Old German and English counting systems were mostly in base 12 -- at least, most of the inventory records we see from those cultures were counting things in dozens, bushels, pecks, etc., etc.

Oh, and thanks for the comment in re the Indians. Zero was, however, a concept that completely eluded both the Greeks and the Romans.

-the other Doug

No -- I didn't dodge the question so much as I tried to indicate that the *concept* of the existence of an elegant Mathematical equation that could, in some way we cannot comprehend, cause an intelligence to come into being and become aware of itself -- is a lot of words given to an abstract concept that has no basis in actuality.

And describing such an absurdity by giving words to it does not make it any more real, or any less absurd.

However, if you can't tell how much I enjoy these discussions with you, Richard, let me assure you that this is the most fun I've had all week...

Good night to you, and sweet (debatably real and definitely subjective) dreams to you!



-the other Doug

Oh, and FYI, the statement that all cultures have found and described the *same* Mathematics is not true. All human Mathematics consisted of means of counting things for many, many generations, and as such they did not use placement notation or have any symbol (i.e., "word") for the value *zero*. If you had nothing, you had no need for a symbol to denote it. That was a very basic assumption of Mathematics in almost all human civilizations -- up until the Arabs.

The Arabs stumbled upon the concept of using a Mathematical term for "nothing" and found that it allowed them to *vastly* extend the ability of Mathematics to describe the world around them.

Also, many early European civilizations used base 12 and not base 10 counting systems -- the usefulness of counting by dozens outweighed the usefulness of being able to count up any number of things on your fingers.

So, you see, not all civilizations have come to the same conclusions and used the same assumptions when it comes to the language of Mathematics. They have used different assumptions and had culturally colored views of the usefulness and extent of the language of Mathematics, as varied as the cultures themselves.

-the other Doug

Ah, but it's NOT objective. It depends on your assumptions.

Let's simplify it even further -- 1+1. 1+1=2, right? But your computer thinks 1+1=11. Other parts of your computer think that 9+9=12.

Mathematics is like *any* language -- the words and sentence forms themselves *represent* both real and abstract things. But they have no actual reality in and of themselves. And just because you have a word for something, doesn't mean that that something actually exists. It just means you have a word for it.

And -- here is the important distinction -- just because you do *not* have a word for something doesn't mean that it does *not* exist. (Let's all take a moment to sort out all of those double-negatives, shall we?)

Here's a little something for *you* to think about -- let's take one of the most universally recognized things in this world. Dirt. Soil. The ground.

You can call it dirt. Or soil. Or terre. Or terra. Or any number of other names. But, even if there was *never* a name for it, the stuff exists. It has the same range of characteristics, whether or not they have ever been named, categorized or studied.

A word does not have any existence beyond what it describes, and making a word for something that does not exist does not lend that thing any actual existence it does not already possess intrinsically. That goes for descriptive, conversational languages, and it goes for mathematics.

That, IMNSHO, is a universal truth.

-the other Doug

Ah, but mathematics do *not* exist independently of human thought. That's the first thing you have to realize. Mathematics is simply an organizational system used by human minds to describe and predict the real world. The fact that mathematics can be used to describe the Cosmos merely means that the Cosmos follows certain physical rules -- rules which can be described, modeled and predicted by the words and implicit logic of mathematics. These mathematical terms and formulae are simply "words" and "sentences" of a precise and rigidly defined language -- a human-derived language designed to describe the world around us.

As such, mathematical statements do not actually "exist" in and of themselves -- they only maintain a reference to the observable Cosmos when they *represent* actual, observable physical phenomena.

Period.

I'm not saying that there should be no investigation into what *appears* to be immaterial. I *am* saying that anything that *remains* immaterial and unable to be observed directly and objectively, after *all* attempts at observing, quantifying and characterizing it scientifically have failed, *must* be considered *unreal* phenomena that exist only in the minds of those who perceive it. That has *no* other real existence.

However, if we insisted, dogmatically, that anything we cannot directly perceive doesn't exist, we would have failed to explore many things that seemed immaterial to us throughout history -- such things as air, and light, which are not necessarily in-your-face sensible. We are not well-served in placing brick walls around such things and stating forevermore that these things are immaterial and thus non-researchable.

I *am* saying that everything that was once thought to be immaterial and since found to be an explainable physical-universe phenomenon was discovered by *assuming* that, if such a thing exists, it *must* have objectively observable characteristics that can be described, modeled and have predictable behaviors. I mean, think about it -- the Romans had Mathematics, without them they could not have built the great architectural works they did. But their world-view defined many *real* things as immaterial and not describable by Mathematics, and so they did not develop technologies that *require* an understanding of some of these *apparently* immaterial things.

