >"A Brief History of Time", which is apparently narrated by the author. (!) "A Brief History of Time" is a quite fascinating movie. No extensive knowledge of cosmology is required to enjoy it. Stephen Hawking does a lot of "talking", but doesn't actually narrate the film. -- Mark Bixby Internet: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu Coast Community College District 1370 Adams Avenue District Information Services Costa Mesa, CA, USA 92626 Technical Support (714) 432-5064 "You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:45:00 GMT From: Barry Schlesinger Subject: Alleged Benefits of Military $ Newsgroups: sci.space There was a study some years back sponsored by the Machinists union. They concluded that military spending was detrimental to the economy in three ways. 1. The creative talent paid for went for military innovation instead of the kind of innovation that would improve the competitiveness of the civilian economy. Research talent was lost to American business. 2. The money paid to the workers producing military goods added spending power to the economy but produced nothing for the income to be spent on. That meant inflation. 3. (and most relevant to the discussion at hand) Military spending was capital intensive rather than labor intensive. That is, comparing money spent on military projects with that spent other ways, a greater fraction of the money on military projects went into producing things rather than paying people to do the work. my views only ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:04:29 GMT From: "Don M. Gibson" Subject: Alleged Benefits of Military $ Newsgroups: sci.space In article 18549@ke4zv.uucp, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article <1469100020@igc.apc.org> mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman) writes: >> ..... >Military contracting does produce fewer *direct* jobs than public >works or education spending. However, this is where the multiplier >is important, more money is pumped into the local consumer economy >by higher paid workers than by lower wage employees. That's because >a larger proportion of their income is discressionary. an example would be the low-wage worker who frequently vacations in France--not likely! The sum of wages is equal. Poor folks save less and *that* increases the multiplier. (and the velocity!) > ..... >If by higher income you mean millionaires, then you are correct. But >if by higher income you mean aerospace workers, you are wrong. Most >of the middle class have *no* savings and a substantial debt load. >That's because their consumer spending is a very high percentage of >their income. Low wage workers and welfare recipients spend the bulk >of their small incomes on subsistence expenses such as utilities and >food. The margin in utility and food services is small and the multiplier >consequently low. The margins in consumer goods are high and the >multiplier is also high. middle class folks have positive savings. debt is generally less than assets (except for first-time home buyers). poor folks have little savings or assets. welfare folks have little by law. this -> "The margin in utility and food services is small" <- pioneers new use of words and thus makes little sense. ...... > >Highway spending has a different kind of multiplier as you note. However, >the Federal Highway Trust Fund is currently in surplus and new highway >construction is vigorously opposed by legal action. In other words, the >public thinks they have enough roads. Huh? maybe in South Pasadena, but most places would love highway work and those $$$$$. Technologies never occur in a >vacuum. The enabling infrastructures developed to support a given >technology usually have wide applicability. The classic example is >the semiconductor industry. The aerospace industry no longer drives >this basic industry, but it was space and military funding that >pushed the technology to the point where it became widely available >to the civilian economy. Now, the military's problem is that the >consumer sector has outstripped the military applications and getting >spare parts for older designs still in service is difficult. Military >funding no longer drives this industry. It should be pointed out that >few of the civilian applications of semiconductors were forseen at the >time the military was driving this technology. That's true in most >cases where complex new technology infrastructure is required to reach >a critical mass before consumer applications can take off. Some of >the technologies currently being pushed by military requirements, >composite materials come immediately to mind, will likely form the >basis for new civilian applications as the basic technologies mature. i disagree with your perspective on IC's, but nobody disputes that spinoffs do occur. The point is, direct research $$$$ is more efficient than channeling thru mil. or NASA or USDA... .... >Well, I think it's acurate to say that SSF is not primarily about science. >Though it will serve as a science platform. Primarily it's an engineering >testbed for exploiting an alien environment. The entire space program is >only peripherally about science. It's primarily about technology development >and political show the flag at this point. Judged only on the basis of >science value, the entire space program should be cancelled and the money >be put into basic field grants right here on Earth. Much more science could >be accomplished on millions of tabletops than in one space probe, and employ >more science workers in the process. Most Big Science is really engineering >development rather than basic research. I happen to think that engineering >development is valuable, but that's my bias. > and i totally agree. i just think everyone should honestly appraise the $$ costs and true costs of what is decided. be honest and let the projects stand on their merits and some cloud of illusionary spin-off benefits. --DonG ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 17:45:14 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: All systems are what? (was Re: Mars Observer Update #2 - 10/07/92) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct7.234649.18675@news.arc.