On The Rise of Oxygen...
I have some questions regarding the oxygen boom referred to in the last posting... 1) presuming that glaciation was involved, could the following help explain it? a) glaciation would seem to be a downward spiral; that is, a lot of ice chills the ocean currents, it chills the air, it dries the air, and snow/ice has a high albedo -- effectively reflecting a lot of potentially warming sunlight. You'd think that once an Ice Age starts, it would continue into glacier lock. However... b) glaciers are heavy; a mile thick ice sheet is so heavy that it actually compresses the crustal rock into the mantle. Evidence is found in Sweden, where the land is still rising after the last Ice Age (during which, Sweden was completely covered with 1 mile of ice). c) consider: if a mile sheet of ice covered the land, wouldn't that weight eventually 'squirt' the underlying magma somewhere else? Thus, with enough glaciation, eventually an automatic reverse might trigger, in that glaciation may lead to an upwelling of volcanism, which blasts CO2 into the atmosphere... causing a greenhouse effect, and reversing the global cooling of the glaciation. d) during the Pleistocene (Ice Ages) the glaciers advanced and receded half a dozen times in 2 million years, causing all sorts of evolutionary changes to propel forward, including our own. A glacier age may have thus been intimately linked to the paleozoic boom, no? - e) early biota are anaerobic, and poisoned by oxygen. A mutation which could actually survive despite (and eventually because of) a massive influx of oxygen into the air would have a huge evolutionary advantage. -- f) here's a somewhat unrelated question: what did Dinosaurs breath? Could the air have been thicker then, perhaps with somewhat exotic chemistry to it? How else to explain 2' dragonflies, and 80' brachiosaurs... 'heavier' air might explain how a 2' dragonfly still could acheive loft, and how dinosaurs could supply enough oxygen through those tiny heads to feed such a massive body. Any ideas or critiques out there? -- JHB, the gadfly == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: [ISSDG] Re: On The Rise of Oxygen...
In a message dated 12/5/2000 4:38:40 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << The consensus now is that the Carboniferous and Pennsylvanian eras of the Paleozoic did indeed feature much higher atmospheric oxygen levels, and that this allowed insects to overcome the burden of their inefficient respiratory systems and evolve to huge size. As I understand it, though, the O2 levels were a lot closer to present-day levels during the Mesozoic era, and so had relatively little to do with the huge size of the dinosaurs (although a minority of scientists think they may have been higher during that era too). The fact that dinosaurs evolved to much bigger sizes than mammals may have been due to the fact that -- because they were cold-blooded -- they got more of an advantage out of having huge unwieldly bodies than manmmals do, because those huge bodies would make it easier for them to control their internal temperatures. >> Ah... well, it's been my understanding that there's a growing concept among dinosaur scientists that dinosaurs were not quite cold blooded... that they may have been similar to birds, etc, with very high metabolisms. Some dinosaurs, it's speculated, actually had feathers to help regulate. Feathers, as you know, are even more efficient than fur for heat retention. Or, maybe dinosaurs had blubber? Up here in Alaska, various species of freshwater fish actually have a blood protein that acts as an anti-freeze; in winter, the fish get torpid, but they don't die. Consider also, cryolofosaur, a dinosaur recently found in Antarctica. Antartica has supposedly always been fairly cold -- although at the time of cryolofosaur, it may have been similar to Alaska. How about ichthyosaurs? If they could actually dive 500 meters down, they must have had some amazing body chemistry going on, because they were air breathers. They had to regulate their body temperature in water (water is especially chilling, because it moves heat away from a body). Imagine the temperature spike going from 500 meters down to the temperature on the surface... yet ichthyosaurs lasted 100 million+ years. I just can't buy the 'cold blooded lizard' routine. It has a hole big enough to drive a train through it. On the other hand, if dinosaurs were semi-warm blooded, then a little chill would have really hurt them, because with a bigger body, it would take longer to heat it up after a temperature drop, than a smaller, furry mammal. I still want to read a GOOD explanation for a whale sized brachiosaur moving around, while the biggest mammal that I know of was a titanothere, only 30 tons or so. Someone's got some 'splaining to do. However, since this is an astronomy posting board, I'll have to move back to at least a modicum of relation to that. I suppose that it could be pointed out that exobiota may be possible in all sorts of environments we haven't even dreamed of, trapped in our contemporary blinders as we are. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Pioneer 10 Status Report for December 1, 2000
Other than battery run-outs, is there any real limit on the lifespan of deep space probes? It's funny how long machines in space seem to function; consider how long Mir has been up there -- it was supposed to have been good for just 5 years or so, and has nearly tripled that projected age span. Maybe it's just that here on Earth, in our gravity well, subject to environmental deterioration, we're simply used to steady depreciation, and not to the concept of a lack of such deterioration? Imagine the possibilities of deep space probes if they could effectively continue to generate power even when far away from a star. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Pioneer 10 Status Report for December 1, 2000
In a message dated 12/6/2000 8:00:51 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << The remarks below made me chuckle. Aristotle would have loved it. Only on earth doth rust and corruption take place -- in the heavens above the earth where all is perfection none of the earthly faults apply. Maybe they'll last forever! Just kidding. Think of it though, other than moving at thousands of miles per hous and an occasional gamma ray or dust particle there's not much there to cause additional wear and tear like oxidation, temp fluctuations, meddling hands etc. >> Hey, that's cheating! How can you expect me to counter Aristotle, in our gentleman's duel of the minds? Ah... but then I remember... Aristotle, until the day he died, thought that women had less teeth than men. He never stopped to simply ask his wife to open her mouth. The deep space probe scenario above makes me laugh to think of the original Star Trek movie, where the crew of our hapless Enterprise runs across the dreaded V'Ger (voyager) that's been running around in deep space for... centuries. -- JHByrne, with twinkle firmly in eye == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Quote of the Day for December 7, 2000
In a message dated 12/7/2000 4:11:14 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << "So why had we received no signal? >> Easy answer. This being December 7, the Aliens are likely planning a sneak attack. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
In a message dated 12/7/2000 5:31:29 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While NASA hails the prospect of scientific breakthroughs flowing from ISS, researchers are skeptical. Few believe that the station's scientific value will ever justify its astounding cost -- much of which is due to the need to haul into orbit every gram of material used to build the station and keep it running. Any word about the space cannon proposal? It was my understanding that some 10 years ago, a prototype for an enormous cannon was constructed in the Iraqi desert by a 'renegade' scientist. The Iraqis wanted a cannon large enough to bombard Israel with, all the way from Iraq. The developer scientist wanted to prove the potential of such a mega-cannon, eventually to launch orbital volleys. Apparently, the cannon was to have been a 500' long tunnel in the ground, which would launch shells using multiple hydrogen gas explosions. Aiming the rounds would be allowed by adjusting the amount of hydrogen gas explosions. It may also have been possible to guide the round by rocket assist on the round itself. Clearly, this was not a proposal endearing to the Israelis. They bombed the tunnel complex, and had the scientist assassinated, in Belgium, back in 1992 or so. And there the proposal sat, until now... However, the science remains. Over in Berkeley, a couple of technicians were working on a similar proposal for a gas gun prototype. Read about it in the Smithsonian Magazine, 'Shooting for the Heavens with A Giant Gas Gun', circa 1996. I suspect that, with funding and interest, it might be possible to use a tunnel borer, similar to those used to bore out the English Channel Tunnel, to construct a tube in the side of a mountain. The tube would be evacuated. Then, by placing computer -controlled hydrogen explosion assists along the bore, it would be possible to accelerate the payload the entire tube's length. Because the acceleration would be relatively limited, and staggered rather than one initial explosion at the base, it would be possible to send up payloads without the inertia problems. Excess hydrogen gas would be collected at the muzzle, thereby reducing costs still further. The cost? I don't know, but if a 50 mile tunnel under an ocean is possible, it should certainly be possible to construct a similar tunnel in the side of a mountain, with a 60 degree angle or something. At any rate, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than sending up a rocket every week. Payload weights might be 500 pound packages. Launch costs would be hydrogen gas and salaries of the launch crew -- period. The station will weigh some 900,000 pounds when it is finally completed in 2006, resulting in launch costs alone of about ten billion dollars, and that doesn't even account for astronauts, food, fuel, supplies or additional research equipment. "To say that space exploration, by its very nature, must cost billions and billions of dollars is to ignore the growing body of research in recent years that shows that space can be economically viable," declares University of Arizona professor John S. Lewis, the godfather of research in this field. "By using space to our advantage, we can not only make future exploration affordable, we can make it profitable." There's a downside to this brave new idea: Let's call it the Potosi Problem. That is, in the 16th century, Spain used slave labor to exploit an enormous mountain in Peru, which was immensely rich in silver deposits. The Spanish pulled so much silver out of Potosi that it destroyed the value of silver and gold in the Old World, wreaking all kinds of havoc with traditional money systems. The money was used to fuel wars, huge extravagances, and turned the economic-political life of Rennaisance Europe upside down. Meanwhile, the curse of the Potosi silver destroyed the Spanish economy; by the end of the 17th century, Spain was a has-been, and has never recovered. By corollary: The United States may be the Spain of the 21st century. Pulling down a trillion dollar asteroid would not help a rich country, only a poor one. What really happens to world commodity markets if the value of gold goes from $350 an ounce to $35 an ounce, overnight? What happens to steel production, to aluminum, to every other valuable commodity, if it is no longer valuable? What happens when a tiny country gets hold of 10,000 tons of uranium? It is a bold statement, but one that is attracting an ever-increasing corps of believers. Where NASA portrays space as a harsh, barren wasteland that must be conquered with untold bravery and endless funds, Lewis and other scientists are coming more and more to recognize that space is a gold mine -- literally. The Moon, asteroids, and the outer planets offer an endless supply of materials that could be harvested to our purposes, including hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel; iron, zi
Re: "Life at the Limits of Physical Laws" talk at OSETI 3 Conference
Is Drake's Theory complete? That is, proposing that an intelligent species were to arise, and have civilization for a reasonably brief time, I'd imagine that they would by extension create artifacts which could outlast them. Consider Voyager. If our world is destroyed in a nuclear holocaust tomorrow, Voyager will still be around a long time from now. Doesn't it follow that the more advanced and long-lived a theoretical population is, the greater the chance of it constructing some sort of artifact which could outlast them? It follows: if there are or were intelligent species out there for 'trillions of years'... where are their Voyagers? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: On The Rise of Oxygen...
I gotta say, Robert, reading your posts brought grim glee to my day. We missed you, our giant gadfly! -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: On The Rise of Oxygen...
In a message dated 12/8/2000 4:06:42 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Come on over to Jason Perry's "Jupiter List" and "ISSDG" discussion groups and you can see Clements and I tearing at each other and questioning each other's ancestry on a regular basis. It's wonderful. >> Vodka and whiskey, whiskey and vodka... too much of a good thing is a bad thing. 'Tis best not to drink too deeply from the well, as it were. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Message in a Bottle
In a message dated 12/8/2000 8:27:57 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Alien Voyagers could be zipping past the solar system as we write. The fact we have a hard time finding objects (NEO's) 1km in diameter a few million miles of earth would indicate that locating a 3-4 meter silent spacecraft missing the solar system by billions of miles would indicate that its unlikely we or anyone else would ever detect the craft traversing our region of space. Even if it came with in a million miles of earth I doubt we'd seen it. >> Putting a bit more philosophical thought into this brought me inevitably back to the underlying question: How do you talk to a cockroach? Consider: how does a presumeably galactic civilization, with presumeably higher intelligence than anything on Earth today, figure out how to talk across the distances of time and space, to another species that might not even be born yet? How does a completely alien creature communicate with a human, in an unambiguous way? How does it make a communication device that is big enough, bold enough, to be seen for many light years, and last for millenia? This, of course, is begging the question, why it would even WANT to do so. After all, there's no profit in doing anything for someone who is not related to you, and may be born 1,000,000 years in the future. It's all too speculative, etc. So, presuming that an alien intelligence is truly so alien as to want to make a communication with someone it does not know, and may never actually know, and presuming that it can make a communication 'time capsule' effectively, what form would it take? Clearly, little gold plaques ala' Voyager are not going to be enough. Enigmatic monoliths probably won't do the trick either. You need something big and bold, and which clearly violates normal physics enough that it will be recognized. At this point, a science fiction author might jump in and volunteer quasars or something, as that cosmic lighthouse. Perhaps messages might be encoded in viral DNA -- a self-replicating message able to survive the ages. Perhaps, as a prior writer noted, the universe might be filled with Alien Voyagers; we just haven't recognized them yet? -- John Harlow Byrne, enquirious as ever == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: On The Rise of Oxygen...
