henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/02/89)
In article <7787@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes: >As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be? I >would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are >the most advanced nation on earth, and (2) the U.N. (for all it's worth) is >located here... Of course, if they consider spaceflight a major sign of civilization, then there's absolutely no doubt about where they will go: Baikonur. Or just possibly Plesetsk, although if they're being attentive to things like the activity around Mir it'll be Baikonur for sure. The other spaceports on Earth are insignificant by comparison to either of those two. Between them they handle 80%+ of Earth's space traffic. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) (04/02/89)
In article <1989Apr1.224541.22308@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Of course, if they consider spaceflight a major sign of civilization, then >there's absolutely no doubt about where they will go: Baikonur. Or just >possibly Plesetsk, although if they're being attentive to things like the >activity around Mir it'll be Baikonur for sure. The other spaceports on >Earth are insignificant by comparison to either of those two. Between them >they handle 80%+ of Earth's space traffic. >-- You fail to realize, I feel, that by the standards of a civilization that can send ships to the stars, neither we nor the Russians have any claim to being a space-faring civilization. Besides, I doubt that self-respecting aliens would have as their sole criterion of civilization the number of cheap chemical rockets that could be sent up. Quality versus quantity, I'd choose quality every time. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : Remember, wherever you go, there you are. ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu :
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/02/89)
In article <7806@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes: >>Of course, if they consider spaceflight a major sign of civilization, then >>there's absolutely no doubt about where they will go: Baikonur... >You fail to realize, I feel, that by the standards of a civilization that can >send ships to the stars, neither we nor the Russians have any claim to being >a space-faring civilization... True. However, the Soviets are clearly much the closer. >Besides, I doubt that self-respecting aliens >would have as their sole criterion of civilization the number of cheap >chemical rockets that could be sent up. Quality versus quantity, I'd choose >quality every time. Yup, clearly the people who can fly an entirely unmanned shuttle mission with a crosswind landing and a launch in freezing weather, perfectly, the first time, are ahead on quality. Same conclusion -- they'll go to Baikonur. I think our hypothetical visitors would be more impressed by a pair of small, shabby space stations in orbit than by a pair of gleaming marvels of technology, one strewn in pieces over Australia and the other still on paper after nearly a decade of studies. Or by a pair of ambitious, failed Mars probes against a complete absence of planetary missions for a decade. Or by people who can build launchers that can go up on schedule twice a week, year after year, against people who can't seem to launch anything on schedule. Or, in general, by results in cheap black ink on newsprint, against glossy airbrushed four-color brochures full of broken promises. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) (04/02/89)
In article <7806@pyr.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes: > >-- > You fail to realize, I feel, that by the standards of a civilization that can > send ships to the stars, neither we nor the Russians have any claim to being > a space-faring civilization. Maybe we'd change our minds about whether we are a space-faring civilisation or not, if these foreign chaps arrived in large unfriendly numbers %-] Incidentally, they were waiting for the discovery of kitchen fusion. ===== Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip
ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Matthew T. DeLuca) (04/02/89)
In article <1989Apr2.040541.28890@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <7806@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@pyr.UUCP (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes: >>Besides, I doubt that self-respecting aliens >>would have as their sole criterion of civilization the number of cheap >>chemical rockets that could be sent up. Quality versus quantity, I'd choose >>quality every time. > >Yup, clearly the people who can fly an entirely unmanned shuttle mission >with a crosswind landing and a launch in freezing weather, perfectly, >the first time, are ahead on quality. Same conclusion -- they'll go to >Baikonur. > An unmanned shuttle landing...does this impress you, Henry? I'm not particularly impressed. Sure, it's a neat trick, but we (and the Russians) have had microwave landing systems for aircraft for years, and adapting it to a shuttle is no big deal. The U.S. is fully capable of the same thing, but why bother? There's absolutely no use for an unmanned shuttle mission that I can think of. Incidentally, the U.S. shuttle is fully capable of landing automatically; all the pilot has to do is lower the wheels and step on the brakes. As for the launch, the Russian shuttle did not go up the first time, nor the second, as far as I know. And like it's American counterpart, it was delayed numerous times throughout development, with both technical problems and political ones. And it's not particularly superior