And the Roman world-view was limited, not by an incomplete understanding of science or mathematics, but by a *perceived* *(and in many cases provably incorrect) understanding of the immaterial "spiritual" world whcih did not allow for its scientific and mathematical analysis.

So -- I am *not* stating that, for example, humans do not have souls which survive physical death. I *am* saying that, *if* we do, then at some point science will be able to characterize *and predict* the physical construction and behaviors of such souls.

At some point.

Eventually.

But not yet.

-the other Doug

Interesting article -- though, there were a lot of ways in which lunar EVA crew could supply a little light into shadows. In fact, the absolutely best way to light a shadow was to position yourself downsun of the shadow. Your white suit would reflect the light back into the shadow much better than anything else you had available, and would light up the scene fairly well.

This effect was very pronounced and visible during the initial portions of Apollo 11, 12, 14 and 15 EVAs, when the TV camera was located in darkness on the MESA and was viewing the shadowed area of the LM forward leg and ladder. The shadowed scene would brighten dramatically whenever a suited crewman would pass into or out of the sunlight, especially when that crewman was *not* directly visible in the scene.

-the other Doug

Ah, but Richard, science *does* offer us a sense of satisfaction in re the deepest and most important *spiritual* questions -- how does the world around us work, how did we come to be here, and (at least to a certain extent) why are we here?

And as for science *not* attempting to answer questions such as "does a part of us survive after death," I will only say that science, by its very nature, does not speculate about subjective phenomena for which there is no physical evidence. That's not a limitation of science -- it's a lesson we can learn from science. Perhaps if we spent more of our effots and energy on those phenomena that are phsyically observable, modelable and predictable, we would accomplish more -- and actually come closer to resolving those issues which revolve around the insubstantuial universe that exists, not in reality, but merely within our own heads...

-the other Doug

Ed, that's a Larry Niven short story, called (IIRC) "What Can You Say About Chocolate-Covered Manhole Covers?"

-the other Doug

There've been a few threads out there for Image of the Year, both general and of those posted by members of UMSF.

How about a thread (this one) where people can, if they wish, post links to what they think are the best overall posts here on UMSF during 2005?

I love revisiting fond memories...

-the other Doug

Yes -- and the U.S. Air Force's man-in-space program (which was canceled when NASA was given complete control over American manned spaceflight) was called MISS -- Man In Space Soonest.

The MISS capsule designs looked an *awful* lot like what ended up flying as Mercury...

-the other Doug

That used to be the case. But over the past several years of Shuttle flight operations, more and more of the launches are "SSME direct-to-orbit", in which the entire stack -- orbiter *and* ET -- are placed into a stable (albeit somewhat low) orbit. No OMS burns required during the first orbit to maintain a safe orbit.

This started when the Shuttle needed to get the maximum cargo possible up into the ISS orbit. Adding some SSME delta-V made it possible to get those big components, like Destiny and the solar arrays, up to ISS.

-the other Doug

Yes, the hammers used on the lunar surface were off-the-rack geology hammers, with a rubber handle element attached for ease of manipulation in EVA gloves. Even so, you had to have rather large and strong hands to wield the hammer in those gloves -- Jack Schmitt, the geologist, freely gave up the hammering duties on Apollo 17 to Gene Cernan because Cernan had much larger hands. Schmitt tried using the hammer in ground training, and it flew out of his hand a lot...

-the other Doug

I think a lot depends on your definition of "test flight." If you only count a manned lunar landing attempt as an operational flight, with anything else being a test flight, then yes, Apollo had four manned "test lfights" prior to its first "operational" flight. (Only three of them used Saturn V's, mind you -- Apollo 7 used a Saturn IB.)

However, as far as the *rocket* itself is concerned, I would say that a "test flight" is one in which no crew is carried. By that definition, the Saturn V had only two test flights -- Apollos 4 and 6. And you can't count the Skylab 1 launch as either a test flight *or* a manned flight, so that leaves twelve Saturn V's launched with Apollo capsules on top of them, ten of them manned. Only *two* were launched unmanned before the rocket was used to send an Apollo spacecraft all the way to the Moon.

So, in summary, only two out of twelve Saturn-Apollo configuration Saturn V's were flown unmanned, in "test" mode. I'd venture to say that the new heavy-lift Shuttle-derived booster (the one that will launch the LSAM and the TLI stage) will get launched in "test" mode at least once or twice before an actual manned mission attempt.