In a message dated 12/8/2000 5:28:26 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << >This has a strange relevance to Europa, however. If life exists in the >Europan ocean, it's likely to be living in a low energy environment where >competition is unlikely to be widespread. Unlike most people, therefore, >i don't rule out the possibility of really large life forms there; but >would still expect them to be expect them to be extremely primitive > It should be pointed out, however, that multicellular organisms never evolved on Earth at all until the evolution of photosynthesis provided them with a much more efficient energy supply -- so it still seems overwhelmingly likely that all Europan life will be single-celled unless large amounts of photosynthesis are possible in water pockets or cracks very close to the surface (and that is an extremely big "if"). A giant Europan jellyfish might be the prototype, then. Something large enough to be able to absorb energy across a broad area (say, 1 km across). Freezing or ice shifts might only kill off a section of it, quickly regenerated. All speculative of course. Probably lousy eating. (And, by the way, there's a surprising amount on the weta available on the Web -- it turns out to be a huge cricket. Apparently its maximum length is 90 mm, though -- which, I think, is still somewhat smaller than the African Goliath beetle and maybe one or two other huge insect species as well.) >> There's a similar cricket in Mexico. When I lived in Northern Mexico (the Sonoran desert) I often saw immense 4" crickets creeping across the roads. Very brightly colored, they were so slow I often wondered how they could survive cars and predators. I still say that in order to be competitive, they'd need O2 supercharging. Same goes for dragonflies. I'd think they would simply need thicker air to supply loft to those inefficient wings. Could the pterosaurs have been their end? I dunno... because in the transition interim from developing from hoppers to flyers, wouldn't they still be easy meat for those 2' dragonflies? Dragonflies are, after all, voracious predators, with jaws that can chew up insects far larger than they are. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Message in a Bottle
In a message dated 12/9/2000 12:18:03 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << As this is my first posting to this group, I'll attempt not to sound fanatically ignorant. Your concept of using quasars or other such means as a method of signaling a civilizations existence, whether an alien one or our own at some future time, is interesting. But is does raise one question. Why? Yes, I asked that very question. WHY would a space-faring species want to bother with communicating across time and space to species yet unborn? HOW would they communicate universal concepts, if they did? It's analogous to you and I trying to talk to a cockroach. What can we tell a cockroach, other than 1) humans have nutritious garbage 2) humans tend to stomp cockroaches, and 3) when the lights go on, look out. Now extrapolate. What is a Cosmic species going to tell us? How can a being from a faraway place, with a completely alien mentality, communicate? More to the point, if they are anything at all like people, why would they want to? The essence of this last question is that your Aliens are going to have to be dramatically different than you or I, or perhaps they have achieved a 'higher state of consciousness' or something. Why would an advanced space faring civilization want to signal to any and all 'rookies' that "Here we are! Come visit!"? Perhaps with the advances such a culture has made, they have determined that dealing with other cultures "when the time comes" is preferable to the universes largest billboard technique. You'd need a billboard b/c space is a very large place, with great ranges of time. Chances are, that unless there IS a cosmic billboard, two space faring races would miss one another. On the other hand, if Race A puts up such a billboard, and Race B is bright enough to figure it out, then it might encourage Race B to catch up to Race A. It seems to me rather presumptuous to think that advanced civilizations can't wait to meet us, or any other developing world. Many novels have argued, and I tend to agree, that if we survive ourselves and make the jump into interstellar then intergalactic space, the first meetings would be for trade and assurances, not giving a helping hand to any one who asked. Actually, I differ here. If an alien civilization is bright and powerful enough to figure out how to cross interstellar space, and capable enough to make do with interstellar resources, then they DON'T need trinkets. What could you possibly offer to Mr. Alien, that he doesn't already have a superior version of? What did the North American Indians have, the Aborigines have, that the Europeans needed? Nothing really -- just land and resources, and the Europeans could take that. Here, our Space-faring aliens wouldn't even need resources, since it's far more efficient to simply manufacture your own. For instance, an alien civilization could build their version of an O'Neal colony, with an environment ideally suited to them, far easier than adapting Earth for their needs. So, they don't need trinkets. They don't need Earth. Presumeably, they don't need our blond young virgins for food or whatnot. What's that leave? The best I can come up with is genetic diversity. The only thing that Earth really offers to a race that could presumeably travel the stars is the fact of it's 4 billion year bio-heritage. That would only be interesting to a science interest, or a philanthropic interest... In essence, why would a space faring Alien civilization want to communicate, want to establish links with others, when they would presumeably have no real benefit to doing so? Well, I ask you... if you stumbled across an extraordinarily bright cockroach in your kitchen tomorrow, what would you do? Would you stomp it, or would you, with curiousity, try to nurture it, help it along... see what it could make of itself? Your answer reveals much of human character. Space exploration may begin with governments sending out a 'Magellan' or a 'Cortez', but whichever the case may be, the 'Hudson's Bay Company' will be sure to follow to capitalize on what they find. I for one doubt that alien civilizations care to have a bunch of outcast adventurers and fur trappers homing in on their beacons. That's the downside of talking to a cockroach: it may decide it likes you, and call all its' relatives to your home. At some point, initial innocent fascination might inevitably turn to horror, as the superior species realizes it has 'created a monster'. Pleasant dreams! -- JHB (now, I KNOW there's a great science fiction story in there somewhere...!) I hope I haven't insulted anyone's intelligence too badly for a short message. Dave Price >> == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
<< See my other post for specific criticisms of this timetable; but bear in mind one thing: greed isn't everything; & appealing to greed doesn't work in times of relative prosperity. You and I disagree on this philisophical point. I say that greed begets greed. As one man sees his neighbor get rich, he wants to get rich quick too. Meanwhile, the guy who has already made a fortune has to do something with his money. After all, you only need 1 million or so to buy all the yachts, clothes, and champagne you need. After that, you're still left with free time and nothing to do with your money. So, you do what most others do with money... invest it and make more money. On the other hand, a rich man may be more likely to be speculative with his money, because he doesn't fear losing an odd million or two. Nevertheless, old habits dies hard. A millionaire would like to be a ten millionaire, and so on. When times are really hard, people will do anything to improve their lot; but when times are relatively good - & times ARE relatively good in most parts of the Western world; although that good isn't always being equitably shared - other issues become more important to people. Think of the increasing violence associated with unlimited free trade agreements; & tell me that the first country - or corporation - which seriously attempts to unilaterally claim an asteroid won't have major problems enforcing the claim legally & pragmatically >> You tell ME how you'd tell the 'Venture Asteroid Corporation' that they can't claim an asteroid. Now enforce your decree. The only thing you could do would be to sanction Earthside assets. So what? Meanwhile, the 'VAC' is off mining the asteroid, and shows up in Earth orbit 6 months later with 10,000 tons of rare metals. Of course, it's still difficult to get that load down to Earth, but presuming it could be done, it would set off a space race to follow 'VAC's lead, UN charters be damned. Law follows the popular will. The popular will can be manipulated by money. Ergo, if there's money to be made, claims will follow. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: How the Alien Grinch Stole Christmas
In a message dated 12/9/2000 5:26:21 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Not at all. But there's a more sinister possibility, suggested by shrewd SF writers like Isaac Asimov and Greg Bear: what if the reason we're not picking up radio signals (either deliberate or accidental) from other civilizations is that the only nearby civilizations that are still alive are the ones that had sense enough to keep their mouths shut? Here's the rub: the Japanese tried that, and got discovered anyway, in 1850. A civilization is faced with a dilemma -- to risk contact and annihilation, or avoid contact, and risk obsolescence and annihilation? If the civilization gets lucky, they can keep up enough with the other space-faring race that they don't get swamped. It would mean, however, that like the Japanese of 1850, they would have to change their whole society to ensure parity. If such parity were assured, however, then think of the possibilities for the civilization -- they might benefit immensely from the exchange of ideas. Consider: perhaps somewhere out there is a civilization which has figured out such things as the Universal Field Theory, and physics is a snap for them. What could we learn, if we don't get swamped first? There's no reason why a civilization capable of launching unmanned interstellar vehicles might not decide to play it safe by dispatching weapon-equipped probes to home in on and bump off radio-emitting civilizations before they could achieve interstellar travel themselves and become potential dangerous rivals. God knows it's the kind of thing a lot of human societies in the past have been willing to do. I think of paleoanthropology. Some 60,000 years ago, this Earth had several species of humans, all extant at the same time... Homo Sapiens, Homo Neandertalensis, Homo Erectus... and perhaps Gigantopithecus Blacki in Asia... Cain, Cain, where is your brother Abel? My own feeling is that a still grimmer possibility is the most likely: I think it highly likely that virtually every intelligent race in the Universe destroys itself with nuclear or (more likely) biological weapons (deliberately or accidentally) within at most a few centuries of discovering electricity. Certainly our own race is easily capable of doing such a thing without outside assistance -- and when you think about it, there will soon be so incredibly many ways it could be done. (Alternatively, maybe watching the election mess has just put me in a dyspeptic mood.) Happy holidays... I disagree. I tend to think that the more advanced civilizations on Earth are becoming far more peaceful and productive than at any time in history. Peace and productivity breeds stability, which breeds peace and productivity. Besides, businessmen prefer peace -- it's easier to predict profits in a stable economy. Sure, war is profitable... but, if you can have stability and peace in your own country, and still play war games in someone else's backyard... Such is the situation that we have in the world today. The rich countries haven't fought a real war in nearly 60 years. Instead, they're continuing to create trade pacts, not military pacts. It's possible to cross America and Europe and Japan alone, in a car, or by hitchhiking -- this would have been impossible just 100 years ago. Wars happen, but they're generally isolated to the 3d world, and have limited effects. There is so much peace and prosperity and relative health in the world that the human population has exploded to over 6 billion people, and growing. However, Malthus suggests that when people run out of resources, they'll starve or go to war. That's really the whole point of space technology. We humans are not going to reduce our own resouce needs here on Earth, so the only alternative is to extend our reach to space. There could be wars there, as there were wars in the 17th century over the loot from the New World and Asia... but, by extending out to space, it would get a lot harder for any one disaster to wipe out all of humanity. I suspect that if we get a steady foothold in space, it will both increase the chance of a nuclear war, and conversely reduce the chance of absolute destruction. -- JHB Bruce Moomaw >> == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: On The Rise of Oxygen...
<< (Bear in mind, too, that some of the brontotheres of the mid Cainozoic were pretty weight competitive with at least the smaller sauropods. No doubt the brontotheres were something less than wildly active; but this shows that sauropodian mammals - while probably less likely than their dinosaurian counterparts - were not completely impossible) Then why didn't Imperial Mammoth grow 100' tall, especially when in cold climates such as an Ice Age, it would be a benefit? I suppose that steppe grasses will only take you so far... On the other hand, perhaps the combination of high body mass AND internal temperature regulation would lead to overheating? Perhaps the brontothere and titanothere had a danger of heat exhaustion? tells us clearly is that it _wasn't_ a change in environmental conditions which doomed the giant sauropod line: it was competition (in Siberia, China & NAmerica) & finally the Chicxulub impact (everywhere else) which did 'em in. Gary Larson suggests it was cigarette smoking that did in the dinosaurs. Another good eg of this phenomenom at work is amboreiser, the enormous (& i do mean enormous: some where the size of small bears) rat of greater Anguilla. No unusual atmospheric situation here; just a total lack of competition, so that a few, probably wet & highly bedraggled rattus rattusi grew very big very fast. Now THAT, I am interested in reading about... So, you're saying that the fabled R.O.U.S. of 'Princes Bride' fame is alive and well, and hunting for large wheels of cheddar cheese on Anguilla... hmmm -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
In a message dated 12/9/2000 9:17:12 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << > You tell ME how you'd tell the 'Venture Asteroid Corporation' that they can't > claim an asteroid. Now enforce your decree. Destroy their line of credit. There's plenty of ways of doing, mostly legal. WHAT line of credit? 'Credit' is only good for buying things. If you already have enough things, you don't need more credit. As for enforcing your decree by legal means, there's also plenty of means to unenforce a decree, also by legal means. Just look at the Florida Fiasco. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
In a message dated 12/10/2000 12:59:30 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << First mistake made by beginniners: no investment is made using assets... at best: it might be made by credit advanced on assets; but more likely it will be made on credit advanced on the success of the business enterprise. Destroy a claimant's ability to derive credit from a claim - & the simplest way to do this is by threatening the legality of the claim - & you destroy the claimant's ability to do business. >> The point is immaterial, since Tumlinson or no, there are no current plans afoot to claim the moon, asteroids, or anything else. Why spend time on an unripe point? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
In a message dated 12/10/2000 7:04:19 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Jim Benson's SpaceDev announced plans to claim an asteroid during his NEAP mission; & probably set the cause of nongovernmental space exploration back ten years doing so. Tumlinson's SFF, ProSpace & the NSS all have policies calling for homesteading rights (including the right to claim asteroids) as part of their charters; & all have pushed for Congressional legislation to allow USAmerican interests to make such claims. Hardly an unripe point. >> Traditionally, a 'claim' must be settled by setting foot on the piece of real estate in question. Legally, claims of conquest must be further backed by claims of productive development. Using these two legalistic elements, Chief Justice John Marshall helped to justify the land thefts from the North American Indians in 1810 or so. However, here, you have a very different situation. The biggest threat of course is the difficulty and danger of space itself. First, you must lay claim to the piece of real estate... perhaps by physically setting foot there. Under these terms, a good case might have been made that the Americans claimed the moon back in 1969, by sticking their flag in the lunar soil. (However, a counter-claim could suggest that despite having all the facial elements of a claim, the Americans waived the claim, thereby setting a precedent that space cannot be claimed by a single nation). Then, you must make productive use of your asteroid. Then, you must somehow bring the profits back to Earth, all without killing your exploration and exploitation crew. Great science fiction, poor economic prospects. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
In a message dated 12/11/2000 1:40:43 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << >Under these terms, a good case might have been made that the >Americans claimed the moon back in 1969, by sticking their flag in the lunar >soil. (However, a counter-claim could suggest that despite having all the >facial elements of a claim, the Americans waived the claim, thereby setting a >precedent that space cannot be claimed by a single nation). No, a lousy case could have been made, since the Americans signed a treaty in 1967 agreeing that no nation could claim a celestial body. >> Currently, the Americans are in the process of nullifying the 1972 ABM anti-ballistic missile defense treaty. That treaty essentially forbids the development of an effective missile-defense program by either the Soviet Union or the United States. The justification is that the Soviet Union, one of the signatories, no longer exists. However, a counter-case could be made that Russia is the de-facto inheritor of that treaty, and the whole world the beneficiary. A stronger case, however, is made simply by the fact that now, nearly 30 years later, effective missile defense is becoming a real possibility. What was easy to sign in 1972 means a lot less in 2000. Consider: what happened to the Treaty of Tordesillas, the Treaty of Westphalia, the Treaty ending WW1 (limiting arms production), the various treaties made with tribal groups around the world by European nations... etc, etc, etc. My point: a treaty, by itself, is a mere formal recognition of a limit to power. The limit precedes the formality, however. Once that limit is reduced or removed, the formality follows. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
In a message dated 12/11/2000 2:06:15 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Signed it; but never ratified it... which is why quokkas like Tumlinson are trying to get Congress to repudiate the Moon Treaty (which is the treaty in question). One of his colleagues - Ikin of the NSS - is trying to do the same in Australia; despite the fact that the membership of the NSSA has no unambiguous support for the stand. Not clear, however, whether this treaty actually applies to asteroids; or indeed anything apart from the Moon. >> I'd imagine that back in 1967, one of the purposes of internationalizing the moon was to prevent either the Sovs or the Americans from setting up a nuclear missile launch facility there. Back in 1967, perhaps, they (the Americans and Sovs) might have reckoned their actual ability to do so greater than it actually may have been (similar to the cause of the Reagan Star Wars hoopla). However, these days, although the Sovs are gone and the Russians are a basket-case -- which removes a physical obstacle to the Americans claiming the moon, there's no real point in doing so -- yet. After all, ballistic subs do the trick just fine, removing the need to make a launch facility on the moon. The only possible point, again, would be for there to be such a great advantage in doing so that the 1967 Moon Treaty would be attacked on a number of legal grounds. Among these, would be the 'change of circumstances' approach. That is, it might be argued that circumstances have changed from 1967, and that military uses will not be made of the moon. Alternatively, the 1967 treaty could simply be sidestepped... by keeping the prohibitions in place for NATIONS, but not for international corporations. Asteroids, of course, remain a greater problem. While it may be relatively 'easy' to keep antarctica and the moon off limits by means of a 'treaty', it'd be a lot harder to repeat the trick with an asteroid. After all, both antarctica and the moon have some physical nexus with Earth, therefore, it's not unreasonable to extend terrestial jurisdiction to them (in a revised update of Bynkershoek's Cannonshot Rule). However, asteroids are non-terrestial. How could it be justified to extend UN laws over them, particularly when many contemporary nations were not even in existence in 1967? Alternatively, an inhabitant of Earth could make a valid claim that Earth jurisdiction over HIS actions only apply when they relate to Earth. Ergo, he doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of Earthside nations when applied to asteroids and Jupiter, Mars, etc. This argument would make every man a nation, entire to himself, when applied to non-terrestial space exploration. Food for thought. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
I was speaking not of the Moon Treaty of 1979, but of the so-called Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Formally, it's the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies." Note that in the title piece itself is the term 'Governing the Activities of STATES'. I can certainly see an individual shrugging his shoulders and claiming that the 1967 and 1979 'treaties' do not apply to him. Besides, claiming the 'right' to jurisdiction over all celestial bodies is something like Spain and Portugal dividing the world in half, in the Treaty of Tordesillas. That treaty was even approved by the Pope, the Catholic Church being the UN of Renaissance Europe. Nevertheless, within a very few decades, that treaty was a worthless scrap of paper, as every other powerful European nation got in on the picture. Ironically, the Treaty of Tordesillas was the genesis of the Law of the Sea treaty, in that the treaty encouraged the internationalization of the oceans as a counter-proposal to simply awarding the globe to Spain and Portugal. Among its provisions were that nations would not claim territory on celestial bodies, that weapons of mass destruction would not be placed into Earth orbit, and that astronauts in distress would be helped. My point was that U.S. policy firmly rejected claiming sovereignty over the Moon at the time of the Apollo landings. This policy continues. That policy continues in public. However, what about Reagan's Star Wars proposal back 15 years ago? The Moon Treaty of '79, modeled on the more elaborate Law of the Sea treaty, contained provisions which could be interpreted as requiring anybody who used space resources to share it with some international agency, and as requiring sharing of scientific data-- which might preclude the possession of trade secrets by entrepeneurs. The Law of the Sea treaty really has two sections, one of which is favored, one which is not. The first sets national jurisdiction borders in the oceans of the world, formally at 3 miles, now at 30-200 miles out at sea. The U.S. favors such a policy heavily, as they have a lot of coastlines, and they also want free transit through the world's narrow sea lanes, without having to worry about national borders. The second part suggests that sea miners will share the resources they garner from the sea bed (those gathered in international waters) with some sort of international body. So far, it's a moot point, as sea mining is not really a true industry of yet, and hasn't really gone out to international waters. Nevertheless, the sea floor is rich with manganese, cobalt, copper, and so forth. The problem is, how could the UN enforce such an internationalization of resources? I don't recall hearing about any UN navy or coast guard lately. Incidentally, that internationalization of resources resulted in the Law of the Sea treaty ratification being delayed for YEARS. Even today, not all nations are signatories. By extension, I imagine that a Space Treaty with such an international clause would similarly be ignored. Keith Henson of the L5 Society got a Washington lobbyist who teamed up with conservative interests and succeeded in discouraging the Senate from ratifying it. As a result, only a small number of other nations ratified it, and it's had very little effect. Rick Tumlinson, an old L5er, is continuing Henson's opposition, as is Kirby Ikin. >> == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Mining the Asteroids: Considerations?