in technology, either. I heard recently that the tiles are expectd to have to be replaced every ten flights or so. Like I said, I'm really not overly impressed. I will grant, however, that the Soviets have no real problem with cold weather launches. Working from Florida, we never had to develop this capability, and we paid dearly for it. I just hope we learned a lesson. >I think our hypothetical visitors would be more impressed by a pair of >small, shabby space stations in orbit than by a pair of gleaming marvels >of technology, one strewn in pieces over Australia and the other still on >paper after nearly a decade of studies. > You might be right, here. Of course, in five or six years, assuming no development problems and no erosion of political will, the tables will be turned. Let's just hope the aliens wait that long. :-) >Or by a pair of ambitious, failed Mars probes against a complete absence >of planetary missions for a decade. Sure, they'll be impressed here. Not only were these two probes failures, every other probe they've sent there has failed. I'll put our planetary exploration program up against the Russians any day. Who has sent the only successful probes to Mars? Who has sent the only probes *period* to Mercury? Jupiter? Saturn? Uranus? And coming this August, Neptune? For that matter, who has sent the only manned missions to another celestial body? I will admit, we should have followed up the Apollo missions, but let's face it, the Soviet planetary science program is nothing compared to the U.S. Assuming nothing goes wrong (fingers crossed), we'll be sending new probes out to Venus, to get the highest quality maps of that planet ever, and a followup mission to Jupiter, which will not only do extensive studies of the moons, but will make the first penetration of the atmosphere of a gaseous planet. And these aren't just paper dreams; Magellan is ready to go, within the month, and Galileo is just waiting for the launch window. > >Or by people who can build launchers that can go up on schedule twice a >week, year after year, against people who can't seem to launch anything >on schedule. > There's a difference between sending unmanned missions up on schedule and sending manned missions up. There's a lot more to the manned mission. We launch our unmanned missions on schedule just fine. The only delays here are those caused by not enough boosters, which is the direct result of poor policy-making with regard to expendable boosters in the Seventies. And our manned flights don't run that far behind, either. >Or, in general, by results in cheap black ink on newsprint, against >glossy airbrushed four-color brochures full of broken promises. >-- >Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How are they going to ask for passports and visas? They can't even get the customs station to work properly! -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : Remember, wherever you go, there you are. ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu :
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (04/03/89)
In article <1989Apr2.040541.28890@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > I think our hypothetical visitors would be more impressed by [...] > Or by a pair of ambitious, failed Mars probes against a complete absence > of planetary missions for a decade. Whilst I agree with the general sentiment expressed by Henry, especially about the lack of any new planetary missions in the last decade, it must not be forgotten that Pioneer 10 (as far as I know), Pioneer Venus (orbiter) and the Voyager probes are still active and transmitting valuable data. Voyager 2's closest approach to Neptune is on August 25th, mark your calendars! The Viking landers are no longer active, but remain on Mars as a reminder of a significant technological achievement. Let's go Magellan and Galileo! (and Cassini?) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Captain, I see no reason to stand here | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA and be insulted" - Spock | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------
news@rocksanne.UUCP (user) (04/04/89)
In answer to Henry Spencer's reply to Matthew DeLuca's reasoning of 'whom would aliens contact' Matthew writes about Henry's 'Disclaimer' >>Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >>passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry From: eschbach@helium.uucp (Reiner Eschbach) Path: helium!eschbach >How are they going to ask for passports and visas? They can't even get the >customs station to work properly! >Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Tech. (I put this in) Matthew, I know you have never been to Europe, and for that matter most probably never to the USSR. Let me tell you, their customs and passport/visa stations DO work. Try to cross the soviet border by car. If somebody is thorough, they are. How does 4 cars in three hours sound? And that is only one out of a handful checks ( I have to admit, the other checks are indeed faster) If you ever get a chance to visit Helsinki, try to make a 'short' trip to Leningrad. It's an adventure. Anyway, you are not making a strong case for american supremacy by ignoring reasonable arguments made by several people on the net. Yes, I do live in the US. Yes, I think it's a good place. But it's not the only good place and it's not the only civilized place. And yes, I plan to stay here. In part because it has so few roads, so few bridges, so few buildings, so much untouched nature, so many 'uncivilized' (= unspoiled) places. Reiner Disclaimer: Don't expect my boss to know what I'm talking about. I don't even know myself.