Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO050.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 35KB | 752 lines

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 05:01:13
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #050
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 30 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 050

Today's Topics:
                         Calendar and Zodiac
                     Calendar and Zodiak (2 msgs)
                    censorship, yet again (2 msgs)
                         ET's, life in space
                        Fwd: Star Trek Realism
                        Soyuz as ACRV (3 msgs)
                            Space position
          Space Station Freedom assembly questions (2 msgs)
                      Star Trek Realism (2 msgs)
                        Whales: The discussion

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:15 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Calendar and Zodiac

   A lot of the confusion here about the calendar comes from the fact
that there are THREE separate "years" being discussed here.  There is
the "sidereal year" which is the time it take the earth to go around
the sun relative to the distant stars (i.e.--how long does it take
the earth to go from being on the line from the sun to distant star X
to coming back to that line).  Then there is the "tropical year" which
is the time it takes the earth to go from a given solstice or equinox
back to that again (i.e.-- how long does it take from the instant that
the north pole is most tipped towards the sun (northern summer solstice)
until that happens again).  And last, the "calendar year" which is
how long is it between New Years parties.  The calendar year can be
defined however you want, but the Julian/Gregorian follows the tropical
year so that northern summer solstice will stay in the month of June.

   For the record here are the times:
   Sidereal year  365d 6h  9m 10s
   Tropical year  365d 5h 48m 46s
   Calendar year  365d  (or 366d on leap years)


   The trouble starts if you take one year as the "sidereal year" or
the time it takes the Earth to return to the same orientation relative
to the stars.  Say at exactly the spring equinox this year that we
were lined up between the sun and star X.  365 days 5 hours 48 minutes
and 46 seconds later it is exactly the spring equinox again, BUT we still
have to move for another 20 minutes and 24 seconds to get back to the line
between the sun and star X.  The spring equinox in 1994 will occur
40 minutes 48 seconds before we get back to the line between the sun
and star X, and so on.  Thus the locations of the equinoxes and solstices
slowly move around the Earth's orbit relative to the fixed stars.  This is
due to the precession of the axis and it takes about 24000 years to
go around once. (This means that in 14000 AD Orion will be a summer
constellation in the northern hemisphere.)

   Since neither of these years is divisible by an integer number of days
you have to have an occasional "leap day" to put the calendar back in
synch with the seasons.  The early romans had a rather laid-back approach,
they just ran the calendar during the spring, summer and fall.  Once winter
arrived they stopped keeping track until the warm weather returned and then
started it up again.  It was a nice, self adjusting, but not too accurate
system.  As they became an empire, they need to regulate time better and
the Julian calendar was formalized about the first century BC.  It worked
by having a leap day once every four years.  Trouble with that is that
once you "leaped", your calendar was about 45 minutes AHEAD of the tropical
year.  This added up to a being a full day ahead after about 130 years.
Rome fell and the Church kept the calendar in spite of the error and just
lived with it until the 1500's when Pope Gregory (being advised by the
astronomer Clavius) reformed the calendar.  First he lopped ten days off
to push the equinoxes back to about March 21 and September 21, and then he
decreed that only century years that were divisible by 400 would be leap
years.  This keeps us in synch with the tropical year to one day every 3300
years (so in 4800 AD we'll have to adjust one special leap year).  All the
Catholic countries went along with this, but the Protestant and Eastern
Orthodox ones didn't.  England didn't join the pack until the 1700's, and
by then were eleven day out of step with the new Gregorian system.
(George Washington was born on February 11th under the old calendar.)
Russia didn't switch until after the Russian revolution in 1917 (which is why
the October Revolution was always celebrated in November).  For more info on
all of this, go check out Daniel J. Boorstin's book "The Discoverers" and
read the section on "Time".
________________________________________________________________________
Marc Hairston--Center for Space Science--University of Texas at Dallas
"We cannot continue to have graduate student turning elderly waiting for
mission launches." --NASA Head, Daniel Goldin

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 14:49:55 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
>The original question was not answered. Where did the month go? We lost
>12 days when we converted from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in
>1752 (cal sep 1752) and two century years 1800 and 1900 did not have
>a leap day. That makes 14 or half a month.