<< At this point, the international credibility of the group making the claim becomes an issue. The US will carry very little support in any attempt to unilaterally commercialise space; as the recent fiasco at UNISPACE III eloquently demonstrated. (For those who missed it: the USAmerican delegation attempted to force an agreement which asserted the primacy of commercial activity in the future of space development; & threatened to take a walk if their line wasn't followed... not a dissimilar to their attack at Amsterdam, actually. Unlike Amsterdam, the rest of the world produced their own agreement which ignored everything the USAmericans wanted; & told the USAmericans to sign it or clear off. They signed) I'd like to get a copy of that treaty, if it actually was a treaty, or was instead a mere 'agreement'. Executive Agreements have the potential power of treaties, but lack the necessity of Senate approval. They are typically used for very minor deals that have no real controversy behind them. I somehow doubt that the US govt would sign another internationalization of space treaty or agreement without a big stink here in the U.S. Many nations will utilise the UN simply to block the US on principle while others will work the treaty provisions more strategically to level the playing field so that the massively subsidised USAmerican space program isn't able to establish a commercial monopoly on space... It seems to me that by it's nature, commercialism and monopoly, when applied to space, are non-sequitors. That is, if it generates enough profit to commercialize, everyone will want to get involved, thereby blowing the monopolization to hell. that's why i feel an expanded European community - which is much more used to horse trading to get things done internationally - will have a better chance of getting the agreements in place to allow commercial space to develop; & that these agreements will require lisencing of assets through an international body rather than unilateral declarations of commercial sovereignty. No offense, but the EC couldn't even decide on niggling little trade issues. For years, they spent effort trying to come up with uniform standards of beer and chocolate, while heavily subsidizing French farmers to overproduce butter and wine, and pouring money into the disastrous Greek economy. The EC's horse trading abilities have only been dealing with ponies to date. The funny thing is, it would be a stronger union if it dumped 2/3 of the members, and went forward with the original 5 or so. It's worth noting that for all the talk in USAmerica about independent space, the only independently funding missions concepts currently slated to fly are the British Beagle 2 Mars lander & Franco-German Star of Tolerance solar sail experiment; plus one additional British mission - no; not e2... but i know about it because the company building this craft may be the main contractor on e2 - which is likely to fly before 2004... unfortunately: i can't spill the beans on the project yet; except to say that it IS public domain [ie, the concept has been publicised previously] but the money is just about complete to do it Sounds great. The British, for one, are a great space exploring nation. You can't hide your excitement, Robert! Maybe Asterix was right? -- JHB All the best, Robert Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Beating Up on a Young Earth, and Possibly Life
In a message dated 12/14/2000 8:00:38 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << And what kind of impact could be strong enough to knock Uranus over = without utterly breaking that planet apart? >> What if Uranus and Neptune were part of a double planetary system? == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Scientists Decode Genes of Microbe That Thrives in Toxic Metals
Here's a question, perhaps only due to my ignorance, but the issue must be asked nonetheless: If cyto-technologists DO succeed in bioengineering a more toxin resistant bacteria, that can eat heavy metals or clean up radioactive sludge... how do you kill the damned thing? How would it be prevented from possibly mutating and replicating itself, to be some sort of industrial nightmare? Can we imagine the ramifications of a biological super-germ that can survive any sort of assault, and could eat what most other germs consider toxic? Just because science CAN engineer such a thing doesn't mean that it should. Echoes of Crichton's rampaging dinosaurs spring to mind, chaos theory being what it is. Here's another thought... even if such a biogerm was create-able, and containable, would the availability of it give a green card to polluters? Why not just try to avoid the pollution in the first place? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: ADVANCED ALIENS: WHY ET WILL BE MORE ADVANCED THAN HUMANITY
In a message dated 12/15/2000 3:15:37 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Movie aliens are often like distant relatives: They resemble us in an unpleasant sort of way. This is hardly a surprise. Hollywood creates characters that audiences can identify with, and that is why its aliens are so anthropomorphic (and why Donald Duck looks more like a human than a duck): >> At its' heart, science fiction is not really about science, per se, but about how humans cope with and use technology to deal with human issues. Most of the best science fiction is grounded in both science and social philosophy -- and has been at least since Jules Verne and HG Wells. A movie alien is just a 'safe' way to show a model, either good or bad, of human societies. Ironically, at one time Earth DID have a sort of real human alter-ego, the Neandertals. The Neandertal people were a sub-species of genus Homo, just as Homo Sapiens are... and therein lies a great part of the fascination with them. That is, how would / did a truly alternate form of human cope with the same issues that we Homo Sapiens face? How did a Neandertal brain, that was some 15% larger than a modern human brain, approach similar issues? The Neandertals mysteriously died out some 30,000 years ago. Did they fail to compete with Homo Sapiens, or were they wiped out by our ancestors? The answer to that question is compelling, all the more so because it lies at the heart of what it truly means to be 'human'. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Scientists Decode Genes of Microbe That Thrives in Toxic Metals
In a message dated 12/16/2000 8:04:48 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Obviusly, if requires toxic materials to survive, take away the toxic materials. Or else, engineer it so that it requires some protien that it cannot synthesize to survive. >> It's NOT so obvious. That's the problem. Biological forces can mutate, to eat non-intended targets. They can also mutate to produce any protein or enzyme or what have you. Remember, these are bio-genes that survive in toxic and/or radioactive materials, so it's possible that their mutation rates are something completely beyond our original comprehension. My central point, and which your statement addresses beautifully, without necessarily meaning to, is that science or technology often creates a Frankenstein's monster, because it figured it had all the angles worked out. That was the whole point of mentioning chaos theory, discussed in Crichton's novel of Jurassic Park. There IS NO ABSOLUTE FAIL-SAFE. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Doomsday Theory?
In a message dated 12/17/2000 12:05:57 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Hi, I'm new to this list. I find this whole discussion about genetically altered life and its potentially devastating effects very interesting. It brings to mind a theory I heard (and this is getting a little off on a tangent, I know) called the Doomsday Theory. Basically, the theory states that if you are a single random individual from all humans that ever were, are, or will be, then it is more likely that you will be, say, the 10 billionth person born out of 20 billion than the 10 billionth person born out of 100 billion. It's the same idea as randomly choosing a number from a set of numbers, seeing that the number is 2, and then deciding whether it is more likely that you chose that number out of a set from 1 to 2, or out of a set from 1 to 1 million. The smallest possible set is always the most likely set that the randomly chosen number came from. In other words, the Doomsday Theory states that the shortest possible number of humans to ever exist is the most likely. And if you consider the current population explosion, and project that into the future, it would seem unlikely that we would be born today when SO many more people are being born in the near future. The Doomsday Theory seems to indicate that the human species is doomed to suffer either totat annihilation, or a drastic reduction in population, in the near future. Combine this theory with the current new human ability to utterly destroy itself with technology, and it seems almost inevitable that it will happen. ok, I know that sounds pretty dismal. What do you think? >> In a pure random equation, you could just as easily be number 1 as number 10 billion. That's the point of pure randomness. I think this doomsday theory thing is misapplying mathematics to create a patina of science. However, as dangerous as human technology is, and even including all of the potential mistakes that can happen, and often do, I don't think humans will suffer total annihilation, not tomorrow, maybe never. We are the products of 2 million years of Ice Age evolution forced on a clever upright chimpanzee. Anything that can figure out a way to survive and prosper during a time of global climatic catastrophe like the Ice Ages (and all the floods, droughts, wind storms, dessication, freezing temperatures, and large, hungry predators of that time) is a pretty smart creature, with a ferocious will to live. Returning to the odds of your doomsday theory, what are the odds of you and I being born NOW, instead of any time during those past two million years? The odds are completely against it, of course, yet here we are. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Scientists Decode Genes of Microbe That Thrives in Toxic Metals
My point was, and perhaps Jayme Lynn Blaschke's as well, is that in the process of modifying the base organism, it may become 'exotic', and no longer have the same natural limits that it once had. I looked up the Caulerpa Taxiforma reference I was given, and was frankly horrified to think of how much damage this supposedly harmless little aquarium plant was doing in the Mediterranean and now in the Pacific. I stand by my position: don't tinker with things you can't understand. Humans, being individually intelligent, but stupid in large numbers, will inevitably make that one fatal error that wasn't supposed to happen. In the case of Caulerpa Taxiforma, some bright boy in Stuttgart modifed an exotic algae for sale in the aquarium trade. Some aquarium hobbyist, possibly while cleaning his tank, flushed the old water down a toilet, where it eventually wound up in the ocean. A combination of errors and short-cuts may now result in incredible damage to ocean ecosystems, as the modified algae has no natural predators, and it's toxic to fish. It simply grows, at depths of 1 meter to 100 meters deep, in all sorts of water. It can't be killed, it can't be eradicated... As goes for caulerpa taxiforma, so goes for your 'harmless' biotoxin eating microbes. If you don't know what may happen if/when the microbe inevitably escapes it's original space, and possibly mutates... don't mess with it. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Scientists Decode Genes of Microbe That Thrives in Toxic Meta ls
You know, in law and in medicine, a professional beginning his career must take a sort of oath. The physician's oath is to preserve life. The lawyer's oath is to always act ethically. Both are governed, throughout their careers, by a review board. To my knowledge, there is no such review board for genetic tinkerers. There should be. I can't think of too many grand success stories for recent genetic tinkering, but many, many disasters. Perhaps a sort of world-review board could be formed to keep tabs on these developments, with input put on the internet, for all the world to see. If a geneticist stepped out of line, or acted recklessly, s/he would lose his license. I know what some may be thinking... how can you have a review board over the liberty of science, the unfettered mind, etc, etc however, consider the consequences. The consequences are simply too enormous these days to allow anyone with a 'Little Junior' chemistry set to go fooling around with basic genetics. It's the nuclear weapon of the 21st century, and there's nobody watching. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Scientists Decode Genes of Microbe That Thrives in Toxic Metals
In a message dated 12/20/2000 7:38:10 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << > If cyto-technologists DO succeed in bioengineering a more toxin resistant > bacteria, that can eat heavy metals or clean up radioactive sludge... how do > you kill the damned thing? The way you'd normally kill bacteria. Heat, antibiotics, bleach? >> Cross your fingers and hope it works. The consequences of a bad guess are catastrophic. Pardon me, but I think I'll err on the side of safety, and vote against blind genetic tinkering. Besides, as I maintained in an earlier post, the possible availability of toxin eating microbes might induce industrialists to be more careless with their toxic spill liability. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Making some sense of cosmic complexity
In a message dated 12/20/2000 2:58:58 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I should hold my criticism back until reading the whole article... but as a general rule, living things are orders of magnitude more complex than computers. Of course, it remains to be seen if someone can write some software that can make these silicon puppets truly dance (but then we're talking about complexity of software instead of a circuit to processes it). >> When computers start designing and programming humans, then I'll start to consider they might be more advanced. References to energy state transfers is useless, as you could conceivably dream up any definition of 'advanced' that you wanted, to fit the situation. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Scientists Decode Genes of Microbe That Thrives in Toxic Metals
In a message dated 12/21/2000 1:11:51 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << No more than the availibility of lifeboats makes companies less careful with their ships [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Besides, as I maintained in an earlier post, the possible availability of toxin eating microbes might induce industrialists to be more careless with their toxic spill liability. >> What I'm referring to is risk assessment. In a traditional sense, it asks whether it is cheaper to fix a problem than to simply take the chance that nothing will go wrong. However, many modern companies have immense insurance policies that actually make them LESS careful than they would be without such policies. Because the costs and risks are transferable, the normal precautions may be somewhat lessened. But, let's return to your 'lifeboat' analogy. The obvious counter which springs to mind is of course, the Titanic. The passenger liner was thought to be unsinkable, so the captain and crew were more inclined to take chances than they otherwise might have been. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Making some sense of cosmic complexity
In a message dated 12/21/2000 10:30:06 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Actually, there are good extant models for computing which function very similarly to human thought processing known as neural networks. The cool thing about these models (several of which are currently being used in many various industries) is that they are much more fault-tolerant than other complex reasoning models. These networks use units of computation called neurons which function very similarly to how human neurons function, taking a variety of inputs, and if the total exceeds a "fuzzy" threshold level, firing off a single output of varying strength. For discussions of artificial intelligence and fuzzy logic, I'd recommend Andrew Stern and Ian Wilson. These two characters are involved with fuzzy logic algorithms for computer games. Now, fuzzy logic has been around more than 30 years, but it has only been in the last 5-10 years that people have tried to program for true neural simulation. Computer games have actually been one of the forefront developers of good AI. Such models are able not only to be trained quite well for certain tasks, but are also capable of taking quite reasonable "guesses" at the correct answer to input it has never seen before. At present, such systems are generally very specific when compared to humans ( a simple example is the autopilots which are used by many major airlines ). And training them is more an art than a science, but when done right, the agents created actually outperform their human counterparts. The limiting factor here is still computational power, as the human brain is much slower than these networks but is able to multitask to a much greater extent ( massive parrallel processing ) and so can bring many more variables to bear on a single problem. It'd be pretty hard to emulate a human brain's imagination... the ability to create something from nothing, or come up with a completely new approach to a new problem. Neural networks are not the only ones out there which do useful work in artificial intelligence, I just find them the most interesting. Simple Baysean Networks ( also called belief networks or knowledge bases ) can be very useful for specific tasks. As an example, a Baysean Network known as Pathfinder, when trained by a specialist over the course of about 40 hours, was able to diagnose lymph node deseases to a greater degree of accuraccy than the specialist who trained it. Computing power has, over the last couple decades, been approximately doubling every 18 months, and I believe it inevitable that eventually we will have a true Turing Machine ( a machine which, when interviewed, would be indifferentiable from a human ). But the quest for a Turing Machine is not really what modern artificial intelligence is all about, computers are much more useful when you play to their strengths, and, besides saying you've done it, what would be the point of a computer which is, essentially, human? Simple. Computers have no rights. If you can create an artificial person, you get all the advantages for science and so forth, without those messy human rights attached. Artificial soldiers, without conscience. Artificial test subjects. Artificial crash test dummies. Artificial astronauts. Etc, etc. If it's a dangerous or uncomfortable job, get an artificial person to do it. Sure, sure, it's all a moot point now, because they don't exist, etc. But, I ask you: 1) what are the 'rights' of a person who has a human body, with an artificial, neural network brain implanted in it? Does such a person have rights? 2) alternatively, would a clone have rights? How about a clone who has been re-engineered, so that it is only 98% similar to a human... therefore not truly 'human'? -Nathan Schomer. >> == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Making some sense of cosmic complexity
In a message dated 12/21/2000 11:47:35 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Complexity of HAL9000 = circuitry + programming + learned behavior + knowledge Complexity of human mind = brain + instincts? + learned behavior + knowledge + metaphysical stuff (e.g. conciousness, soul? ) >> With humans, what about neural misfirings? What about temporal differences? For instance, many people might agree that the average person is more productive, and more focused, in the morning hours than in the late evening. This implies that some neurons are not firing in the later hours. Alternatively, human brains have great redundancy, because the individual neurons are not individually reliable. I suppose that's why memories are inconsistent, why people have moods, we have slow days, etc. You'd have to add this to your equation for people... that is, complexity of human mind = brain + instincts + learned behaviour + knowledge + metaphysical(??) + R (where 'R' represents a randomization factor). -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Dah, dah, DAAAAH.....
