Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_4/V9_470.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/cYVu7VC00UkZ4Wlk4l>;
          Sat,  3 Jun 89 05:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  3 Jun 89 05:16:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #470

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 470

Today's Topics:
         Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
         Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..
        HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)
               Re: nasa bulletin board
        Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
             RE: Teach your children well
       Theory, speculation, and verification (abstract)
             RE: Teach your children well
            Re: asteroid almost hits earth
   Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)
          Sun Busting (was Re: Space Digest V9 #443)
       Re: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.
        Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.
            The Cost of Launchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 May 89 04:44:52 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hema Sandhyarani Murty) writes:
>If the Earth were a little closer to the Sun, the temperature would
>increase, driving some of the carbon dioxide out of the surface rocks,
>generating a stronger greenhouse effect, which in turn would heat the
>surface further.  A hotter surface would vaporize still more carbonates
>into carbon dioxide and this would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect.

It's not that simple.  There was a paper in Science a year or so ago --
I can probably dig up an exact reference if really needed -- which went
into the details and established that Earth would not have a runaway
greenhouse effect even with far more CO2 than it has now.  There are
a number of complications, like the effect of clouds on climate (they
tend to cool the surface, on the whole).  The "habitable zone" around
the Sun is rather wider than was formerly thought; Earth is not on the
brink of becoming another Venus.

(Some have suspected that for a long time, mind you.  Considering all
the changes in the Sun and the Earth in the last few billion years,
it would require fantastic luck to keep Earth in the habitable zone
for this long if the zone was really as narrow as some claimed.)

This is not to say that we can't mess up our climate fairly thoroughly
with greenhouse *warming*, mind you.  (Assuming that perverse and uncaring
old Mother Nature doesn't throw an Ice Age at us first...  One should
not assume that the alternative to change is the status quo.  Usually
the alternative to change is another sort of change, not necessarily
a better one.)
--
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 May 89 14:12:50 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Venus & the Greenhouse effect..

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>This is not to say that we can't mess up our climate fairly thoroughly
>with greenhouse *warming*, mind you.  (Assuming that perverse and uncaring
>old Mother Nature doesn't throw an Ice Age at us first...

Something tells me that, whatever the ills of fossil fuels and the attendant
greenhouse effect, and whatever we have to do to get the problem under
control, the ONE thing we no longer need fear is another Ice Age!  If we
ever detected the signs, we could just burn coal for a couple of centuries.
(half :-) )
--
Tom Neff                UUCP:     ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
    "Truisms aren't everything."    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 May 89 16:37:56 GMT
From: stsci![e-mail]  (Jim Sims)
Subject: HST transport schedule (as of 5/31/89)

Some current schedule item based on a preliminary LMSC schedule:


7/10  HST Horizontal - SMA Staking

10/18 Ship HST and GSE

10/22 Install PCS Simulator

11/27 - 12/21  Funct test, GST 8

1/11  Remove GSE cables

2/28 - 3/9 Move to PAD

3/26 - launch?


--
    Jim Sims      Space Telescope Science Institute      Baltimore, MD
             UUCP:  {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!sims
    ARPA:  [e-mail]                           SPAM:  SCIVAX::SIMS

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

Date: 31 May 89 18:11:38 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Millard Edgerton)
Subject: Re: nasa bulletin board

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hema Sandhyarani Murty) writes:
>
> I would like to know how to access the NASA Bulletin Board.  If anyone knows the phone number,please let me know
>
> Hema Murty
> Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto,

The only public bbs operated by NASA is Space Link at Huntsville.
The phone number is 1-205-895-0028.  The bbs supports 300, 1200
& 2400 baud with 8 bits, no parity.
***************************************************************************
*  Intelligent people talk about ideas.   | Standard disclaimer(s)        *
*  Average people talk about things.      | Millard J. Edgerton, WA6VZZ   *
*  Small people talk about other people.  | [e-mail]      *
*                -o-                      |         -o-                   *
*      Employed by Sterling Software at NASA Ames Research Center.        *
***************************************************************************

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

Date: 31 May 89 14:05:05 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!sunic!sics.se!sics![e-mail]  (Bruno Poterie)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ivan Batinic) writes:

    [saying that Moscow could have been hit, but for a few hours]

..Or Copenhage, or Edinburgh, or Glasgow, all on the same line as well. Brrrrr....

     From the name, one might surmise that you are Russian.  My Russian
   is very, very rusty.  How is Tunguska spelled in Russian?

   Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer  "This is drugs.

Arg! "Your name is John. I deduce that you are English. How is the weather in London?"
Sorry ;-) ;-) I could not resist this one. If we are going to guess, the last name
would rather indicate a Yougoslav (Slovenian? Serb?), or maybe Slovaquian, origin.
But we are going too far from sci.space.

Bruno Poterie    [e-mail]
[italian first name, living in Sweden, full french nevertheless]

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

Date: Wed, 31 May 1989 14:17-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Teach your children well

> Kids who learn basic scientific principles and core mathematics will never
> be hurting for jobs.  I just fear that they may find themselves in too much
> demand.

Sometimes when I hit the pub after working a 12 hour day, I very much
fear that the era of "The Marching Morons" has already arrived...

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

Date: Wed, 31 May 89 12:25:20 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Theory, speculation, and verification (abstract)


It is not productive to say "there is no point in considering Theory X
because there is not sufficient evidence to prove it valid". Most new
theories start out as very tenuous constructions, extrapolated from
currently accepted models and limited observations. When the theoretical
model has become sufficiently substantial, theorists start asking "what would
be the implications of this model, and what tests might we use to try to
prove or disprove it?" If it is judged that there is sufficient interest and
a significant chance that the model could be correct, then time and money are
invested for further verification. The model may be disproven entirely,
proven to the extent that it joins the body of "accepted knowledge", or
shown to be at least partially incomplete or incorrect. If the last happens,
the model may be modified, then subjected to further testing. Several
iterations may be necessary before acceptable results are produced.

The point is that inductive reasoning, taking what is known and extrapolating
into the unknown, is the major source of ideas on where to look next.
Scientists speculate that Jupiter could conceivably have a ring, so the
Voyager probes are instructed to look for a ring, and one is found which
could have been missed otherwise. To abruptly dismiss any theory which is
not provable with data already available is to kill or greatly hamper the
acquisition of new knowledge.

It is can also be popular to claim that a theory has been "proven unprovable".
In some cases this is correct, as when a measurement is necessary that
violates the limits described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or
when it is necessary to analyze a past event for which it is known that no
evidence remains. In other cases, however, what is really meant is that we
have not yet found a satisfactory way to get the required information.
Since scientists have considerable input to policy decisions on what
experiments will be funded in the future, it is very important to make
this distinction.

The current "mythology" in science is that a theoretical model is considered
well on the way to acceptance if and only if it has sucessfully been used to
predict a future event or observation. The suspect must be observed shooting
another victim before he can be found guilty. The batter who misses the
first pitch verifies his theory on the second pitch that "you can't get out by
missing the ball". Proponents of Velikovsky point out that he predicted
Venus would be hot, so his theory that it had been shot out of the planet
Jupiter into its present orbit must be correct.

Somehow that one verified prediction makes the theoretical model legitimate,
and proves that it isn't "just an explanation for the existing data". If
accumulated knowledge continues to grow, I suppose someday it will be
necessary to suppress certain experiments or keep their results secret,
so there will be unknown data that can be used to verify future theories. :-)

(OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little.)
                                John Roberts
                                [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 May 89 11:43:56 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?)
Subject: RE: Teach your children well

Where in I get butchered for knocking the following usage:
"It's been light-years since I was home"

In context, this was (from memory):
"Been away from home long?"
"Forever"
"In know what you mean, it's been light-years since I was home"

In this context, it is obvious (to me) that the writers choose a distance
measure (light-years) when they wanted a time measure (epochs).  My basic
concern (ahhmm, SET SOAPBOX/ON) was using "pseudo-techincal" verbage without
understanding what it means, and spreading this confusion/misunderstanding.
Would it make anymore sense to say that it is only 3*10**9 meters until
work was over (about 10 light-seconds)?

Clearer??

Dillon Pyron                         | The opinions are mine, the facts
TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company.
[e-mail]              |
[phone]                        | We try, we learn, sometimes we die.
                                     | We sit on our butts, learn nothing,
                                     | and we still die.

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

Date: 30 May 89 20:10:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: asteroid almost hits earth


/* Written 12:41 pm  May 26, 1989 by [e-mail] in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
agate!shelby!Portia!hanauma![e-mail]  (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>    Incidentally, some geophysicists are waiting quite impatiently
>for another mag 9 mega-quake.
This is a great source of comfort to all of us in Southern California...
/* End of text from s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
It's about time you wierdos in CaliforniA did something useful. Be sure to
take accurate notes when it hits.