There was never a month lost!!!
Because the year is defined by the cyclic extermal position of the sun
(southmost, winter, for Romans; equal day, spring, for semetic and Persian).
If the year the year was defined by when it crossed a certain point in its
yearly run through the zodiac, then there would be a month lost, but no
current culture defines the year as such.  (The Egyptians defined the year
by the rising of the star Sirius.  Precession would cause the "star year"
to be off from the "sun year" by 20 minutes each year or a month every
2000 years.)

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 17:09:06 GMT
From: Doug Page <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Ottolini) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
|> >The original question was not answered. Where did the month go? We lost
|> >12 days when we converted from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in
|> >1752 (cal sep 1752) and two century years 1800 and 1900 did not have
|> >a leap day. That makes 14 or half a month.

But don't forget that the Romans "moved" the first of the year from March to
January for religious/family reasons which had nothing whatsoever to do with
precession, variations in earth's orbit or rotation, or any other
astronomical justification.  Remember, OCTober was formerly the 8th month and
DECember was the 10th.

dp

########## The opinions above are not those of my employeer . . . ###########
########## or any other sane person, for that matter.             ###########

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 11:40:49 MST
From: "Richard Schroeppel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: censorship, yet again

Henry Spencer ([e-mail]) posted a short analysis of
Bill Clinton's Space Position.  Doug Davey ([e-mail])
feels that Henry should'na done it:

> Henry, your technical postings are probably the best things in sci.space.*.
  However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
  nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
  of political statements from the USAian election campaign.  If you have a
  technical reason why something a candidate proposes is a good or bad idea,
  fine.  However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.  Thanks.
  Stop Canadian Imperialism!  Yankee Go Home! :-)

I think Doug is wrong.  As a US taxpayer, I hereby invite Henry Spencer to
offer me whatever perspective he has on the politics of space in the US.
I will also note that Henry is a directly interested party, since the outcome
of the election will influence his prospects for eventual space travel.
As an interested party, he is certainly entitled to participate in the debate,
and perhaps even to complain that many disinterested parties (who don't pay
taxes, and don't care about space) are allowed to vote, while he isn't.
I must also ask Doug why he wants to muzzle Henry.  Is it because you don't
like the analysis?  Is it too close to the truth?

Rich Schroeppel  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 14:56:33 -0500
From: Doug Davey <[e-mail]>
Subject: censorship, yet again

Rich:
You're right.  I've posted an apology to Henry in talk.politics.space
(which is where Henry redirected the discussion).  In case you don't
get talk.politics.space, I've included a copy of the apology below.
I hope this sets things straight. Me, a censor, Yikes! What was I thinking!

= ==================================================================== =

Path: iscp.bellcore.com!ddavey
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Distribution: usa
Followup-To:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Doug Davey)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >...I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
> >nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
> >of political statements from the USAian election campaign...
>
> Political analyses?  Heaven forbid.  I don't understand US politics well
> enough to analyze them. :-)  I was merely translating some of the Clinton
> position from campaignspeak (which is as international as graft, stupidity,
> shortsightedness, and voter ignorance and apathy) into the sci.space
> vernacular.  I wasn't making any attempt to read between the lines or infer
> an overall position -- just pointing out what the statement's own words
> clearly mean.  Do you really think any of my translations are wrong?

Henry,
Please note that I didn't challenge your translations.  In fact, I believe
they are accurate.  What I challenged was what I saw as an inappropriate
attempt to influence another country's politics.  (An infraction of which
the US has, er, occasionally, been guilty itself. :-) ) However, now that
you have moved the discussion to talk.politics.space and out of sci.space
(where it never belonged).  I'm persuaded by the argument put forth by
[e-mail] (John) (see below) that you have an obligation
to humanity (Jeepers! I hope I never have one of those) to post your
analyses, whether they are political or technical.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> As an affected party, Mr. Spencer certainly has the right to comment upon
> the platforms proposed by the parties.
>
> And if you don't like the above logic, then as an "expert" commentator in the
> field, he has not only the right, but the duty to comment upon the platforms,
> in order to help clarify what they mean for the rest of us who choose not to
> take quite as much time deciphering the reading between the lines.