In a message dated 1/3/2001 12:06:41 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << As God is my witness, a mysterious 9-foot-tall black monolith appeared last night in a Seattle city park (surrounded by several bottle caps, suggesting that it was thirsty work for the aliens), and some of the city's inhabitants have already started to paw and stroke it ecstatically. One of them reports, "I feel my intelligence growing by the moment." Maybe we could get Bush to approach the thing... >> Nah... he might pick up a gazelle bone and try to brain the Russian premier or something. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Golden Disasters
In a message dated 1/10/2001 6:25:23 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Just to get some interesting on-topic conversation going... Hmm... interesting topic going... I'll tell you what I find interesting: how often a science, and particularly a space screw-up yields tangible benefits. That is, space is about the only area I can think of, other than deep sea exploration, that is still subject to something like an evolutionary process to spur improvement of vehicles and technology. Simply stated, if the machinery in a super-harsh environment goofs, someone usually dies, or a million dollars piece of machinery is lost forever. Talk about a spur to getting things done right! What benefits were realized in rocket technology after Gagarin was killed, after US astronauts were killed? How about near misses? Don't you think that the Apollo 13 near disaster was a good thing, in that it truly stressed the space program, and the technology and people behind that technology, showing what they were truly capable of? Similarly, the MIR space station has forced ground controllers, again and again, to improvise, simply because MIR is a creaky old thing that should have crashed 10 years ago. I find fascinating the way that some group of forgotten space technologists, like the Voyager team from back in 1969, is still resolutely cranking out data from their machine, despite having practically no tools to do so. In my view, it is the desperate days of space technology that teach us the most. If we are ever going to found a real, going space concern, featuring a long-term population in space, it's practically guaranteed that there will be similar emergency situations. The experience we gain from near disasters will really come in handy then. Now, someone will likely suggest that truly successful space ventures should be all robotic ventures. That way, the mission functions better, and lives are not put at risk, therefore no jeopardy to the underlying space program ala Christa McAuliffe. I can see that for most routine missions, automated or remote technology is the way to go. But, for the flash that will be necessary to get mass support for space development, human lives must be risked, and occassionally lost, to add drama. Consider: the Tom Hanks film was about the Apollo 13 near disaster... who would have watched it if it just involved a robot or two? Perhaps the lives of astronauts are the sacrificial lambs that the space program will demand? -- JH Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Golden Disasters
In a message dated 1/10/2001 11:00:14 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Astronauts are the direct descendants of the aggressive test pilots of = > decades past. While mission specilists and such have toned down that image = > and culture a lot, I still get the impression that the astronaut corps is = > a pretty exclusive fraternity that is quite proud of its daring outlaw = > heritage. They aren't going to take any excess risks -- heck, no one wants = > to lose their skin -- but all the same they know what they do is very = > dangerous work. I don't think sacrificial lambs is an accurate analogy at = > all, although I understand what you are trying to get at. It seems like a lot of what astronauts do involves really just the rigors of the high-G ascent and descent, during which time they're strapped down. The rest of the time, they're floating around in a laboratory, only very occasionally going out in a suit, which is tethered to the main craft. Where's the inherent danger, other than in machine failure? Another, related question: why bother with a test pilot, when an old man like Neil Armstrong, 70+, can do the job? Do you REALLY need to be in 'top shape' to ascend into space? If that's the case, we can pretty much forget about tourists in space... -- JH Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Impact Craters
In a message dated 1/10/2001 3:02:18 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > let's look at some images. the first is a set of pictures > showing how geologists understand the evolution of the current > tectonic state. > > two through four are about the chicxulub impact site in mexico. > the first of those is a gravimetric image of the distortions > caused by the impact. the second is a map of the yucatan penninsula. > the third is a 3D relief map. > > the last is a map of hudson bay in quebec, canada. am i the only > one who can see a 300 mile diameter impact crater? Hmm... I'd heard some years ago that the Hudson Bay area is probably a crater; perhaps it's never been really delved into like the Chicxulub crater (now proven) because one is in warm Mexico, the other in frigid Canada? It would take a man of particular steadfast character to do the research, presumeably by diving in the waters of Hudson Bay and so forth. Who knows, Sam, it may be a grand opportunity for you! You may even find the ghost of Henry Hudson while poking around up there. -- JH Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Glaciers and Tectonics
In a message dated 1/10/2001 6:12:52 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I've wondered this since the first time I heard of the asteroid hypothesis. > I also saw a chart of geologic history once, with great extinctions and > calculated impact magnitudes on it. A major reversal of tectonic movement > coincided (within millions of years, anyway) with the most massive impact. > Conservation of momentum requires the entire Earth to be accelerated to > about .01 mm/sec by a 10Km 50Km/sec impactor. I still am amazed by what > something like that must do to the crust and atmosphere. I've pretty much > figured out the atmosphere, but I don't know enough about geophysics of the > mantle to really figure out the long term effects there. Plate tectonics > is motivated by bulk circulation of the entire mantle. It would be useful > to know the kinetic energy of that circulation relative to the whole Earth. > Then we could see if the 1,000,000 MT blast really had enough energy to > matter. Hmm... here's a little question for the numbers people... There's a lot of speculation about how / why glacial ages begin and end. However, glaciers weigh a tremendous amount, being about 1 mile + thick. They're heavy enough to compress the crust into the mantle. Here's my question, floated some time before... Could the compression of an Ice Age on the mantle cause inherent volcanism to rise, as the underlying magma is forced up by pressure on one area? This might cause a natural chain reaction end to an Ice Age, as the volcanism pumps CO2 into the atmosphere, creating a green house effect, and rewarming the atmosphere. Perhaps it might also have some impact on global plate tectonics? What would be the impact of glacier weights on tectonic shifts? Plug it into the equation, will you? -- JHByrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: my new website
Say, Sam... take a look at the first image of Pangaea on your website. It's also a 'tantalizing bite'. Could that also have been an impact crater, or is it just a coincidentally round bay? == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Impact Craters
Here's a thought... considering that Pangaea was one super-continent at 200 million years ago, and considering Sam Michael's formula for the sheer mass of a continent... would that amount of weight on one side of the planet have given it a wobble? The planet as it is today is somewhat balanced, albeit with more continental mass in the Northern Hemisphere. Still, even scientists of the 17th-18th centuries yearned for balance in their maps, and therefore many assumed that there was a southern continent (Antarctica) long before it was actually discovered. Could Earth of -200MYA have been unbalanced, gravitationally? What's the impact of a gravitationally unstable Earth? I'd expect at the very least it would have had some terribly cold winters and hot summers, as most of Pangaea would be far away from the moderating ocean currents and temperatures. This then brings up another question: an animal evolving on a super continent like Pangaea would have to be able to bear some great extremes of temperatures. Explain this in terms of the dinosaur / mammal dichotomy. Perhaps my notion of anti-freeze dinosaurs isn't so crazy after all? Perhaps this could explain the development of temperature regulation in mammalia? Last question: it's my understanding that the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, at the rate of an inch a year or so. What would have been the impact of a closer moon on the Earth of -200MYA? Imagine the tides! Further, imagine the evolutionary impetus forced on tidal creatures, such as proto-amphibia, from presumeably 50' tidal shifts. Sam, you've got your work cut out for you. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: SV: Science Fair Project (fwd)
I'd call it, at best, a sociology experiment, rather than any sort of science project. As I recall, at that age I did a 30 page report on bubonic plague... some fun! I hated the field research though... -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Rosetta's Christmas present to Mars Express
150 million bucks, and 11 years, to witness a snowball melting? Hey, Rosetta, I got some law school debts, maybe you could pitch me a little largesse? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: The Sound of One Cell Growing
In a message dated 1/11/2001 10:47:15 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Just as long as it's not wearing a Roman war helmet and a pair of tennis > >shoes. (By the way, given their fondness for Warner Brothers cartoons, = > why > >hasn't somebody in this Group proposed blasting through Europa's ice = > layer > >with an Eludium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator?) > > That's the "Illudium Pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator." Sheesh, Bruce, = > you'll be confusing "areobraking" with "aerocapture" next! > > Jayme Lynn Blaschke You guys are watchin' too many cartoons. Get back to work already! == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Other soil comment
In a message dated 1/11/2001 4:17:21 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The way we know how much ice ever covered the continent is by doing soil > testing. The soil "remembers" how much weight was ever over top of it. By > conducting a test which subjects soil to increased soil pressure there > becomes a point at which the soil compression-pressure curve breaks to a new > > curve. That breakage point corresponds to the maximum pressure the soil has > > ever seen. > Leo Leo, what about multiple glaciations? There have been 4 major ice eras (Riss, Wurm, etc) over the past 3 million years, and presumeably various ice ages millions of years before the Pleistocene. Is there a website reference about the soil weight analysis for glacial weights? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: The Sound of One Cell Growing
In a message dated 1/11/2001 12:19:56 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Actually, I found a link for a possible thermal drill > to be used on Mars, that may help us at Europa > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns227323 Bruce, I've a question for you... It seems to me a little risky to put a physical drill on Europa; we don't know the rate of ice shifting, etc... a 100 million dollar drill or nanomachine or what-have-you could get lost / crushed / demodulated somewhere in that 100 mile thick ice crust. Would a space-based orbiting laser platform do the job? Of course, the laser would have to be in Europa-synchronous orbit, but it would have the advantage of being able to bore holes all over the surface. Further, the laser itself might be an excellent imaging and survey device, as well as being able to reveal chemical compositions, etc. Of course, the hard part is powering the thing. Perhaps the laser could somehow be powered by Jupiter's radioactivity output? I don't know that enough plutonium could be packaged along with the orbiter to be able to power a drilling laser... then again, how much heat would really be necessary in a supercold environment? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: RED MOON available on Amazon
David S. Michaels: I'd have sent you this email directly, but all I have is a palladium email address. That book, Red Moon, sounds amazing. I'll get a copy, as the concept alone blows my mind. How much is true? I didn't know you were a fan of ancient history. Care to compare notes sometime? Herodotus forward is my purview... yours? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Lions & Tigers & Lystrosaurs Oh My!