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > > The updated spacecraft status, as reported by the Spacecraft Team, is > that all subsystems are "Go". Is this terminology really in use officially? It sounds like a holdover from the days of Col. John "Shorty" Powers... Ungrammatical. One should say "all systems are Going," no? And what does it mean? If a subsystem is not "Go," what else could it be? I mean, what other values X might "All subsystems are X" have? Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | The restaurant's architect Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | said every effort had been Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | made to build McDonald's Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | 15th outlet in Italy SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | in harmony with Pompeii. | --Reuters story in *Chicago | Sun-Times*, 18 June 92 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 17:03:17 GMT From: Pat Subject: Controversy over V-2 anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1097@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes: > > Don't forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki people!! Those along with >Dresden would have to be some of the most infamous single hours in THe difference is that the designers didn't want it used. the chicago people were petitioning truman, oppenheimer was drummed out for being weak on the h-bomb. that is ethics. they built the bomb for germany, they didn't want it used on japan. for dropping the bomb blame truman and groves. werner and company played good little german beavers, building missiles and smashing cities without a peep. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 1992 18:34:41 GMT From: Shari L Brooks Subject: Don't forget the Other Guy Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >Actually I like the rather devious argument I first heard recently > - probably on the net ;-) - that the US was quite happy to be second >as they wanted the Soviets to establish precedent on limits to >airspace, at the time it was not clear if air space restrictions >extended up to orbit, would have been most inconvenient if pushed by >somebody like the Soviets. > >But then again I doubt anyone had much of a coherent policy taking >such factors into account... Actually you are correct. By allowing the Soviets to launch first, the US guaranteed that they would not shriek about our satellite flying over them. As far as I know this was indeed a policy. By doing so the US opened up the possibilities of military spy satellites, which could conceivably have never happened if we had launched first and Russia had protested violation of sovereign [air] space. -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu ------> shari brooks <------- | bslb@helios.ucsc.edu All opinions are my own. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:05:27 GMT From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun Newsgroups: sci.space In article , amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes... >> P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like >dumping it >> in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else. >But nonetheless, perform the following reality check on what you just >said. Try this thought experiment. > >Assume the Earth is entirely made out of Plutonium. Let's see. The critical mass of plutonium is a few kgs or so? Along comes a stray neutron... *KABOOM*!!!!!!!! >Now atomize it and spread it over the volume of a sphere of solar >space representing half the average distance between stars in our >regions of space. (r = 2ly or 12e12 miles is a good "Fermi number" >for this.) It'll do this all by itself! :-) >Now... how good do your instruments have to be to detect it's >presence over the background cosmic radiation? (Other than by the >velocity distribution. That's cheating :-) They'll probably be able to just look up in the sky and say "Wow, look at that supernova!" :-) -Mike ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 15:39:41 GMT From: Jim Scotti x2717 Subject: Impact in AD 2000? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9210080128.AA16768@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: > >-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) >-Subject: Re: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !) >-Date: 5 Oct 92 06:55:07 GMT > >-This translates to (2e1/1e6)*(5e9) or 10,000 dead people, actuarily >-speaking, or 0.2 per 100,000 population. The death rate from >-airline crashes is 0.04 per 100,000 people. > > {Some stuff deleted....