-the other Doug

The problem with that scenario, Doug, is that NASA is under a brick-wall deadline to retire the Shuttle fleet. Under their own rules, which had been stated *before* the loss of Columbia, if we're going to continue flying the Shuttle past 2010, the entire system (orbiters, ETs and SRBs, launch pads, ground support equipment, etc.) must be re-certified.

The re-certification process could involve the major rebuilding of various systems, and would definitely involve grounding the fleet for at least two to three years, while every orbiter and every piece of equipment is taken apart, evaluated, fixed up and put back together.

The alternative to this process, according to the NASA experts who fly the Shuttle, is either retiring the system entirely or expecting a *much* higher loss rate if the system is kept operational without such a re-certification.

NASA is *not* pushing for a Shuttle re-certification project. And Congress is very unlikely to vote for one if NASA is telling them it's the least attractive option. So, odds are *very* high it won't happen.

So -- the basis of the issue is that either the CEV gets flying by the end of the decade, or American manned space flight ends in 2010 and does not resume until the CEV *is* flying. The option of just flying Shuttles until 2014 and *then* beginning CEV development literally does not exist.

Now, just because CEV has *one* end goal of being a (relatively minor) component of a manned Mars mission does *not* mean that the loss at a later date of funding for such a Mars mission makes CEV development "money down the drain." CEV lets America continue ISS operations, and CEV-related development (such as heavier Shuttle-derived boosters, automated unmannned rendezvous and docking systems, and hibernation-mode operation of the CEV itself) will, by between 2012 and 2014, give the U.S. a set of capabilities quite similar to what the Shuttle fleet offers -- and at a (hopefully) lower operating cost.

I *do* believe that NASA is going to have to demonstrate an ability to operate CEV-based ISS missions at *significantly* lower cost than comparable Shuttle missions before Congress will fund actual hardware development for the LSAM, super-heavy boosters, and other elements of a renewed manned lunar program. And, following that, NASA will have to demonstrate an ability to fly manned lunar missions within a set cost cap before Congress will give them money to develop manned Mars hadrware.

And... as for *anyone* being surprised that NASA would need additional funds for mounting a manned Mars mission, all one has to do is look at the funding levels required for the various Mars mission plans out there today. The absolute cheapest is Zubrin's Mars Direct, and *that* one would cost a minimum of $100 billion in 1990 dollars. NASA's own Mars Reference Mission, as updated just a few years ago, calls for a minimum funding level over the course of the project of more than $400 billion! So, just because GWB told NASA to go to Mars on a *fraction* of $12 billion a year doesn't mean anyone, including GWB, had any reason to expect it could actually be done...

-the other Doug

Dewey lives!

-the other Doug

...turning your rover into the font of a trundling column of superheated air, rising rapidly up from any position the rover takes. Pulling cooler air in from the surrounding terrain, which is sucked up into the rising hot-air column.

Hmmm -- in fact, this could have some positive aspects. Your rover would act as a vacuum cleaner, sucking small fines and such toward itself wherever it went. You could also put turbines into the airflow and generate additional electricity that way.

And finally, since you're generating a truly anomalous (to the natural conditions) updraft, you might even create weather as you wander along.

Of course, you'd have to correct for these impacts in your observations...

-the other Doug

Thank you for a fair and honest appraisal of the Shuttle program, Bob. Too many of us here are far to anxious to kill off manned spaceflight, under the delusion that doing so would result in an extra three or four unmanned flagship missions per year. Thanks for speaking out for the factual situation in re manned spaceflight, and in re the Shuttle program.

-the other Doug

The NASA budget, corrected for inflation, has changed very, very little in the past 20 years. Some minor ups and downs, sure, but a relatively flat funding rate.

Whoever advised GWB on his decision to propose a return to the Moon and a manned Mars mission *had* to have known that this would require a budget increase of at *least* 4x what NASA gets per year now. That's what Presidential advisors are for -- to have at least a decent clue as to how much a given new initiative in *any* federal spending program is going to cost.

Bush *had* to have known, at least approximately, what NASA was going to ask for in re funding to make his Vision a reality. Perhaps he simply felt that he had so much political capital built up that he could get whatever he asked for from Congress, for whatever reason. I think perhaps that was an overly optimistic assessment of his own position...

-the other Doug

Mike Collins comments on the process by which the Apollo 11 CSM was named "Columbia." It seems that Columbia and Eagle, as a set, was suggested by someone *not* on the crew fairly early on in the training cycle. Collins liked the idea of Columbia for several reasons -- for one, it was *almost* the name given to the country (there was some lively debate back in 1776 between naming the country simply "America," "The United States of America," "The United States of Columbia," or simply "Columbia"). There was also the Jules Verne reference, though Collins considered that minor (after all, in Verne's book, the spacecraft wasn't named Columbiad, the *gun* was).