In a message dated 1/11/2001 10:29:29 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > (The image of the lystrosaurus waddling unthinking into paleontological > history is one of my favorites in science; & a story which repeats on > smaller scales throughout the fossil record: think of amboreiser, the > enormous rats of Greater Anguilla) Rats, pig-dragons... hey, what about Australopithecines?! Talk about nature's step-child being given a long shot chance by a series of natural disasters. There is no reason Australopithecines should have survived leopards, windstorms, famine, killer baboons, ice ages, etc, etc yet here we are. Getting back to lystrosaurs... it's kinda like the nerd kid, who always gets picked on in school... who then graduates, gets rich, and comes back and buys the whole town. Lystrosaur: the Bill Gates of the Paleozoic! -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Europa drilling
In a message dated 1/11/2001 9:17:19 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Second, as soon as you bore a hole more than a few hundred meters deep > (using any technique), it will just close up again due to ice pressure -- > unless you insert a shaft after it, or unless your "drill" is a > self-contained vehicle, like the Europa Cryobot or some of the "subsurface > explorers" being tentatively proposed for Mars (and Earth). A few weeks back, we all discussed here the possibility for low-G ices (Ice-ii, iii, etc) existing naturally on Europa. However, if a hole was made by laser melting, perhaps by a laser from a self-contained vehicle, perhaps the ice that refroze would form a slightly denser form, from the pressure you're talking about. Perhaps this would form a natural tube? At least one > design I've seen for the latter has the ability to reverse itself and crawl > back up to the surface -- but in any case, we're talking about an > unavoidably complex and risky endeavor, which had better be researched step > by step. Any chance of sending a lander factory that could manufacture microbot drill probes locally? It just seems to me that sending one lander only is too risky... redundancy may be the key. Of course, this 'lander factory' isn't possible now, and won't be for 10+ years... but then, any chance of a Europa probe is probably that far away as well. > > Finally, we had a long analysis in 1999 of whether Jupiter's radiation belts > could possibly serve as any kind of power source for a spacecraft, let alone > a drill. The answer turned out to be that it's hopeless -- you'd need > several hundred thousand TONS of radiation-absorbing material just to > extract enough radiation from the belts to power a Cryobot! I was thinking something like an electrical induction cable, simply dragged behind an orbital bus. A microfilament could be kilometers long... -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Greetings
Welcome aboard, Tom. This is more than just a Europa site; it's also sort of a 'Star Wars Bar' for various technophiles and astronomers. It works out something like an online issue of 'Science'. I'd be interested to hear a lot more about the acoustical probe concept, as it may be the way that a practical Europa probe will have to function, rather than physically drilling through the ice there. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Golden Disasters
In a message dated 1/12/2001 8:48:19 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The suits aren't tethered, space flight in its current form is dangerous. > tell ya what lets work out how dangerous, does anyone know how > many people have been in space ? in total 10 people have died > in spaceflight (interestingly enough all 10 died during the ascent/descent > phase -7 on challenger and 3 on a russian flight that depressurised on > re-entry). i suppose the only real reason they demand astronauts be > in peak condition is that if someone was to die in space from natural > causes (e.g. heart attack) think of how much answering of difficult > questions nasa would undergoe. not just anyone can go through high > g flight. > Niall Niall: I don't have access to the numbers, but I do know that a LOT more than 10 have died in space related mishaps. Since the early 1960s, there have been various rocket explosions, etc that have doomed astronauts and cosmonauts. I know Yuri Gagarin, and various other Russians died in the early 60s. We don't even know how many Russians died, since their program was semi-secret until the 80s... that is, announced to the world if successful, hushed up if not. I also know that various Americans died in launch pad explosions in the 60s. This is sidestepping the original point, however. Machine failure is what kills astronauts, not 'being out of shape'. Perhaps an unstated reason they insist on top physical shape is to help keep the program unattainable for most, therefore 'special'? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Golden Disasters
In a message dated 1/12/2001 9:44:11 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > For Russia this number is somewhat higher -- including a lot of ground = > support and scientific personnel killed during preflight testing. Launch = > pad explosions wiped out a lot of their brainpower, and is a significan = > factor behind our reaching the moon first. =20 > Wow. Can you imagine, such a tightly knit little group as theirs must have been, reeling under the loss of their members, yet still 'expected' to produce significant gains for the Motherland... Imagine, for instance, if we all logged on to the Europa group one day, and found out that 1/3 of the members normally here had all died when their keyboards discombobulated. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Extremely efficient nuclear fuel could take man to Mars in just two weeks
What about sustained acceleration / deceleration sickness? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Golden Disasters
In a message dated 1/12/2001 10:18:06 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > What mission are you referring to that says NASA is going to land on Europa > in 2010? Has something been scheduled? > > Tom Tom... it's a sly Jeremy Blaeschke reference to 'Odessey 2', a sequel to the Arthur C. Clarke Novel / Movie '2001: a Space Odessey'. In Odyssey 2, the Americans and Russians are racing to get to Europa first, when the Chinese steal the show by sending a one-way lander to Europa, hoping to refuel with water once they actually get there. Along the way, however, they have a mishap with some of the local fauna... -- JHb == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Golden Disasters
In a message dated 1/12/2001 1:59:35 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I have also been loooking at what sort of training the astronauts have to go > through in case they have to abort a mission. Between the jungle survival > courses, the desert survival courses, and the ocean survival courses, they > would have to combine the strengths of a test pilot with those of a Navy SEAL. > Various mandatory survival training courses are kind of obsolete in a time of global positioning finders. Seems to me if you crash, and possibly survive, you'll land in the ocean, where all the jungle training in the world isn't going to work. If you land in the ocean, you've got about 3 days before dehydration kills you. Jungle training? Desert training? Give me a break. You crash, you die. If you somehow miraculously survive a high-G re-entry, you'll probably be found... they'll either find you by GPS, or by simply following the meteor trail your disintegrating spacecraft makes on re-entry. So... tell me again that all that fancy training isn't something like Latin and Greek for Doctors and Lawyers... great for impressing the rubes. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Golden Disasters
In a message dated 1/14/2001 2:19:33 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > but Komarov was able to successfully orient the ship for > retrofire manually, and at the time of reentry blackout everyone thought > he'd land safely. But the main and reserve chutes failed to eject from > their canisters -- and, incredibly, there's a persistent rumor that this was > because the assembly workers who sprayed the reentry capsule with thermal > protective resin did so WITHOUT putting the covers on the parachute > canisters, and thus glued the chutes in their containers! (If so, Soyuz-2 > would have also crashed on landing had both ships flown.) > > So 11 people have died on manned spaceflights -- but the three men on > Soyuz-11 still have the unhappy distinction of being the only human beings > ever actually to die in outer space. This all supports the contention that some disasters are golden (in telling us what to avoid, ie, no shortcuts in space technology), and some cosmonauts / astronauts are going to be sacrificed to add that 'mythic quality' that space work demands. No heroes, no heroism, no space exploration. -- JH Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Golden Disasters
Here's a grim question for all of you... what happens in 2005 (or somesuch year) when a flying piece of space debris, a loose wrench from an old repair job, a rocket stage, or any other of the 1000s of pieces of space junk floating around up there impacts with the ISS? The more activity up there, the more the odds increase that there's going to be a disaster, probably involving loss of life. The 'conquest of space' has hardly even begun yet. In comparative terms to the Age of Discovery, we've just reached the Azores to date. Taking our little 'space caravels' all the way to Mars or Jupiter will be the real test. Incidentally, about 5 years ago, there was a news report in the Economist about how a French communications satellite was impacted by a piece of space junk; it was a total loss. So, the orbital paths are already starting to intersect. Quite frankly, I was surprised Saddam Hussein back in 1991, didn't simply fill his Scud warheads with sand or ball-bearings, shoot them up into near space, and explode them. Space technology is a terribly fragile thing, and very expensive. -- JH Byrne, contentious as ever == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Golden Disasters
In a message dated 1/14/2001 2:37:27 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Please note that clinically, suicide doesn't require you to > premediate an action: noone is suggesting that Gagarin jumped onto the plane > not intending to get out in one piece; only that his psychological state was > such that it induced what would normally have been considered a preventable > fatal accident. I'm afraid I agree with Robert on this one, having recent experience of it myself, when a family friend killed himself. I think suicide was in the back of his mind, along with heavy doses of guilt, blame, etc... but when opportunity presented itself, it was taken. In like manner, Gagarin may very well have taken his own life... Gagarin, after all, was the Neil Armstrong of the USSR -- everyone's hero. Yet, he would have profoundly known the horrible sacrifices the USSR had made, to make such a program, heap all the honors on him -- the golden boy -- yet ignoring the deaths of others (such as the ground crew deaths I've heard about, but never heard their names mentioned). -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Hawkings / Genetic Tinkering
In a message dated 1/16/2001 6:43:08 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > British physicist predicts design of improved human race > > January 15, 2001 > > Web posted at: 10:59 a.m. HKT (0259 GMT) > > BOMBAY, India (AP) -- Physicist Stephen Hawking predicted that people > would colonize other planets in 100 years and successfully design an > improved human race by the next millennium. > > http://www.cnn.com/2001/ASIANOW/south/01/14/india.stephenhawking.ap/index. > html I wasn't impressed. He's so overly cautious as to say nothing of any substance at all. 'We're likely to have some kind of genetic engineering some time in the next million years or so...'. Way to go out on a limb, Steven. All barbs aside, this website is perhaps the perfect locale to discuss what such genetic tinkering might be. I suggest that 'genetic tinkering' or 'improvements' is a very relative thing. That is, one man's improvement is another man's meddling. 1) Clearly, genetic therapy is foremost in this consideration. The elimination of Lou Gehrig's disease, for instance, will likely have to be on a genetic level. I wouldn't think there would be any great outcry over genetic tinkering to eliminate such gene diseases; to my knowledge, some efforts have already been done in this area. a) incidentally, various engineered animals already produce human products. Pigs produce human insulin, etc. It's theoretically very possible to impregnate a cow (or a gorilla) with a human fetus, since fetal tissue comes equipped with antigens for suppressing the host body's immune system. Clearly, there would be a huge demand for such a thing, for any number of reasons. 2) The trouble is, what genetic diseases truly qualify as serious enough to be treated, while others must be endured? For instance, if it's alright to treat Lou Gehrig's disease, why not color blindness? Why not shortness (which has been reliably demonstrated to somewhat limit professional and mating opportunities)? 3) From treating Lou Gehrig's disease, then, it's a relatively simple progression to treating stupidity, ugliness, or criminal behavioralism. With such a broad definition of 'disease' as is now prevalent in the world, I can see no reason why interested advocacy would not present criminal propensity as a disease in need of treatment, for instance. So, Steven Hawking's 'prediction' is already in the process of coming true, for it's only a matter of time before we discover that some billionaire has already been secretly funding such research and now has a crop of juniors to make The Statement that will wipe away such notions of handwringing forever. More to the interests of the Europa and Space Advocacy group, it seems pretty easy to see that, if the opportunity presented itself, and the knowledge were available, someone would work on creating a variety of proto-human capable of functioning for extended periods in hard environments. 1) For instance, why not create Homo Vaccuumous? An intelligent being, capable of functioning in deep space environments for extended periods is more than a little possible of being created. Clearly, the ethicists would get up in arms about the whole issue: 'you cannot change the image of man, etc'. 2) Sidestepping the ethics issue entirely, however, if genetics could tinker with human genes to such an extent, they could certainly do the same with bonobo genes (bonobos are a chimpanzee varient, 98.7% genetically identical with humans). Legally speaking, if they're not 'human', they have practically no rights at all. Bonobos have the added advantages of small size and an extra set of hands, and they're more used to an arboreal existance (therefore, might fare better in weightlessness). So, simply tinker with removing the body hair, boost the brain power (not much is needed, just enough to reliably follow earthside commands), and perhaps increasing the circulatory system. Here's a problem I see: what happens when such an invented species demands independence? Are we humans a jealous god? Food for thought. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: What happens when scientists overextend themselves
In a message dated 1/16/2001 1:00:23 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Hello all. As this article puts Hawking into the Tipler camp, I > thought it would be useful to provide an alternate perspective. > The following is a very condensed explanation for the lack of > obvious ETs that has heretofore been insufficiently explored. Does a caribou herd significantly remember when a team of biologists goes over, tranquilizes a couple, fits them with radio collars, and moves on? Likely, they remember a few moments of terror when the helicopter flew overhead. The tranquilized caribou likely remember the terror of being handled by humans. Yet, in a few hours, all is relatively back to normal. The caribou simply lack the capacity to understand what has gone on; even if they did, they couldn't do anything about it. Lacking the capacity to a solution, they simply forget it. Playing Devil's Advocate for the moment, assume that we humans had been similarly surveyed by an alien presence. Would we notice? Would we, lacking the capacity to do anything about it, instead respond with a collective 'hide your head in the sand', remniscent of the X-Files? Consider: for the past 50 years or so, there have been lurid tales of alien abductions. Yet, who really believes the Witley Streibers of our day? The more lurid the tale, the less they are believed. Alternatively, the tales have become so common as to become urban legends in their own right. So, whether it is outright disbelief, or shock exhaustion, the result is the same -- no response. Assuming that such lurid tales were true... that aliens do indeed capture hapless humans for various experiments, do vivisect cows, what have you... what is the experiment? Is the experiment on the immediate subject (the hapless human) or on the subject's population? Perhaps such alien scientists are trying to discover what they can get away with -- that is, determining the level of mass shock exhaustion of a mass population. Vast social experiments would be a far more useful experiment, than basic biology, after all. Now consider: in 1935, the radio program 'War of the Worlds' generated mass hysteria, at the mere suggestion of an alien presence. Yet, today, if such a presence were demonstrated with real proof, millions of humans would RUN to the aliens, in search of God, a handout, the answers to everything, etc. Six decades of science fiction novels and alien abduction stories have induced mass tranquility to the whole subject. What will be our reaction in another six decades? > It is the implicit assumption in all discussions of colonization by > humans or machines (von Neumann probes) that I have seen, that there > is some motivation for this. Humans colonize to have access to greater > resources (to gain economic advantage). If that is not the case then > the argument falls apart. If a civilization (and its individuals) > recognize that there is nothing to be gained by this strategy then > they will not exercise it as an option. What about DNA resources? To my understanding, DNA and various forms throughout the cosmos likely take billions of years to generate advanced forms of life. Ergo, DNA or its analogs are the rarest substance in the galaxy, as it requires very specific conditions, over billions of years, to make a worthy product. After all, what is worth more, a bottle of grape juice, or a bottle of fine Bordeaux? > That is the case when civilizations have reached the limit of what > can be constructed as "thought machines" at the limits of the laws > of physics (e.g. solar system sized nested Dyson shell supercomputers, > a.k.a. Matrioshka Brains). Thought machines? That's assuming that all things can be known, assimilated, and processed. If the universe were static, perhaps that would be so. However, Life and DNA is the kicker, that throws a monkey wrench into the system. Perhaps I'm working from limited knowledge / imagination, but I assume that as long as there is DNA floating around the universe, there will always be a new answer or new question. Thought machines would have to be loaded up with some kind of information / knowledge to be useful. After all, what's the point of the greatest supercomputer in the universe, if it has no memory of experience? This is another way of suggesting that besides a cosmic quest for DNA, our prospective aliens might simply be on a quest for experience. This doesn't necessarily make them pacifist science types -- after all, the greatest experiences and challenges that we humans know have generally been gained through war. > > If you have one of these, there is virtually no point to constructing > a second one, or a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. because the return-on-investement > is minimal (essentially zero). This is because the propagation delays that > exist between such entities relative to their large information storage
Re: E.T. or Alien? The Character of Other Intelligence