--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Doug Davey        [e-mail]         bcr!iscp!ddavey

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 18:30:48 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: ET's, life in space

>>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any

Not accident.  Think in statistics.  Given umpteen billion gallons
of warm, super gunky sea, what are the possibilities that any one
group of amino acids could form self-replicating protiens...

They wouldn't even have to self-replicate, just affect each other.
If one set of reactions happened to get into some kind of positive
feedback....

Check out 'protien spheres' in some biology book, BTW.  It's not
that unusual for non-life to mimic life.  Also, remember that
protiens are building blocks, information, and catalysts in the
cell.  And yet the basis for protiens (amino acids) are really
easy to form, as the Miller experiment back in the 50's showed.

>>complex structure to fall together by accident is extremely improbable;
>>then it looks pretty much like the odds against life appearing on any
>>one planet could easily be more than 10^1000 to 1 against, and the
>>number of planets in the visible universe is only about 10^22.

>It seems patently obvious to me that all of this back-of-the-envelope
>estimation is just a waste of time.

Then you'd better get off this group right away! :-)

There has been observed, in the cold, rarified regions of space
between the stars, complex organic molecules, including stuff like
methane, cyanide, and formaldyhyde.  If these things can form with the
relatively few reactions that occur in cold, near vacuum environments,
and if the Miller experiment is proof that more complex organics need
only water and energy to form, then isn't it reasonable to conclude
that life is actually quite *probable* wherever there is liquid water?
Perhaps it doesn't require water, but only fluid, like in the atmosphere
of Jupiter, or the oceans of Titan?  Or the gas between the stars?

Even if it's only possible in water, how pessimistic does one have
to be to conclude that life is still rare?  How rare is a water-
bearing planet anyway?  Careful of the anthropic principles here.

'Course that still doesn't deal with the question about the value of
intelligence as a survival factor...maybe we should ask the whales :-)

-Tommy Mac                     .  "  Malcolm X:      +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .  You've seen the hat,  "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,  *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '  now catch the movie!           *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:01:35 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

> AND the fact that the Enterprise can accelerate at accelerations
> which *must* be many multiples of one gravity, with no perceived
> acceleration inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of
> their chairs.

Simple - the motion accelerations are planned, and can be compensated
for by the inertial dampers, while phasor/disruptor/etc hits are unplanned.
Clearly, the transient-control devices they have aren't capable of
dealing with force-transients of that short a duration.
David "I knew controls would come in handy some day!" Hunt

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:03:00 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

If Soyuz-TM is used as an "lifeboat" for Freedom... doesn't this open up OTHER
possibilities beyond the normal budget/friendly/we-are-now-friends bit...

Assuming docking fittings on Freedom for Soyuz-style capsules, it gives us:

    A) Ability to send up crew on Soyuz on a contingency basis
    B) Ability to perform resupply and cargo return via Progress.

I realize there's the little matter of launch/orbit angles to work out, but
could this be changed by launching Soyuz/Progress from someplace else
(Australia?).

It would add a new spin on the phrase "international" space station, hm?


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA.
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 17:32:39 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>If Soyuz-TM is used as an "lifeboat" for Freedom... doesn't this open up OTHER
>possibilities beyond the normal budget/friendly/we-are-now-friends bit...

>Assuming docking fittings on Freedom for Soyuz-style capsules, it gives us:

>    A) Ability to send up crew on Soyuz on a contingency basis
>    B) Ability to perform resupply and cargo return via Progress.

>I realize there's the little matter of launch/orbit angles to work out, but
>could this be changed by launching Soyuz/Progress from someplace else
>(Australia?).