What Collins liked the most about the name was the fact that the song lyric "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean" kept popping into his mind -- and since their CM was supposed to end its operational life as a ship in the ocean (if a poor one), he felt the name boded well for a successful (and survivable) mission.

-the other Doug

I dunno, Bruce, there are several other Apollo-era nicknames that are unabashedly patriotic -- Kitty Hawk (Apollo 14 CSM), Yankee Clipper (Apollo 12 CSM), and of course America herself (Apollo 17 CSM). One might argue that Falcon (Apollo 15 LM) was a patriotic name, as Dave Scott named it after the mascot of the U.S. Air Force Academy.

-the other Doug

Ultreya!!!!



-the other Doug

I will be interested to see just how much of an incremental approach NASA takes on this CEV/LSAM and associated launcher development.

Ever since George Mueller decreed the all-up testing philosophy, back in the early 1960s, NASA has flown spacecraft, boosters and new-technology subsystems on actual missions after as many as three test flights and as few as zero.

In fact, it always amazed me that, during Apollo, the very first time the LM's descent engine was fired in flight for a continuous 12-plus minute burn was during Apollo 11's PDI burn. Such a test burn had been planned on the single unmanned LM test, Apollo 5, but software problems had forced its cancellation.

So, the first time the descent engine was ever called upon to land a man on the Moon was the very first time it had ever been fired anywhere near as long as 12 minutes in flight.

I find it difficult to believe that Today's NASA would ever consider doing such a thing nowadays. That's why I'll be interested in seeing how NASA structures the flight test programs.

-the other Doug

I posted this idea quite a while back, somewhere in the many, many posts I've made at this forum. I fear it would take hours for me to try and fine it, so I'll just re-state it.

I had been looking at the orbital imagery and commented that I thought I saw a series of bench-like outcrops along the side of the hill that seemed to border the upslope side of the dark-material field. It looked to me like the benches could be the source of the dark material, since they seemed to be just as dark as the rest of the field. I was arguing that this seemed to be unique material -- much, much darker and less red than everything around it (which, we now see, it surely is).

I proposed that the dark beds could be the eroded remnants of a layer of lacustrine materials, uplfted at the base of the hills. And I thought that made what has now been named El Dorado a prime target for investigation.

I may be wrong about the lacustrine origin, but I'm surely glad we're checking it out! I would also hope that a mini-TES from this spot would be able to characterize the outctops we *do* see at the far extent of the dark sand field as either the source of the dark sand, or definitely *not* its source.

In any event, we need a decent shot at the mineralogy here, to constrain any assumptions on the origin of these sands. Until we get that, this discussion is pretty much in the energetic-arm-waving phase.

However it comes out, this is a very exciting process!

-the other Doug

The problem with giving the crew the *sole* call on aborts, etc., is that even during the pioneering days of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, the spacecraft were so complex that you literally couldn't display status reports on all the systems onboard. There wasn't enough display console space (back in those pre-CRT-display days) to show everything that was happening.

So, the mission control concept evolved not from a distrust of the crew, but from the technical inability for the crew to continually monitor their own systems. It was just way safer to have the ground controllers monitoring systems.

The same is true for maneuvering -- even during Apollo, there was no way their onboard computers could maintain a moment-to-moment projection of the trajectory. (In fact, Apollo planners originally wanted to have a Return to Earth computer program that would allow the crew to plot their own return maneuvers from any point in the mission, but the onboard computer was simply too limited to be able to contain the RTE propgram along with the rest of the required programming.)

You have a very good point about deep space missions, though. When you get more than about a light-minute away, it's nearly impossible for Houston to run the flight real-time. That means that there will have to be complete monitoring of systems onboard (probably automated). It will also be *very* useful for base camp crew to act as "mission control" for EVA astronauts on Mars traverses. Apollo demonstrated the usefulness of having a mission control supoprt EVA astronauts -- I'll bet that the non-EVA crew will perform that function during Martian traverses.

-the other Doug

David, the crews of American manned spacecraft *have* had more autonomous capacity to make decisions than you give credit for. As you pointed out, during lunar landing operations, there was a point that even Gene Kranz and Chris Kraft called "the place where control shifts from the ground to the spacecraft." This has also always been true during docking operations and EVA operations -- the crew on the scene has made the decisions, and informed Houston of them later.

Now, the Soviets (and later the Russians) have always had more of a control-freak mindset, starting with the lockout of manual controls on the early Vostoks and ending with the famous poster that hangs in Korolev Mission Control today, showing station crewmen as puppets being controlled by strings emanating from the flight control station.

-the other Doug