> But if we do encounter other intelligences among the stars, will they > in reality prove to be friendly or hostile? > > A poll conducted by the Marist Institute in 1998 suggested that 86% of > Americans who think there is life on other planets believe it will be > friendly. Similar optimism has been expressed by many prominent figures > in SETI, including Frank Drake, Philip Morrison, and Carl Sagan. In 1500 or so, the Aztecs had legends that white Gods (Quetzalcoatl) would come and save them from themselves. The Spanish fit the bill, in all ways except the most important: they were hardly benevolent. > An argument in favor of alien beneficence is that any race which has > managed to survive the kind of global crises currently facing humanity > (and which presumably confront all technological species at some stage > in their development) is likely to have resolved the sources of conflict > we still have on Earth. We humans are in the process of trying to develop space technology, partly for the reason that it allows us to sidestep our fundamental problems here on Earth, namely, overpopulation, and all the pollution and aggression that overpopulation generates. I can see no reason why an alien population would not have the same approach to its problems, so that just because it has achieved space technology and the ability to leap between worlds, doesn't mean it has tackled its own moral-ethical conundrums. > > Morrison, for instance, doubted that advanced societies "crush out any > competitive form of intelligence, especially when there is clearly no > danger." Tell that to the passenger pigeon, to the dodo, to the Tierra Del Fuegans, to the Tasmanians, to Homo Neandertal. Morrison's ancestors have 50,000 years of blood on their hands -- it cannot be washed off like Lady McBeth. > Similarly, Arthur C. Clarke has stated that: > > "As our own species is in the process of proving, one cannot have > superior science and inferior morals. The combination is unstable > and self-destroying." That's a compelling syllogism: can true progress be sustained without a moral-ethical foundation? Would Naziism have been stable enough to create a 1000 year reich? > > However, there can be no assurance on this point. After all, human beings > appear to have made little progress, over the past two millennia or so, > toward eliminating or controlling their aggressive tendencies. Sure we have! Just read Herodotus. The world he talks about is a far cry from today, where violent death is so relatively rare in the developed countries that it becomes front page news. I'd say we humans have made immense strides towards curbing violent tendencies, racism, chauvinism, etc, etc. No mea culpas... just objectively read any book from 2000 years ago (including the Bible, if you're so inclined) and compare the ordinary violence levels expressed in the ancient days with what we go through today, on an ordinary day. And there > is no reason to suppose we shall change much in this respect over the next > few centuries, during which time we may well develop the means of reaching > the stars. How about if it's demonstrated that criminal tendencies are inheritable, and treatable? Since 1870 or so, Emile Zola and others have so suggested. We now have the actual capacities to do so; only ethical squeamishness holds us back. On the other hand, maybe the genes that make for criminality are closely related to the genes for genius? > > Those who are pessimistic about the general nature of extraterrestrials > argue that Darwinism, and its fundamental tenet "survival of the fittest", > virtually guarantees that any advanced species will be potentially > dangerous. > What if they're perfectly 'harmless' as to intent, but rather clumsy? After all, most Arawaks died from disease, not Spanish swords. > Michael Archer, professor of biology at the University of New South > Wales, Australia, has put it this way: > > "Any creature we contact will also have had to claw its way up the > evolutionary ladder and will be every bit as nasty as we are. It will > likely be an extremely adaptable, extremely aggressive super-predator." > Not necessarily. It may have had 1000 years on the journey between stars to rethink its basic propositions. Still, would a race subject to 1000 years of isolation from a living world be completely sane? > Perhaps the most reasonable assumption, in the absence of any data, is > that, just as in our own case, the potential for good and evil will exist > in every intelligent extraterrestrial race. Good and evil is mere perception / perspective. Just ask a cow. To us, it represents food, wealth, productivity -- good things. To the cow, if it had the capacity to so reason, we are carnivorous slavers. Civilization is unthinkable > without some measure of compassion, and yet how could a species that h
Re: E.T. or Alien? The Character of Other Intelligence
In a message dated 1/19/2001 8:48:26 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Consider also that what a civilization considers > 'benevolent' might not be seen as such by the > receiving civilization. Wait a minute... are you suggesting that the Europeans don't truly appreciate America's McDonalds and Disneyland cultural forays? Why, that's heresy! I hereby sentence you to 100 mea culpas and a latte. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: E.T. or Alien? The Character of Other Intelligence
In a message dated 1/19/2001 9:22:02 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Indeed. Consider that missionaries destroyed almost all aspects of the = > Mayan, Incan and Aztec cultures they ran across, and the Australian = > government forcibly removed Aborigine children from their parents to raise = > as "white" since that race was doomed to extinction and this was more = > humane, after all. Hang on a minute, Jayme. Remember that by 1920, the Tasmanians had been wiped out completely. Is it any wonder that whites felt that mainland Aborigines were doomed as well? Similarly, the Spanish missionaries were myopic, certainly, but can you blame them? Their own culture had spent 1000 years indoctrinating them that what was not Christian came from the Devil. Indeed, many of those same missionaries might have taken part in the last years of the Reconquista, that is, retaking Spain from the Moors following a brutal centuries long war, so they were hardly in a position to be benevolent. Here's a crazy question: if you could jump back in time, to 1500 or so, would you try to prevent the annihilation of the Aztecs and Incas? To save the Aztecs, wouldn't you have to partially destroy them, and the Spanish as well? Where you stand depends on where you sit. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
11 New Moons For Jupiter
It seems to me that the definition of 'moon' needs a revision. That is, traditional concepts of a 'moon' is something pretty substantial, large enough to be noticeable, perhaps even large enough to cause gravitational effects on the parent body -- such as Earth's Luna. Classifying any old orbital body that circles a large parent mass as a 'moon' would really mean that we have to classify communications satellites, asteroid dust, and so forth as a 'moon', rather than what it really is, a piece of space detritus. Perhaps they could be termed 'moonlets' or something? Am I just being a semantic crank? -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: E.T. or Alien? The Character of Other Intelligence
In a message dated 1/21/2001 3:06:57 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Cripes, is Clements another one of those characters who sees McDonald's as > the American equivalent of the SS? At risk of being labeled a 'Clementist' or somesuch moniker, I must admit that I too dislike seeing McDonalds smack in the middle of world cultural symbols. After all, many of the various squares and city centers that McDonalds now infests took centuries to build, and were often created to express the individual national cultural identity of the builders. McDonalds is the Anti-Culture, in that it propagates as a mass popular cultural icon, celeberating sameness, no matter where you are. Ironically, I really came to dislike McDonalds on first seeing one next to the Berlin Zoo, an old European institution. It just seemed an insult, to put McDonalds, with all its plasticy charms, right in the middle of one of the world's great cultural centers. At the risk of violating Jeff Foust's > guidelines, though, I will say that -- whether or not he's right about the > current GM foodstuffs -- he's certainly right about the overall effects of > biotechnology: it will have stupendously disruptive and dangerous effects on > the very existence of the human race, which human political institutions are > not even remotely equipped to deal with, and probably never will be. Nor > will wholesale regulative restrictions on its free-market sales do all that > much to alleviate the situation, although they'll help. > I suspect that the genie is out of the bottle on the biotech front, and will never be returned there. Humans being what we are, there will always, always be a short-cut seeker. What could be better than a biotech shortcut, damn the consequences? > As for Europa, though: he continues to have an obsession about some kind of > massive worldwide revolt against the idea of Contaminating Europa with > Plutonium -- although the danger to Europan life from biological > contamination is infinitely greater. I submit that what most people dislike > about the use of RTGs for space exploration is the prospect of having the > stuff sprinkled on their own heads, thank you. > Probably so, and it's probable that people won't care about the prospect of plutonium landers contaminating Europa (especially since Europa is likely bombarded with Jovian hard radiation every day). > Bruce Moomaw == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter -- Renaming Petition?
> > > My Oxford defines a moon as a "natural satellite of any planet" Your Oxford was written in a time and place which had little comprehension of space studies. In any event, it still doesn't address asteroid dust or ring particles. For that matter, it wouldn't address the contents of the shuttle septic tank, if it were emptied out in space. Alright, let's take the bull by the horns: is it possible, by starting a petition drive, to get whomever is 'in charge' of space terminology to rethink the various terms for moon / moonlet / asteroid / particle / mote? I'd imagine that this Europa website probably has 50 scientists and space technologists. Each of them likely knows the email addresses of another 20 persons, who might be persuaded to mention a renaming proposal to 10 other people. That's 10,000 people, optimistically speaking, who might be in favor of redefining the term 'moon'. It's a small thing, perhaps not worthy of time, but it's also like a little pebble that gets stuck in your shoe... sure, you can walk with it, but it's sure uncomfortable. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: E.T. or Alien? The Character of Other Intelligence -- yea right!
In a message dated 1/22/2001 7:09:07 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > The emergence of restaurants like these is a good > sign, as it indicates a middle class with money to > spend on fun. If that's middle class prosperity, I pity the world. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Two weeks to Mars?!?
Sure, sure, 2 weeks / 90 days to Mars, all is wonderful, low gravity sickness is avoided, and so forth... But, I still haven't heard if there would be a problem for the acceleration / deceleration of a 2 week trip. Considering that you'd have to spend 1 week accelerating, then 1 week decelerating, that's a lot of stress to put on a human frame. Perhaps these Americium engines should only be envisaged for unmanned probes or supply craft? If they DO have a chance, however, they don't necessarily make the human journey any easier, but perhaps they would make the sojourn easier (by allowing resupply ships to be shot towards Mars. This would also allow the original journey ship to spend more space on human travel comforts, and less cargo tonnage on basic supplies). == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
In a message dated 1/22/2001 6:29:45 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I too am tired of the discrimination against the smallest > members of our Sol system just because they are too small > to stand on. Even this sounds oppressive! I say we write > to the IAU and DEMAND that our tiny in size but giant in > spirit space bretheren receive the proper respect that they > have lacked since the days of Galileo! > > Who's with me?! Aw, take it up with the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Cute Planetoids). -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
McDonald's in Tiananmen Square?
In a message dated 1/22/2001 2:07:23 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Its a start. You don't expect them to go from > subsistence agriculture to Antoine's of New Orleams? China is an ancient culture, with a great cuisine already. No, I don't expect them to go for Antoine's (although, what with predicted water levels rising, and New Orlean's subsiding into the ground...that may be an impossibility in 50 years); but I'd hope that Chinese families would see the value of what they already have, and not ruin their cultural centers and their health with Big Macs. Eight years ago, I treated an entire Russian family in Moscow to a McDonald's meal for the 'staggering price' of $14, mostly because that was something that the two kids had always wanted to do. Russians loved the speed, the efficiency, and the friendly atmosphere of McDonald's, so different than the surly service and heavy atmosphere of typical Russian restaurants. It was the experience, not the food, that they craved. I suppose that by being there, and forcing competition on the Russians, McDonald's did a sort of service, right in the middle of post-Soviet Russia. China may go the same route as Russia -- it already has, according to Robert Clements. Contrast this with France, a country that defiantly refuses to 'Americanize', and actually burned a McDonald's to the ground a year ago. One hundred years ago, the Chinese burned down every Western institution they could find, during the Boxer Revolt. Those days are long gone in modern China, a country which is determined to catch up to the West, no matter at what cost. Sure, McDonald's brings fast, efficient service, but it comes with a heavy price. Perhaps I'm just being snooty, but I hate to see ancient cultural centers turn plastic, even when that plastic culture represents the 'cutting edge' of Western Culture. Yes, yes, I know that our discussion has wandered far from science. Or has it? Science is all about progress. The West is all about progress. But, progress, and science, has a price -- the destruction of old ideas, old ways, old traditions. The link which draws all this together is simple: can science, progress, and Western values spread, without destroying all that came before, or do we destroy that which we love, simply by trying to improve on what we already have? Presume that we discover life on Europa -- complex life. Doesn't that destroy an underlying tenet of nearly every Earthside religion? Presume that biotechnology advances, that it is possible to create an artificial human, an artificial biosphere... what then of Old Earth? More food (substantial food?) for thought. John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
In a message dated 1/22/2001 3:00:11 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Preach on, Larry, Preach on :) > > > These new moons of Jupiter are every bit a moon as Ganymede or Tethys! > Just because they are small means nothing. They orbit a planet and > they don't orbit in a ring, therefore they are moons. The kind of > size discrimination that some are advocating is a travesty. > > > Okay I'm finished. Now let me get to what we can do to make sure we > don't end up with a list of 5 million moons. It is my belief that if > an orbit can be calculated, it can be observed multiple times on > multiple orbits without worry of misidentification, and it is not > man-made, then its should be considered a moon. This leaves out dust > particles, artificial satellites, boosters, and ring particles. > > I don't see any reason to change the definition of a moon but I do > think that for something to be considered a moon, it should pass > through certain criteria. None of these criteria that I mentioned > specifically mentioned size. However, if we start to discover objects > 1-100 meters in size around Jupiter, thats may be a different matter. > OR how about this? Only objects larger than 1 km get a name and those > less than 1 km just get the preliminary designation, like S/ 2000 J11. > > Jason Perry I STILL MAINTAIN THAT AN ORBITING SPECK IS STILL JUST A SPECK. A MOON IS SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL. PERHAPS THE CRITERION SHOULD ASK: IS THIS ORBITING, NATURAL BODY LARGE ENOUGH TO IMPACT THE PARENT WORLD? EARTH'S LUNA WOULD QUALIFY. PLUTO'S CHARON WOULD QUALIFY. EVEN JUPITER MIGHT BE AFFECTED, IF THE VARIOUS GAS SWIRLS ON IT'S 'SURFACE' ARE DUE IN PART TO THE MOVEMENT OF THE FOUR MAIN MOONS. IF YOU FAIL TO LIMIT YOUR DEFINTIONS, PRETTY SOON WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS. NOW, I COULD BE JUST A CRANK, SPEAKING FROM AN ATTORNEY'S PERSPECTIVE. IF I TRIED TO PRESENT TO A 'JURY' THAT THESE 11 NEW BODIES AROUND JUPITER WERE IN FACT 'MOONS', EVERYONE MIGHT NOD THEIR HEADS, BUT DEEP DOWN, THERE WOULD REMAIN THAT NAGGING DISSATISFACTION IN EVERY JUROR. PEOPLE SIMPLY WANT A 'MOON' TO BE SOMETHING BIG, BIG ENOUGH TO EXPLORE -- A LITTLE PLANET. -- - HERE'S A SIDE NOTE: I'M ALSO DISSATISFIED WITH BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE. I SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE SADDLED WITH AN 18TH CENTURY NOTION OF GENUS, SPECIES, ETC, PARTICULARLY WHEN THOSE EARLY NAMES WERE OFTEN SO RIDDLED WITH INCONSISTENCIES OR MISTAKES. GENETICALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO DISTINGUISH PAN TROGLODYTES (COMMON CHIMPANZEE) FROM HOMO SAPIENS (HAIRLESS, UPRIGHT CHIMPANZEE). CONSIDER THE ISSUE IF / WHEN SOMEONE COMES UP WITH AN ARTIFICIAL SPECIES... WHAT THE HECK DO YOU NAME IT? WHAT WOULD YOU NAME A GENETIC CROSS BETWEEN A HUMAN AND A BONOBO? GENUS HOMO OR GENUS PAN? WHAT / HOW SHOULD WE 'NAME' A EUROPAN OR MARTIAN MICROBE? STILL CRANKY AS EVER, JOHN HARLOW BYRNE == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Two weeks to Mars?!?
In a message dated 1/22/2001 6:02:47 PM Alaskan Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Actually, wouldn't that be a convenient solution to the zero-gravity
> problem? If you're accelerating at a constant 1 g halfway to mars, then
> decelerating at a constant 1 g the rest of the way, then the crew members
> would always feel an earthlike gravity. Except that after the halfway
> point, the roofs of the spaceship would become the floors. Of course,
that
> would require a constant 1 g acceleration/deceleration, which might be
> unfeasable. But even half that would be nice to the astronauts. Even
just
> a small fraction of earth's gravity couldn't hurt.
>
I don't know. I don't know what the G forces would be from an Americium
powered nuclear engine. I'd assume, however, that you wouldn't need to
switch floors / ceilings (although that's a possible solution) but that you
could instead simply turn the craft around in mid-flight. That turnaround
would be a heck of a trick, however.
If you were to have a double ended craft, you would force your astronauts to
live between TWO high radiation nodes, instead of just one. I'd assume that
what you'd want would likely be something like Clarke's concept for a craft
('2001'), with the engines far, far away from the living quarters.
There's another problem: how do you get such a craft built in the first
place? I'd assume you'd have to process the Americium down on Earth, then
somehow get it to orbit... but what of the danger of an accident, which might
scatter high radioactive particles all over? I can't imagine too many
countries would be eager to be in the flight path of the Americium bearing
transport rocket.
This, then, might force the material to be processed in space, specifically,
in the ISS. But, going from a semi-experimental 'astronaut's playground' and
showcase of world cooperation to an efficient manufacturer of Americium
pellets is a broad stretch indeed.
And so it goes...