Well, if we ever get to the point where we're doing that kind of station
support with CIS hardware, we can launch it from KSC just as easily as we
can from Australia.  Depending on the amound of payload we're willing to
sacrifice, it could probably still be launched from Russia.

I really will be surprised, though, if we end up using Soyuz.  It's a neat
idea on paper, but I think the number of technical problems that need to be
overcome will outweigh any savings from using already-existing hardware.

--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 18:26:10 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>I really will be surprised, though, if we end up using Soyuz.  It's a neat
>idea on paper, but I think the number of technical problems that need to be
>overcome will outweigh any savings from using already-existing hardware.

Huh? What already existing hardware for assured crew return? Since NASA is
already seriously looking at it, you get the pluses of resupply and cargo
return without the expense (or flexability) of a shuttle flight.

Plus I can see cases where they want to send up one or two specialists without
blowing a full shuttle flight.


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA.
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 17:28:03 GMT
From: "Joseph A. Beernink" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space position
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail][AV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>-From: [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher)
>-Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
>-Date: 29 Jul 92 01:06:50 GMT
>-Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
>
>-In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Davey) writes:
>->However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
>->nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
>->of political statements from the USAian election campaign.  If you have a
>->technical reason why something a candidate proposes is a good or bad idea,
>->fine.  However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.  Thanks.
>
>-Typical of a United Statesian: ask the most intelligent participant in
>-an enterprise to leave, merely because he's a foreigner.
>
>-I respectfully request that we hear more from all persons of intelligence
>-and less from all jingoes and dolts. Thanks.
>
>Technical issues, and promoting specific programs are fine and welcome.
>"Translating" stated campaign platforms is a little more into the realm of
>internal US politics.
>The Administration turns around and does the same thing to other countries,
>i.e. Israel and the loan guarantees, and other countries are influenced by
>having guns waved at them. I suppose you could argue that it's justified
>because it's being done, but there's a point of view that there's some
>benefit to not being extensively involved in the politics of other countries.

As I said a couple of months ago, when the US of A asks Canada to jump,
we ask how high.  Of course few to our south will ever pay attention
to what we have to say, even though we seem to get a better of view of
most American goings on than the average American, but we should not
be chastized for stating opinions. It's not like we're going to say
something that might actually be thought provoking or possibly
correct.
    Come on people, what happened to this global village idea.  Thinking
that any action involving large sums of money in one of the top five
economic powers in the world will have no effect on those outside of
the country is a step back about one hundred years.  I have more to say,
but this does belong in some politics news service.

    On a slightly different topic, has anyone analyzed what might
happen to the space industry as a result of North American free trade?
It scares the hell out of me.  No doubt the automotive industry and other
mass production enterprises will flee south of the Rio Grande, but what
about the aerospace and computer research producers.  I've already seen
first hand how Can-Am free trade has destroyed our once semi-stable
economy.  Trust me, you don't want this to happen to you.  If I were you,
I'd be fighting this thing with everything you've got.  Nobody is
irreplaceable.

Joe Beernink

------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Beernink               | "Being #1 isn't a state of mind,
[e-mail]            | it's a state of being." -- me
[e-mail] | [phone] - York U. Toronto, Ont.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:35:56 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Freedom assembly questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerald Cecil) writes:
>1. What is the current thinking on Shuttle accident probabilities and the
>impact on Space Station assembly? ...

The best current thinking is that we really don't have a very good idea of
how reliable the shuttle is, given the limited number of flights flown
so far!  However, there is reason for concern.  A conservative guess at
failure rate would be 1-2%; USAF experience with large solid rocket motors
suggests that kind of SRB failure rate even if everything else is perfect.
(And everything else isn't perfect... the SSMEs push their technology
pretty hard, and every shuttle landing is a zero-defects operation with
little margin for error or mechanical failure.)  If we assume it's 1% and
there will be 50 shuttle flights between now and the station's fully-
operational status, there is about a 40% chance that another orbiter will
be gone by then.