} > >I notice you kill just about everybody on the planet, no matter where the >impact. An impact of a two-mile-diameter asteroid would be pretty severe, >but I'm not sure it would be quite *that* bad. Isn't that only about a >tenth of the mass of the alleged "dinosaur killer" asteroid? We believe that the threshold for devistating global effects by an asteroid impact occures with asteroids of about 1/2 to 1 kilometer diameter. The most damaging effects for humans are due to dust and debris flung into the atmosphere, blocking sunshine and affecting the global climate. It is akin to the hypothesized "Nuclear Winter". By the time an asteroid is two miles in diamter (about 3 kilometers), you are well above what we believe would cause such a disaster. Even the affects of something as small as about 50 meters has caused noticeable global affects. Namely, the Tunguska impact event in 1908 caused widespread local devistation and the atmospheric shock was measured as far away as Great Britain. Also, the sunsets were enhanced for several days following the event. Recently, large volcanic eruptions have spewed large amounts of dust into the air, causing remarkably enhanced sunsets for several months as well as perhaps some global weather changes. These recent volcanic eruptions are small compared to the impact of small asteroids larger than a few hundred meters in diameter. >The analysis you refer to is apparently just a worst-case scenario - it >wasn't meant to reflect the actual uncertainty in the trajectory. I believe >a later post gives the uncertainty as a fraction of an Earth radius. Yes, this analysis was (more or less) a worst-case scenario. But this scenario can happen with much smaller asteroids than you might expect. Devistating local affects can happen with asteroids (and comets) as small as 50-100 meters in diameter, and from the recent discovery rates of such small objects by Spacewatch, we can estimate the probability of such an impact. We think that 100 meter objects (which, by the way, are at about the size threshold that we expect to survive more often that not to impact on the surface of Earth rather than break up or explode higher in the atmosphere) should impact the Earth about once every century. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Tunguska event happened within the last 84 years. We may have had at least one close call since. A small object (size estimates ranged from 5 meters to about 50 meters - I'd guess it was probably about 20 meters diameter) skimmed through the atmosphere in 1972 over the western US and Canada, missing an impact by a miniscule 10-20 kilometers or so (if it had been that much lower, it would have likely been slowed enough by the thicker atmosphere to have come down instead of bounced back out). >John Roberts >roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov Jim. --------------------------------------------- Jim Scotti {jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu} Lunar & Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 USA --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 16:04:20 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: LunaOne: Beyond Boostrap Newsgroups: sci.space Any colony needs an export, an economic reason for being. Luna One's main export would be power, generated by solar cells and beamed back to LEO or earth via microwaves. Secondary exports would be refined metals and glasses (to build the Szabo Astro/Comet Mining fleet and something at L-5 :), delivered by mass driver. It would be self-sufficient in oxygen, metals production, and produce some food. It would probably be able to produce some electronics components on site (assuming Intel or Hitachi isn't too adverse to licensing their designs). Water? A bit tougher. We have O2 galore from the soil. There's a little bit of hydrogen out of soil processing, but not a lot. I suppose we'll have to hire Szabo Astro/Comet Mining to deliver water, or build our own ships (Known as MGF Mining, for arguements sake). We could, I guess, go through the red tape of shipping fissionables for an engine; but the headaches to get the nuclear plants up here was bad enough. Developing our own fuel cycle is tempting, but will take more infrastructure, and we need water more than anything else. However, we have beamable power, in the form of microwaves. We probably have enough excess capacity (or could build it) to beam power for propulsion, either at a StarWisp-type "sail" or to heat fuel. Or better yet, some combination of the two; outbound via sail, return on beamed power with comet voltiles as fuel. I suppose we could build lasers or manufacture antimatter, but that requires more jiggling of resources and diversifying into technologies which need more outside resources. Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 17:33:24 GMT From: Pat Subject: Magellan Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >to desaturate them from time to time using thrusters. This does set an >ultimate limit on its life. In Magellan's case, equipment failures will >probably kill it before then, and budget failures will probably silence >it even sooner. > of course what i was wondering, is given the cheesy condition of the radar, why not continue the stereo mapping of venus before they move onto gravity measurements. what i saw at WSC, they have 98% appx of venus's surface mapped at two angles, but only stereo views of appx 30% of venus. from what i gather transmitter b is down to it's last legs for radar. why not try and finish the mapping mission before it croaks and then do the gravity mission, or is it that the gravity mission has a higher science return and priority over stereo mapping. or is the third possibility that they wish to preserve transmitter life for possible use in the close in mapping if they can get more budget? -- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 23:34:50 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Pioneer Venus Update - 10/08/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro PIONEER VENUS STATUS REPORT October 8, 1992 Pioneer Venus is still alive and hanging in there. The spacecraft's spin rate was doubled on October 5 to provide better stabilization as the spacecraft passed through the atmosphere of Venus, and this extends the use of the High Gain Antenna. Also, it was estimated that about 4 oz of fuel still remained in the fuel tanks, and the increased spin rate would move any remaining fuel towards the thrusters. A thruster maneuver was attempted today and was successful in raising the periapsis an additional kilometer. Pioneer Venus continues to experience increasing drag on each orbit around Venus. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Einstein's brain is stored /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | in a mason jar in a lab |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | in Wichita, Kansas. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 15:41:18 +1000 From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Population Newsgroups: sci.space Message-ID: <1992Oct7.044211.22923@den.mmc.com> Originator: whitmeye@surf Sender: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer 865-8497) Nntp-Posting-Host: surf Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver References: <9210061153.AA02300@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:42:11 GMT Lines: 78 |> |> -In <1992Sep21.064536.19465@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: |> ->> Not the only person. A common theme that runs through all environmental |> ->>debate is that every other species is more important than Man. |> ->Perhaps you've been reading literature the rest of us haven't. I've never |> ->seen such a thing. |> |> -Oh? You haven't even read about the spotted owl? The environmentalist |> -position there is that the species must be saved regardless of how many |> -jobs are lost. Now, there are certainly cases where a specific type of |> -environmental protection may be worth some job loss, and this may be one |> -of them, but that is not the environmentalist position. Whenever |> -someone starts talking about cost/benefit analyses, the environmentalists |> -do not contest the costs and benefits involved -- they just yell bloody |> -murder. |> |> I've never thought the coverage of this controversy in the popular news |> media provided enough details for anyone to form a reasonable opinion. |> One item that was peripherally mentioned was that the proposed logging |> of the area would be at much faster than replacement rate, so that after |> a certain number of years (perhaps 10-20 - I don't know for sure), those |> jobs would be gone anyway. Also, I haven't seen too much mention of the |> events leading to the current situation. Was the forest land in question |> always protected, or is the protection a recent change in policy? If the |> former, then I assume the people who want the jobs cutting the trees didn't |> all graduate from lumberjack college this year - they must have been |> cutting somewhere else before this. If that is the case, then why did they |> keep the industry going full blast until this was the only land left |> available to them (if that's also the case)? Were they confident that they |> would be able to get the protection removed? If, on the other hand, the |> protection was abruptly added, I can see how they might feel they have a |> legitimate complaint. |> |> Does anybody have more information on the events leading to the current |> situation? It seems to me that the fact that the timber industry wants to |> cut the trees in the area at much more than the replacement rate weakens |> their argument - they basically want to destroy a renewable resource in |> order to enjoy a few more years of prosperity. I'm also not entirely clear |> on why these particular trees have to be cut - are they all the old-growth |> timber that's left? |> |> John Roberts |> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov |> I tried, in vain to post some response to Edward several weeks ago. Reading your post has refreshed my interest. Thanks. My apologies to John, for piggy-backing my emotional response onto his measured post, as follows... I was under the impression that Federal law prohibits those activities that further the decline of threatened species, not screaming intruders from out of town. That's the LAW isn't it? My view is that economies, being creations of mankind are castles made of sand. They can be created and recreated once destroyed. Ecosystems on the otherhand are gifts, given only once. Given the choice between having to prove humanity's special gift for adaptation and creativity or the permanent loss of a very special place, I'd choose the former. I'd choose success over loss every time. >Bingo! What is wrong with someone worrying about how an environmental >decision affects people? You environmentalists frame questions in terms >of how they affect every other species *except man.* An investigation of current events, like leaked, suppressed reports will show you that if you sell every damn tree in that preserve to the Japanese, that really won't provide very many jobs for very long. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, perhaps several thousand for several years. That is a significant figure to those doing the chopping, but compared to the nation, it's nothing. Lockheed did away with many more jobs this year alone. Here is my point: Given the finite nature of that preserve, and the spee d at which it could be cleared, what have you got when it's done? Five, ten years of jobs? So lets say the year is 2002, we've had our jobs, the timber idustry has had their profits and now it's over. The jobs are still gone, now the trees are gone, the spotted owl is gone and now the soil is washing to the sea. Who really won? The workers didn't, the nation didn't, the trees didn't. Only the multi-national timber interests won. They're living the good life somewhere very far from the scene they created. And Ed, you helped them. Not because you didn't like birds but because you bought into the whole "Environmentalists are killing us!" lie. That 'all` environmentalists want only to stifle the economy. That business is in business to create jobs. Wake up! They are