JHB
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
> Well, if you're talking about tidal forces exerted by moons on their home > planets: every moon, no matter how tiny, exerts some of that. Once again, > you'll simply have to pick out some arbitrary limit -- either of size or > mass -- and call everything bigger than that a "moon", and everything > smaller a non-moon. > Yes, I considered that: ie, that even a speck has a gravitational influence, no matter how small (echoes of Dr. Seuss running through my head). But, if you don't like my definition, perhaps you've got a better one? There is a problem, I think, with such a broad definition of 'moon' that you have to constantly re-assess just how many 'moons' a planet like Jupiter has. Clearly, there are two schools of thought here: one, that a moon is any natural, orbititing body. The other is that of traditional concepts: a moon is a little planet that orbits a big planet. Strict interpretation, or broad traditionalism? -- JHB > > > >- > >HERE'S A SIDE NOTE: I'M ALSO DISSATISFIED WITH BINOMIAL NOMENCLATURE. I > SEE > >NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD BE SADDLED WITH AN 18TH CENTURY NOTION OF GENUS, > >SPECIES, ETC, PARTICULARLY WHEN THOSE EARLY NAMES WERE OFTEN SO RIDDLED > WITH > >INCONSISTENCIES OR MISTAKES. GENETICALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S REALLY NO > REASON > >TO DISTINGUISH PAN TROGLODYTES (COMMON CHIMPANZEE) FROM HOMO SAPIENS > >(HAIRLESS, UPRIGHT CHIMPANZEE). CONSIDER THE ISSUE IF / WHEN SOMEONE COMES > >UP WITH AN ARTIFICIAL SPECIES... WHAT THE HECK DO YOU NAME IT? WHAT WOULD > >YOU NAME A GENETIC CROSS BETWEEN A HUMAN AND A BONOBO? GENUS HOMO OR GENUS > >PAN? > > > >WHAT / HOW SHOULD WE 'NAME' A EUROPAN OR MARTIAN MICROBE? > > > > There is, I understand, starting to be some wrangling about precisely this > issue among biologists. While the definition of "species" seems to be > fairly straightforward (two different species can't breed to produce fertile > children), every bigger level of the tree by which we categorize living > things is a largely arbitrary division. > > Bruce Moomaw > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Two weeks to Mars?!?
> > Mr. Byrne's G-force concerns can only be called ridiculous -- such a ship > would certainly never accelerate at more than 1 G, and any switch between > that acceleration and lesser ones (whether sudden or gradual) would have no > harmful effect on its crew at all. As for the need to make the ship > "double-ended": just shut off the engine for a few minutes and rotate the > ship around, for Heaven's sake. > Pardon me while I drag off my shattered ego. Bruce, I'm not concerned about 1-G, or 2 or something similar. This conversation initially started as a discussion of Americium powered engines being able to propel a craft to Mars in 2 weeks. I merely asked whether the acceleration / deceleration forces would be TOO much. If they would not, then the issue is moot. Double ended craft? That was the other fellow's issue, not mine. Rotating a craft in space would be far easier, as you maintained. > > This IS a serious concern -- as I've said, I'd like to know just how > radioactive this stuff is in non-critical form before I started launching it > into Earth orbit. (And I find it hard to believe that original article when > it says that only "a few kg" of americium could provide enough fission power > to propel a manned ship to Mars in 2 weeks.) Suppose we could manufacture the stuff in small pellets, say the size of a golf ball, and then send those up, on successive supply shuttles. I'd imagine that in the event of a launch disaster, a pellet sized chunk would not be so much as to poison an immense area. -- it might even burn up entirely, by reentry. Launching the rocket itself would likely be over some place like Kodiak, which already launches quite a few military rockets, as it has hundreds of miles of open sea to shoot over. -- John Harlow Byrne > Bruce Moomaw > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
In a message dated 1/22/2001 11:40:17 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Who's with me?! > > > > > Not me, I'm afraid. Being a silly old fogy, I'm much more concerned with > more trivial issues, such as the fact that the Electoral College has just > appointed the loser of our Presidential election to be the winner. Bruce, Bruce... how many times must I tell you, Young Grasshopper? This is why we spend our time more productively, by studying science and space! Politics only brings grief. Better to 'mind your own garden', and leave politics to the ridiculous and the damned. (I mean, really, would you want to be in GW Bush's shoes for the next 4 years?) -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: 11 New Moons For Jupiter
In a message dated 1/23/2001 10:21:25 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > And what's the deal with the American Museum and the Rose Center removing > Pluto from the planet list? In my humble opinion, 70 years of publishing > tradition makes Pluto a planet. Aha! So you're against McDonald's too! == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Two weeks to Mars?!?
> Sorry; with all the ">>" s flying around in this Group, I keep losing track > of who said what. I was under the impression, though, that you were worried > about the stress from changing acceleration rates, rather than the constant > stress from an acceleration of a lot more than 1 G. Well, neither one is a > problem -- my knowledge of celestial mechanics is zilch, but I believe that > reaching Mars in 2 weeks does require only about a 1-G acceleration (and > deceleration) level, if that much. Speedwise, 1 G acceleration adds up > awful fast -- 1 hour of it would accelerate a craft to almost 127,000 km per > hour! > Question answered. Thanks for the pointer. > >Suppose we could manufacture the stuff in small pellets, > > The trouble is that with multiple launches, you'll have more accidents -- so > the expected average amount of the stuff strewn around by launch accidents > will still be the same, whether you launch it in one lump or not. And even > it burns up on reentry, its atoms will still be strewn around the Earth and > be just as radioactive as ever -- thus producing the same total number of > cancers. > > However, you could encase the stuff in very thick, virtually crash-proof and > explosion-proof canisters, and unload it only after the carrier ship is in a > high Earth orbit 1000 km or more up -- so that even if it accidentally got > left there, it would naturally stay in orbit for tens of thousands of years, > by which time its radioactivity would have decayed to harmless levels. So > actually, with adequate precautions, this propulsion scheme may be virtually > safe after all -- but the key phrase here is "adequate precautions". I'm concerned that in the actual play-out, short-cuts will be taken. Although people may start out with the best of intentions to make an Americium supply launch with adequate precautions, someone / some government may unilaterally decide to short-cut... it's happened time and again in past launches. Still, perhaps if enough Bruce Moomaws mention such precautions, the problem might still be averted. Now, what are the actual potentials of manufacturing the Americium? -- JHB > Bruce Moomaw == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Two weeks to Mars?!?
In a message dated 1/23/2001 5:27:36 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > A postscript: Two days of 1-G acceleration, and you've traveled almost 1 > AU -- so if you then decelerate at the same rate, you've crossed the > diameter of the Earth's orbit in 4 days flat. I think we can safely assume > that the acceleration level they're talking about for this 2-week Mars trip > is much less than 1 G at any point. (By the way, I did all these > calculations with pencil and paper in a few minutes because I didn't want to > be bothered to go get the calculator. Wasn't that clever of me?) > > Bruce Moomaw Ya, just remember to convert feet to metres! == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Merging The Mail Lists
In a message dated 1/23/2001 9:05:39 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Maybe we should consider merging the three lists > > ISSDG > Jupiter_list > Europa/ice-pick > A consolidation at this point would probably cut down on traffic, increase > participation and keep discussions together in one thread. > > Regards, > Simon As one who is more than a little guilty of subject sprawl, I second the motion. Larry? -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Launch Failures
Say, Bruce: Considering your recent posting of 1-5% launch failures, what's the legal ramifications of all that? In many cases, you can't sue the Feds without their permission -- does the same hold true in launch failures? What happened with the Challenger disaster, back 15 years ago? Is there some sort of established insurance for launch failures? I'd imagine there would have to be, considering the millions of dollars of value per payload. On the other hand, such an insurance system would certainly offer opportunities for abuse -- consider: 1) Company X buys launch insurance, to the tune of $50 million dollars. 2) Company X launches a satellite, the launch fails, they collect $50 million. 3) The big secret? It was an intentional failure, and there was little of actual value in the payload cone. It's the insurance scam from hell, since it would be practically impossible to figure out why the launch failed, what happened, etc... all the evidence is at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. I was wondering if this is what happened with a recent Russian launch, some months back. The Russians goofed a major communications satellite launch, on a relatively routine launch. What really happened? JHB, still stirring up trouble... == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Launch Failures
In a message dated 1/25/2001 4:39:21 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Yes, there is insurance available for commercial launches; it is typically > one of the largest expenses involved with a launch excluding the launch > vehicle and spacecraft themselves. And contrary to Mr. Byrne's paranoia, > the insurers to perform due diligence before insuring a launch, not to > mention investigating any claims. > > Government launches (civilian and military), on the other hand, are > self-insured, so unless you're planning a privately funded mission, launch > insurance isn't really relevant to future Europa spacecraft. (hint, hint.) > > - Jeff Foust Jeff, my 'paranoia' was based on a recent situation where the Russian government launched an American commercial craft, and then stepped in the way of follow-up investigations after the crash. Nonetheless, thanks for your input regarding the cost of launch insurance. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: New Space Technology Guide Omits Nuclear Power
In a message dated 2/6/2001 11:46:22 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Of course, if the "official" guide omits any mention of nuclear > powered craft, that could be because they are keeping sensitive military > information to themselves. I don't think there were too many corporate > memos circling around about the Manhattan project. Alternatively, such an 'official guide' is merely popcorn for the public -- looks pretty, but doesn't satisfy. It wouldn't do to mention nuclear power in an official guide that is supposed to drum up public support. Ergo, lots of pretty pictures, and a few unworkable 'space age' ideas. As the fellow above suggests, nuclear powered propulsion units are noteworthy as the exception, and that really says something beyond their substantive value as technology. In the event of a real, pressing need, however, I have no doubt that nuclear power would be developed for space propulsion. From what I've gleaned, however, more than half of a space mission is public relations. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Shuttle EVA trumps NEAR landing attempt
In a message dated 2/13/2001 7:14:37 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>>It appears that NASA believes that a relatively routine=20 > Space Shuttle EVA is more important that the first attempt=20 > to land a spacecraft on the surface on a planetoid: > > > Hey, NASA's got quite a bit more $$$ tied up in the EVA. You make the = > call. The first time one of these asteroid landers comes back with a detailed chemical / mineralogical analysis of an asteroid, with a workable extraction plan, the priorities list will change. If you were a wealthy entrepreneur / businessman, which would YOU prefer: another 'Dr. Science' experiment in the space shuttle, or the practical discovery of real wealth waiting to be exploited? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: I hope no one has bought Europa (yet)!
Okay, kids, here's how it works, from what I can determine: 1) Orbital Development has no valid claim. I don't know of any agency with sufficient authority to give them such a claim. The only one on Earth capable of doing so would be something like a UN Space Development Authority, operating under the auspices of an international treaty ratified by at least 75% of the nations on Earth. 2) There is no such Space Treaty. The closest thing we have is something similar to the Law of the Sea Treaty and Antarctic Treaty, which says lots of well-meaning platitudes about common ownership of man. 3) Even assuming OD did have a claim, enforcing it would be another matter. For instance, how would they force NASA to pay them for trespass? How would they determine the harm? How much is the asteroid worth? Etc, etc. 4) It seems to me that space claims will be settled in much the same way that Indian Ocean claims were settled by the European powers of 400 years ago... first to land there gets it, and then it must be backed up with power, and only at the end, with 'legal authority'. So... send a probe. Land. THEN stake your claim with an international body. Under these terms, NASA would have claim... but their charter specifically forbids it. So, Eros is still free game. Star Trek, anyone? -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: I hope no one has bought Europa (yet)!
In a message dated 2/14/2001 7:10:04 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >I think you're thinking of a series stories by Arthur > >C. Clarke, in which a multinational Expedition > >(British. American and Soviet) land on the Moon. In > >one of them, a sodium flare is secretly fitted with a > >stencil that forms the name of a popular soft drink in > >the 1950's. Clarke never mentions it by name, but the > >commander of the British ship, used to drink a > >beverage, in a wasp-waisted bottle, until after the > >incident. There's an old French version of the same thing, from 1880 or so, by a Frenchman named Giles Villiers or something. Look for it in Cruel Tales. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Astronomers mock Fox show about Moon fakery
In a message dated 2/16/2001 7:32:17 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > One sad part of the show for astronomers involves the production's use > of Brian Welch, a well-liked NASA spokesman, who died unexpectedly in > November at age 42. Welch rebuts some of the coverup allegations. Show > producers confessed total ignorance of his death. > > ''Don't hate us. We're just entertainers,'' Tipley says. It just goes to show that the media is worthless for real reporting. When entertainment outweighs truth, the sheeple laugh in ignorance. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: NASA Watch comments on the Fox Apollo crapumentary
In a message dated 2/16/2001 11:36:09 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It may be that Fox knows the average american better than I how else can > you explain that you can air Alien Autopsy and also claim that we can't land > people on the moon? Just keep flashing sensational muck before your audience > to keep > them watching through the ads. One of the most thought-provoking comments I've ever heard came from one of the 20th century's greatest politicians (although, Bill Clinton probably also could have written something similar). The politician I'm referring to? Adolf Hitler. The quote? 'Repeat a lie long enough, and loudly enough, and people will start to believe it'. Remember Orson Welle's 'War of the Worlds' broadcast of 1936? Some things never change. But, that's what scientists are FOR. To debunk superstition. You can't grow strong analytical 'muscles' in the absence of challenge. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: NASA Watch comments on the Fox Apollo crapumentary
In a message dated 2/19/2001 7:53:03 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Well, FOX wasn't even original, they stole the idea from the movie > "Capricorn One"! In this movie it wasn't the Moon that NASA was pretending > to have landed upon, but Mars. As for the killing of astronauts who knew to > much: just the same. > Maybe the copyright-holders of "Capricorn One" are willing to sue FOX??? > > > Neither Fox nor "Capricorn One" were original. When I was in a 5th grade > school GT program circa 1971, a NASA scientist came to talk to us about > lunar exploration. It so happened that the previous weekend, I had seen a > newspaper called "The National Enquirer" at my aunt's house, and I read in > it that the whole U.S. and Russian space programs were PR fakes designed to > cover military research. I raised asked him about this. He had not seen > the article, and asked me to decribe. I did. He was naturally enough angry > that such a thing had been published, and went to some lengths to explain > why it could not be true, and why in general we should learn that some > "news" sources were not reputable. I was eventually convinced. But if I > hadn't had someone from NASA right there in the school to explain, I might > have gone on believe such conspiracy crap for years to come. > > Mike Taylor Isn't it fascinating that 30 years later, you remember that man, whomever he was... that the same issue again comes up, 30 years later, and now you are in HIS shoes. Some things never change, they just repeat variations, again and again. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Astronomers mock Fox show about Moon fakery
In a message dated 2/19/2001 8:05:06 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Re the comment by JHB: > > >It just goes to show that the media is worthless for real reporting. When > >entertainment outweighs truth, the sheeple laugh in ignorance. > > When an irresponsible member of ANY group does something publically > outrageous, the whole group suffers. But like Bruce Moomaw and a few others > who contribute to this list, (as well as the people who give you SCIENCE, > NATURE, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, DISCOVERY, SCIENCE NEWS > etc., etc.) I am an active member of "the media." It bugs me when the > general populace acts as if "the media" were some monolithic organization, > spouting nonsense as part of its evil plan to get rich, mislead the > population, whatever. To rant about "the media" is as misguided and wrong > as ranting about "people over 30," "jews," or "the French." I have no > problem with someone ranting about Rupert Murdoch and Fox, but please don't > tar the rest of us with the same brush. > > Mike Taylor Ouch. Mike, you're right. I'd forgotten to include in my definition of 'media' such information groups as 'Science', 'Nature', etc. I'm afraid I was talking about newsprint specifically, and mainstream TV channels, and radio DJs. Remember the loudmouth kid in gradeschool, the one who always had something loud and stupid to say, who took up 1/2 the class time just getting him/her to behave? Many of those loudmouth kids grew up to be loudmouth adults, and make lots of money for it. Sure, the things they had/have to say are often empty and off-topic, but they ARE controversial. That's the point. Still, I don't think my generalized definition of 'media' as encompassing the Rupert Murdoch crowd is too far off the general public's definition. I don't think most people reading our little email circle (argueably, a 'closed' media circle) consider that 'Discovery' is tarred with the same brush, because it is unconsciously classed as an entirely different sort of thing than mainstream media. Still, your point is acknowledged. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Astronomers mock Fox show about Moon fakery