Lots of people would like to avoid thinking about this, because it implies
(a) there will be more big PR emergencies and (b) there will be a need for
more extremely-expensive orbiters.

>2. What is the status of Shuttle-C?

Still a paper project going nowhere.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 Jul 1992 15:50:44 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: Space Station Freedom assembly questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerald Cecil) writes:
>I'm trying to formulate a letter on the Space Station to my Congresspeople.
>I have several questions on Space Station assembly issues that I'd
>appreciate some input on.  Thanks in advance!
>
>1. What is the current thinking on Shuttle accident probabilities and the
>impact on Space Station assembly?  I recall reading of an Air Force
>assessment Post-Challenger that compounded to near certainty of a
>disabling accident in 20 flights.  (Not necessarily an explosion, but at
>least removal of an Orbiter from the fleet.) If this is generally accepted,
>but not discussed, maybe it needs some airing here(!)

The plans assume that the fleet is not grounded until PMC.  Post-PMC,
the lifeboat (which is TBD) could get the crew back.  I'm sure there are
contingency ideas on how to preserve the MTC station configuration in a
minimum drag configuration until a reboost could be done.
>
>2. What is the status of Shuttle-C?  Is it supposed to play any role in
>Station assembly or for logistical support (= hauling water & hydrazine)?

Shuttle C never got past some early concepts.  No plans for use. It
never even got to be vaporware.
>
>3. The only NON-POLITICAL argument that I have heard as to why Space
>Station components should NOT be launched on Energia is the comparatively
>northern latitude of the launch site and consequent payload loss for
>cross-plane maneuvers.  The penalty in my estimation doesn't look that bad,
>given the large intrinsic capability of Energia, so are there
>obvious bona-fide TECHNICAL problems (e.g. no engine restart capability)
>that someone might care to comment on?

Payload integration could be a problem.  The reliability of Energia is
still somewhat suspect.  On one launch, the second stage failed.  Not
good. There have been only a couple launches, so there is little basis
to predict reliability.  There could be problems with things like
vibration and sonic loads in the payload carrying version.  It is tricky
to predict and then fix such items.  The Saturn program had a few early
problems with unanticipated oscillations during launch (pogoing).  It
was fixed, but cropped up in at least one manned Apollo launch, but it
was not enough to hurt the mission.  The biggest problem in assessing
the reliability and usefulness of Energia is a lack of hard data and
operational information.  This may be cured soon, as the State
Department has allowed NASA to discuss it with the Energia folks on
Goldin's recent trip to Russia. At some previous meetings of NASA and
NPO Energia staff, the Energia people brought up using the launcher.
However, under Government rules, the NASA staffers can only discuss
items that are pre-approved by the State Dept., so all they could do was
listen and take any handouts.  They couldn't ask or answer any
questions. On at least one trip, NASA was told not to discuss Energia,
when they had asked to (the SEI staff was interested).

>
>4. Does the present baseline Station have any real prospects for expansion?
>I'm thinking of intrinsic power or dynamic (structural) compromises that
>would prohibit additional modules.

Yes, it is capable of expansion.  I'm not sure of the present level of
"hooks and scars" for that.


--
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| [e-mail]    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
|   **** Papoon for President! You Know He's Not Insane!! ****

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 14:34:28 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Travsky) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>   (John Stevenson) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
>> Johnson) writes:
>>> (deletions for brevity)
>>> inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.
>>>
>> And No seat belts. How many crew members have been killed or seriously
>> injured because they didn't wear their seat belts :-o
>>
>> John Stevenson
>> [e-mail]
>
>No need to worry, Starfleet later installed air bags...
>
So *that's* what's under Scotty's belt.  I did wonder.....