there for money and if they're allowed, some would smash the last tree on the planet to get a clean shot at the last tiger. How are your interests being served by your stance? I need to understand just what you're after. Are they paying you or do you just hate people who don't think just like you? You've closed your mind to ideas because you didn't like what someone, somewhere said or caused to happen. "You environmentalists", what, are they not people? Why must you label people? So you can exclude or dismiss them? Some are nuts, some are great, most are just concerned enough to try to make a difference. But you put words into all their mouths and then flame them all. Not constructive, Ed. I propose that if we buck the vested interests and use our brains we can have jobs, trees, owls and much much more. Perhaps these folks who used to chop trees could build space hardware? How about tree "planters"? How does all this fit into sci.space? For me it fits because I'd like to travel to other worlds and I'm sure I won't. I'm stranded here and I'd like to share this planet with all the life that is here. I'm sure I wouldn't miss the spotted owl personally, (I know I don't miss Tyrannosaurus) but if there isn't enough room for an owl, is there going to be enough room for us? In my way of looking at things I am not watching out for any species _except_ mine. Rich Whitmeyer Just another former shuttle worker at Vandenberg. OUCH! whitmeye@figueroa.vbg.mmc.com (std disclaimer) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 16:10:20 -0500 From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Re : Carl Sagan \>> Has Carl Sagan actually got a doctorate in anything ??? Last I heard />> (long time ago , true) he was just plain ol' C. Sagan \>A glance at American Men and Women of Science shows Carl Sagan with: />AB - 1954, BS - 1955, MS - 1956, PhD - 1960 (Astron,Astrophys) \>all granted by the University of Chicago. /Doesn't he also have a medical degree from Stanford? \Jeff Bytof /rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu I don't think so, but I think there's a degree from Cornell missing somewhere in there. Phil -- Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5. Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560 --------------------- Disclaimer: Some reasonably forseeable events may exceed this message's capability to protect from severe injury, death, widespread disaster, astronomically significant volumes of space approaching a state of markedly increaced entropy, or taxes. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:09:28 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: SETI positive? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1992Oct8.142721.24636@cbfsb.cb.att.com> eatlv@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.vandoren) writes: [about SETI range] I assume what you were saying is that random radio or TV emissions could be detected within a 100 light year range? Thats not too bad, how many systems are there in that range? Maybe 20 ? Stars within 100ly? Several thousand (I used to have this kind of figure to hand). Of which several hundred are reasonable targets for SETI (single yellow stars). Nick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:54:14 GMT From: gawne@stsci.edu Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9210071249.AA27930@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, nicho@VNET.IBM.COM writes: > In Jeff Bytof writes: >>(I am of course referring to Dr. Sagan's hobby interests - "ethical > ============ > Has Carl Sagan actually got a doctorate in anything ??? Last I heard > (long time ago , true) he was just plain ol' C. Sagan A glance at American Men and Women of Science shows Carl Sagan with: AB - 1954, BS - 1955, MS - 1956, PhD - 1960 (Astron,Astrophys) all granted by the University of Chicago. It's hard to get tenure at Cornell these days without one of those PhD things, ya' know? -Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 92 18:17:24 GMT From: Derek Kirkland Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space You better believe what he has to say. After all he is a writer for the National Enquirer!!!! :) :) :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 19:04:57 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: What use is Freedom? > As far as replacing SSF with the current Mir, it must be noted that > that since Mir is nearing the end of its design lifetime, the current 2 > person crew spends 3/4's of its time doing maintenance, or 1.5 > equivalent crew members (ECM). This leaves 0.5 ECM for research. SSF's > maintenance will also take 1.5 ECM, leaving 2.5 ECM available (ref.: > Gary Oleson [SSF Engineering Integration Office], *Spacefaring Gazette*, > December 1991, p. 2) > I know Gary extremely well. We had quite a go around on some of this issue the last time I visited him. I'd point out from your numbers that: a) The Mir option is available in mid 1990's, versus turn of the century for PMC. b) Your numbers for MIR are 2-6. Now the .5 ECM occurs in the current case for MIR, and for the worst case in the future MIR. In the current case that is .5 ECM more than Fred since it is currently ground based; in the future case, it is .5 ECM - 4.5 ECM more than Fred up to the end of the decade. Another way of putting it: if we assume that phase II is available in 1996, then the man-years of on orbit research time are (not including the years that MIR has already been churning out .5 MY/Y of research): 93-96 98-99 00 MIR 2 MY 9 MY 9MY Fred 0 MY 1 MY? 3.5MY Even if you assume a more conservative manning of MIR and a later upgrade date, they've still got Fred beat for quite some time to come. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 300 ------------------------------