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

Date: 31 May 89 17:25:24 GMT
From: sumax!amc-gw!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr![e-mail]  (Kevin Bagley)
Subject: Re: Amazon Forest Destruction (was Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Starr) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hosgood) writes:
>>Does anyone reckon that an 'educate the Brazilians' campaign based on these
>>shuttle photos would do any good?

        [environmental quibbling wiped]

>Has space photos

 [all stuff having nothing to do with sci.space deleted (majority of text)]


        Please remove the environmental whacking from this group.
        This is sci.space, and having the word 'space' in your text
        does not qualify this conversion as anything to do with
        space. Duke it out in sci.environment... PLEASE.

--
 _____   Kevin Bagley  Global Tech. Int'l Inc., Mukilteo WA 98275  206-742-9111
  )___)  __    _   _   UUCP:uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!kevin
_/___)  (__(__(_)_/_)_ ARPA:uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr![e-mail]
_______________/  Disclaimer...  "I did not say this. I am not here."

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

Date: 31 May 89 19:16:06 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bnr-public![e-mail]  (Henry Troup)
Subject: Sun Busting (was Re: Space Digest V9 #443)

... a device that could pop the Sun..

Sure, a modulator of the strong nuclear force could do this.  Of course,
we lack a theory on how to do this...


utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not     | All that evil requires
hwt@bnr (BITNET/NETNORTH)          | responsible for     | is that good men do
[phone] (Voice)             | my opinions    | nothing.

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

Date: 30 May 89 21:05:34 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpfcdj![e-mail]  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Re: UFOs and other weird stuff on this list.

>innovative.  More than one-third of those surveyed believe that we will
>communicate with extraterrestrials;  that we will inhabit the Moon and
>man-made planets; and that artificial body parts will be so commonplace
>that they will be sold as "off-the-shelf" items to be purchased as needed."

>How do you like them apples?  ET's and space habitats lumped together.
>Think about that the next time you look for a consultant.  Maybe that would
>be a good screening question, "Do you believe Earth is being visited by ET's?"


Please note that the operative phrase in the above is "communicate with",
which does not imply physical contact - as the existence of this net
shows!  There are a good number of respectable researchers with a serious
interest in SETI, and it is not unreasonable to think that there might be
some success in this area within the next 200 years.  Visitation by little
green men is hardly necessary for the prediction to come true.


Bob Myers  KC0EW   HP Graphics Tech. Div.|  Opinions expressed here are not
                   Ft. Collins, Colorado |  those of my employer or any other
[e-mail]               |  sentient life-form on this planet.

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

Date: 29 May 89 19:52:37 GMT
From: pikes!udenva!isis!scicom!zebra![e-mail]  (Vernon C. Hoxie)
Subject: Re: Meteorite impact in Soviet Union in 1947.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>
>         According to the May 1989 issue of the Boston L5/NSS SPACE NEWS
>     newsletter on page 2, a relatively large meteorite struck the Soviet
>     Union on February 12, 1947 only 400 kilometers (250 miles) from the
>     city of Valivostok with the force of an atomic bomb.
>
>         This event was unknown to me until this article.  Does anyone
>     have any further information on this meteorite strike?  Thanks.

My Cumulative Index to Scientific American lists an article in the June,
1950 issue. p42-43.  I have seen photographs published showing the trees
laid out worse than the Mt. St. Helen's fire storm.  There could be a
more recent article in SA but I can't find my new Index.


--
Vernon C. Hoxie               {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!zebra!vern
3975 W. 29th Ave.                    voice: 303-477-1780
Denver, Colo., 80212                     uucp: 303-455-2670

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

Date: 31 May 89 14:28:08 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: The Cost of Launchers

Space launches are expensive. It costs at least $1000 to put a
pound of payload into low earth orbit. Presumably this is largely
due to the fact that space >>launchers<< are expensive, and that
they are consumed as they are used (neglecting the shuttle, which
is expensive for other reasons). Large-scale space development
hinges on bringing launch costs down, to far below this level.
In order to do so, it seems to me that attention should be focused
on reducing the costs of the most expensive aspects of space launcher
construction/operations. The question is, what are these aspects?
Can anybody point me towards references that break down the costs
of building/operating space launch vehicles? Please reply directly,
using mail, and I will summarize and post any interesting information.
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #470
*******************