--
||))) If you build it                          )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))) They will cancel it   - Field of Dweebs. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: 29 Jul 92 17:23:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Johnson) writes:
>         AND the fact that the Enterprise can accelerate at accelerations
> which *must* be many multiples of one gravity, with no perceived acceleration
> inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.
> AND...
>
> --
> Bill Johnson                    9U-530                   [e-mail]
> Silicon Graphics, Inc.                             Office:[phone]
> Systems Software Technology Center                    Fax:[phone]

Well, this one I can buy, but only almost.  The acceleration is countered by
an artificial gravity generator.  When they get hit by phasers, the generator
must fluctuate.  However this means that they ought to float, instead of
getting knocked down. (unless it makes the field more intense, in which case,
it ought to flatten them!)

Now, another problem, why do they all fall unconcious within about 2 minutes
of losing "LIFE SUPPORT"?

        john.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:30:20 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whales: The discussion
Newsgroups: sci.space

Some people notified me that they cannot subscribe to sci.misc, so I post a
short summary of the origin of the whale for them (all others please excuse):

When I got the news that Norway decided to kill whales again, I posted the
following query on the list *sci.misc* (seemed most appropriate):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Whale killing for "science" -- so for what?
Summary: Why are they murdered ?
Keywords: Whales, whale killing
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 13:16:54 GMT

Hi all !

Some days ago Norway sent out a fleet of whale killer ships, with the task
to kill numerous whales "for scientific reasons". Now my question is:
**********************************************************************
*  Which scientific results/goals could eventually be achieved from  *
*  dead whales ? Can anyone out there give some example ?            *
**********************************************************************
I know that whales are very interesting beings, with remarkable intelligence
and other interesting prop's, so that they are interesting for science as
long as they *live*. But they are too different from primates to be of any
interest for medical research. All possible biological science with dead
whales can also be done with dead *un*intelligent animals.

So, can anyone give some reasonable example of scientific research on
hundreds or thousands of dead whales ? I think that there is not a single
scientific motivation, but Norway (and some other countries) just insists
on historical economics disregarding any intelligence. This is just the same
as if some cannibals insist on eating men.
--
 Hartmut Frommert, LS Dehnen, Physics, | E-Mail: <[e-mail]>
 Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60,     |     or  <[e-mail]>
 D-W-7750 Constance, Germany  | + SAVE THE WHALES ! BOYCOTT NORWAY !        +
 Phone: [phone]   | + Whales R intelligent. Whale killers not.  +
+ Whale killing is murder. Eating whales is cannibalism. Eat whale killers. +
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the successive postings there was general agreement that ther really are
*NO* scientific reasons for killing whales, but this was a fiction of the
Norwegian officials to make the general public (and EC officials) quiet.
(This fiction was probably copied from the Japanese who have previously
abused the word "scientific" for the same issue).

There was some discussion of the evidence of intelligence of whales. Some
persons (mainly from Norway) disclaimed any such evidence, while others
(including me) pointed to the more or less wellknown complex social
structure, playing behaviour, and language observed at least for dolphins
and orcas, as well as to the brain/body mass ratio indicating that some
dolphins/orcas might compare even to humans.

Some anti-whale disclaimer seemed so ignorant for me that it seemed matching
the news from the Galileo Earth flyby that the spacecraft found no
intelligent life on Earth surface (picked from several newspapers). When
I mentioned that, someone cross-posted.

A remark on Galileo: Several readers of this list have told me that
the spacecraft has well instruments to detect evidence for intelligent
life on Earth, but, as it had other tasks, it did not look for and therefore
not find.
 Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
 P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
 E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
+    "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+                                                ^even   ^more expensive

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

Date: 
P
From: 
P

From: Rich Travsky <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Star Trek Realism
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:48:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: sci,world
Organization: Banzai Institute
Lines: 18
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
   (John Stevenson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill
> Johnson) writes:
>> (deletions for brevity)
>> inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.
>>
> And No seat belts. How many crew members have been killed or seriously
> injured because they didn't wear their seat belts :-o
>
> John Stevenson
> [e-mail]

No need to worry, Starfleet later installed air bags...

Richard Travsky
Division of Information Technology     RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
University of Wyoming                  (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 050
------------------------------