In a message dated 2/19/2001 10:22:08 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The thing is, these "reality expose" shows are looked upon as bad = > entertainment programming by everyone in the business. As opposed to "real = > news." Most outlets such as CNN, ABC, CBS etc. aren't going to waste their = > time trying to debunk the garbage FOX runs, as it's so patently ludicrous = > anyway that it's obviously a crock. Besides, if they ran around trying to = > correct the the stupidity of FOX, that'd be a 24/7 job. =20 > > I believe for all the dumbing down the main newsgathering organizations do = > (gads, anyone see the 20/20 cloning piece over the weekend? Has Barbara = > Walters been living in a hole these last 20 years or what?) they at least = > *hope* their viewing public is wise enough to see all this Chariots of the = > Gods crap for what it is.=20 Hey, this is Rupert Murdoch... the guy who brought you the British version of the National Enquirer. FOX, under his guidelines, is just a video version of the enquirer. We've all stood in supermarket checkout lines, and seen the headlines... 'Elizabeth Taylor gives birth to Alien baby!!!', etc, etc. Nobody of any real merit pays any attention to the Enquirer, Star, Mirror, or what-have-you. It's just garbage for the sheeple. As for the main networks, they too 'dumb down' their programming to the level of the average 12 year old. Controversy sells, and who better to sell to, than a person who lacks mature perspective? But, consider, that the loudmouths and hysterics who pay attention to that sort of programming are never the ones who really do anything about the issues anyway. There's the old saying, 'Those who know, don't talk, and those who talk, don't know'. Back to the central issue: Were the moon landings fake? Well, the fact that there is such an outrage to this day demonstrates the central issue... it's such a fantastic proposition, that it is inherently unbelievable to the average guy. The more relevant question for today, is how do you pull off a Mars landing in such a way as to demonstrate, beyond a doubt, that they did in fact occur? I've got it! How about digging a canal on Mars? -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Astronomers mock Fox show about Moon fakery
In a message dated 2/19/2001 10:42:40 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > What a great suggestion! The "documentary" accuses NASA, and presumably Gene > Kranz, of murdering apollo astronauts that "knew too much". That statement > alone is worth a lawsuit, since inflicts damage to the families > of the astronauts and accuses NASA leadership of murder. > > And I can't think of a better use of bloodsucking lawyers than to unleash > them on producers of lies, bad rumors, and stupidity. > > > Right! And is there any reason why NASA can't sue > > FOX for slander? I think NASA itself should show the > > media can't get away with this! > Speaking as a 'bloodsucking lawyer', such a lawsuit would have inherent problems. 1) First, NASA is a media image already. As a media image, the standards for slander and libel are considerably different than those for the average man. For instance, I could say that 'President Smith' is a liar, he slept with Sally Jones, and lied about it!'. That would hurt his reputation, clearly, but is not a sueable offense, because it has clear political implications (therefore the highest 1st Amendment protections) and because President Smith, by becoming president, has placed himself in the media limelight. 2) Generally, slander and libel must be directed towards a living person, and the standard must do active damage to a person's financial / business interest, or (in the case of a woman, to her reputation for chastity). The families of the dead astronauts are not presumeably hurt. 3) Any such lawsuit would have to be more along the lines of 'Negligent or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm' to the families of the dead astronauts. However, to prove such a lawsuit, you'd have to first prove that there was, in fact, such harm, and that it was undue. No harm, no foul. 4) Finally, NASA is a government agency. It's easy to slander an agency, because it has no official pecuniary interest in media attention. That is, if you say that the IRS is filled with crooks, it might have a political impact, but it's not going to make the IRS go away, or suffer financial harm (because the IRS does not depend on public 'goodwill' to continue its' mission). What I'm saying, in short, is that the US Government or its agencies does not generally 'sue' people for libel or slander. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: The juggling begins
Now it's time for that ISS to start producing something substantial. For instance, instead of messing around with little science experiments, why not spend some time figuring out how to make space pay money? I'm sure that NASA could find some pharmaceutical company that could use a low-G laboratory, some millionaire who wants a ride, some manufacturer who could use orbital physics as part of their construction process. Consider what could have happened, if, in early 1492, Queen Isabella of Spain had run out to the docks of Sevilla, stopped Columbus' three little ships, and yelled, hey, I think I'd like my jewels back? -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: The juggling begins
In a message dated 2/19/2001 1:58:00 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Well, let's consider that Columbus' actual idea was completely cranky -- and > it was sheer luck that he accidentally stumbled across something important. > (Isabella's willingness to be conned bears a distinct resemblance to Ronald > Reagan's attitude toward the "Star Wars" program.) Occasionally cranks do > luck out -- but most of the time they don't, and the money poured into their > theories goes swirling down the toilet. To quote Carl Sagan: "They did > indeed laugh at Copernicus and Darwin and Einstein. But they also laughed > at Bozo the Clown." Not so. Intelligent and educated men of 1490 something knew that the Earth was round. They also knew that there WAS a landmass to the West, they just didn't know the full parameters of it. There had been centuries of on again - off again maritime exploration of the West, from early Norse voyages to Basque fishermen, and legends of Irish monks sailing away to the West... The point: Columbus merely turned knowledge and greed to his own advantage. He was in the right place, at the right time, and offered a solution for Spain to beat the Portugese route to the Orient. I suspect that we too, will need a major impetus, either fear or greed, to securely launch humans into space. I'll bet NASA misses the Soviets. > > As fo the Space Station, it's conceivable that we'll find something useful > with it. But the odds are far higher that we'll find something useful if we > pour that $100 billion plus -- or even part of it -- into other areas of > research. NASA's dreams of zero-G drug manufacture turned out to be just > that -- during the delays (due to the Challenger tragedy) in the launch of > the first unmanned Shuttle package to try it, all the drug companies that > had been planning to hitch a ride found other and much cheaper ways to > manufacture the same drugs, and so the "EOS" package is now rotting in a > warehouse. Nor have any companies expressed any significant interest yet in > using zero-G to manufacture industrial products-- which is precisely one of > the reasons why NASA is having more trouble funding manned spaceflight than > it had anticipated. And if some products are discovered that can be > economically manufactured in orbit, it's far better to do it using some far > cheaper man-tended but not permanently manned orbiting factory such as the > Industrial Space Facility (which could have been assembled with only two > Shuttle launches, and which NASA deliberately strangled because it made the > Space Station look bad). I remember that Challenger disaster... looking on the screen, and silently cursing, for I knew that it would really delay the space program for at least 2-3 years... how wrong I was. It killed it for 5. Imagine, if that launch had been successful... if it went off beautifully, back when everyone's imagination was captured with the notion of space for everyone, space as the grand adventure. As for the ISS: well, I'm not that crazy for big 'international' projects. In my experience, the more international something is, the less it actually accomplishes. Too many chefs in the kitchen. -- JHB > > As for those spacegoing millionaires, it's going to take an awful lot of > them to pay that $100 billion bill. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Icepick Graphics
In a message dated 2/20/2001 4:47:59 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Well then it's time to stop chewin' and time to start doin'! > > Ages ago I asked someone, anyone to start drawing some > realistic graphics of what Icepick might look like as > the first steps towards building a working model to > eventually begat the real thing going to Europa. > > So who would like to start? The Jupiter list and its > kind are fine, but are they actually planning on a mission > to Europa or even the Jupiter system? I want to see > some real developments here to make Icepick a reality. > I know there's talent out there that can do it. > > Larry > Larry, I'll get right on it. I know someone who CAN do it. I'll forward this message asap. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: New Group of Microorganisms Discovered in the Open Sea
In a message dated 2/20/2001 12:52:47 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The discovery of these numbers of a group of microorganisms living in a > previously unsampled area "points out the basic ignorance we have of the > planet > we live on," maintains Karl. This research, he says, further reveals the > need for > a reclassification of the characteristics of the archaea kingdom. While we're at it, let's toss out the entire classification scheme, which was founded in ignorance and bias. Linnaeus might have been ahead of his time, but he's hopelessly outdated now. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Red dwarf stars: Friendly to life?
In a message dated 2/20/2001 7:54:22 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Seems like the ideal configuration would be to have an earth sized moon > orbiting > >a jupiter-sized planet around a sun dwarf. Since the moon is tidally > locked to > >the planet, it would get sunlight across all surfaces. Perhaps a healthy > tidal > >force could augment the moon's heat budget and support a strong magnetic > field to > >protect against flares. Who knows how statistically likely this > configuration is > >to exist, but maybe it's the ideal type of world? 999 billion years of > evolution > >on a stable planet is worthy of speculation! Reminds me of the sci-fi book > >Midworld... and at least civilization would never get so egocentric to > assume > >they are at the center of the universe! :) > > > > > A 1-trillion-year lifetime for a star does indeed sound spectacularly > impressive -- think how many successive intelligent races could evolve on > such a world, even if each one eventually killed itself off! BUT -- as was > pointed out at the Ames Astrobiology Conference -- there's another serious > problem there, for another clock is ticking on the habitable lifetime of > such a world: its own internal heat supply. As a planet ages, the traces of > uranium and thorium that generate excess heat in its interior -- and thus > drive its plate tectonics -- decay; and within about 10 billion years at the > absolute most, the plate tectonics (along with the planet's volcanic > activity) will completely shut down. And without plate tectonics to keep > dragging carbonate minerals from its crust down into its interior so that > they're heated and re-release carbon dioxide, the planet's entire supply of > atmospheric CO2 will then react with its surface water and silicate rocks > and get turned into carbonates, shutting off virtually all its greenhouse > effect and thus freezing it solid if it was at habitable temperatures before > (which is exactly what happened to Mars, according to the currently favored > theory). So -- trillion-year solar lifetime or not -- red-dwarf planets > don't stay habitable for all that much longer than Earth will. > > Bruce Moomaw I've got a couple of issues myself. Presume you had a tidal locked giant moon, orbiting a giant, which then orbited your star. Sure, you might then get full exposure sunlight, but you would presumeably also get possible radiation issues from your giant world. Anyway, there's a larger issue: if Red Dwarfs are so great for creating life and civilizations, then where are they all? I think the formula is incomplete. -- JHB == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: The Preturber in the Oort Comet Cloud
In a message dated 2/21/2001 6:58:01 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I kinda like old name for the theoretical lurking Oort monster, Nemisis. Was > it Clarke that came up with that? I guess it just sounds too sinister and > deliberate, and astonomers just know it would spawn a never-ending barrage > of > Fox's Doomsday crapumentaries... and so gave it a more benign title of the > Peturber. Sounds more like an annoying brat in a classroom than a celestial > behemoth cruising through the darkness. I suspect that the 'Perturber' title will never gain currency. The 'nemesis' title has already stuck to the whatever-it-is out there, and it sounds so much more like a bogeyman than 'perturber'. Besides, a perturber merely annoys you, a nemesis wipes out whole epochs... ergo, 'nemesis' is a much better title for the thing. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: Red dwarf stars: Friendly to life?
In a message dated 2/21/2001 5:20:37 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>> Anyway, there's a larger issue: if Red Dwarfs are so great for = > creating life=20 > and civilizations, then where are they all? I think the formula is=20 > incomplete. > > I don't think anyone's saying red dwarfs are "great" but rather that they = > could be viable under teh right circumstances, which is considerably = > different from the conventional view just a couple years ago. > > Jayme Lynn Blaschke Remember, Jayme, we all discussed possible shortfalls in the Drake Equation some months ago? We have a problem, naturally, that despite dismissing the geocentric view of the universe, it still colors our ability to imagine life and civilizations outside the Earth. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: The juggling begins
In a message dated 2/21/2001 6:39:14 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Columbus -- the one crank in human history who accidentally succeeded > big-time -- has therefore provided false encouragement to generations of > cranks since. The fact remains that we still have a duty to try to identify > the ideas most (and least) likely to succeed. Guess which category I think > the Space Station falls into? > Hey, for what it's worth, Columbus spent the last years of his life in chains. Sure, the ISS may fail at its proposed mission (whatever the hell that is, other than vague notions of feel-good internationalism and Dr. Science experiments). However, I believe that in the next few years, someone is going to bring back definitive proof that the Near Earth Asteroids are floating resouce mines. That will then create enormous pressure to exploit them... which will then cause the UN to either lead, or get out of the way in space exploration. Clearly, at that time, the ISS would be instrumental in building space exploration and exploitation vehicles. I imagine that the UN can and should work out a treaty allowing corporate exploration of space, not national. Why? Well, because it's likely the course such exploration would take anyway. Besides, if you allow corporations, not nations, you wouldn't have the same nationalist problems, and might even be able to sidestep the whole issue of warfare in space. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Microoganisms and Phylogeny
In a message dated 2/21/2001 5:02:34 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Actually, a major paradigm shift *has* been occurring in taxonomy over the > past 15 years, based on the accumulated data generated by the molecular > biology-genomics revolution. We now have three Domains of life - a higher > taxonomic order than "kingdom." These domains are Bacteria, Archaea, and > Eukarya, the primary branches of our phylogenetic tree. The taxonomists of > the 18th and 19th centuries of course had no way of knowing that they were > classifying organisms in only one of the three domains of life. Even > researchers in the first three-quarters of the 20th century had to rely on > morphology and physiology to try to make sense of the microbial world. DNA > doesn't lie, however; once sequencing became inexpensive and rapid, the data > began to accumulate and people like Karl Woese (a likely future Nobel > laureate) began to see a very different phylogenetic tree taking shape. Now > we're even wondering if a "tree" with branches is even the best way to look > at it. These are fascinating days... > Thanks for the pointers, Dr. Zeigler. I was aware of the 'Archaea' revolution, and new modes of thinking re phlogeny, but didn't know that they'd be reorganized into Domains (I suppose in 18th century terms, they'd be called Empires?). However, I was referring more to misnomers in existing phylogeny, although DNA discoveries may be a way to address those misnomers. One of my hobbies is paleontology, yet I'm struck by the various labels for hominids... its a real mess. From ramapithecus on forward, there are no clear guidelines, save one: there is a conscious or unconscious effort to separate humans from chimps as much as possible, even though the DNA itself does not suggest this. Frankly, I suspect that humans and bonobos could be crossbred, although the offspring would likely be sterile. Of course, besides causing a huge religious backlash, moral backlash, etc, etc, such a crossbreed would clearly toss out all distinctions of australopithecine versus hominid versus proto-human versus human. For that matter, if you have to keep the 'homo' genus label, then by sheer terms of years, we're all varients of homo erectus, not really a form of homo sapiens. Back to Europa and all things Europan: imagine the mess in phylogeny, if / when a non-terrestial life form is discovered... would it be another domain, or another 'tree' entirely? And, what if a martian microbe could somehow exchange genes with a terrestial microbe? Clearly, someone is going to suggest that this has already happened, that we are all the descendents of martian microbes, etc. However, a Europan microbe, if discovered, would presumeably have no relation whatsoever... and the plot thickens, along with the primordial soup. -- John Harlow Byrne == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
