Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 05:10:49 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #217 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 18 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 217 Today's Topics: Alien substance from space: maybe not? Ethics of Terra-forming Hubble's constant Ion for Pluto Direct Libertarian platform on space... NASA working on Apollo rerun phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory Population (2 msgs) Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now) Re- Terra-forming, The E-ca Require a 10" - 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain for Amateur Optical SETI Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...) (2 msgs) Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) (2 msgs) The Federation is still here, problems answering. Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Sep 92 20:32:46 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Alien substance from space: maybe not? Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: > >Yah. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not the "growth" may just >be some sort of corrosion pattern, i.e. it's part of the Teflon >that didn't corrode away while the rest of that layer evaporated >or something... Wasn't this settled, like, two years ago? At least it was about two years ago that I attened a presentation at MCAIR that talked about strange corrosion patterns which included pieces of material mysteriously left behind. At first glance they did look like a growth of some sort. Could we be talking about the same phenomenon? Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute All facts in this post are based on publicly available information. All opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 22:57:07 GMT From: "Thomas H. Kunich" Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep17.172843.3954@microsoft.com> alexho@microsoft.com (Alex Howerton) writes: >Man is not God, Man (or, for the pc sensitive, hupeople) is man, who by >her very nature must kill and eat to live. No life has the "right" to >exist, for rights are intellectual creations of mankind. Spacies have a >biological imperative to survive. Aren't we getting a little far afield here? We aren't discussing the survival of the human race. All of the conversation here cannot convince me that human survival depends on flinging multi-megaton ice comets onto Mars and Venus. Nor can they convince me that terraforming is anything other than a fantasy idea from science fiction writers who make money by writing fantasy. If we decide to colonize Mars with earth-developed life forms or not is purely a matter of choice and ethics. Ethics tells me, at least, that we should not interfere with any life that may already be there. Since Mars in all probability doesn't have any life, then it is a moot point that will only require time and money to ascertain. >Who knows, a species on Mars might hold the miracle cure for AIDS. We _already_ know how to prevent AIDS. We _know_ that if homosexuals limit themselves to monogamous relationships with uninfected individuals they cannot become infected. We _know_ that intravenous drug users need only cease their practice to reduce their chances of contracting the disease to near zero. We _know_ that should these groups desist their dangerous behavior that AIDS would no longer exist as a threat. So why is AIDS funding at almost the same level as cancer research funding that (cancer) kills 100 times as many people each year and is something that is only slightly related to behavior and life-style? And what has this to do with space? As I said before, this whole idea of space exploration and space colonization requires a fairly stable and economically (read energy) independant civilization. _All_ problems that limit the economic well being of a given society threaten the development of space travel. We must clean up our own backyards in order to have other backyards to dirty. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 1992 13:55 PST From: SCOTT I CHASE Subject: Hubble's constant Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics In article <92260.201515DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, Jon J Thaler writes... > >> (As a side comment - If my memory is correct, Hubble's constant is used >> in determining distances in space. Does this mean that the size of the >> universe is changing?) > >In the standard cosmology the first sentence is true. Thus, if the >"constant" is really changing, either: >* We're in *BIG* trouble, or >* The standard picture (big bang, and all that) is wrong. In the standard > picture, the time derivative is about one part in 10**10 per year. OR: * You didn't follow the recent sci.physics thread on this subject. The Hubble constant is constant in space, not in time. Simple explanation: Let's consider two widely separated galaxies, A and B, which are currently M megaparsecs apart and travelling with relative velocity V. Let's neglect peculiar velocities, and talk as if V were all due to the Hubble flow. In some units, the hubble constant is H = V/M. Now wait for a time T = M/V. (V is measured in Mpc/sec). After T seconds have passed, the separation of the two galaxies is now 2M. But the relative velocity is still V, so the Hubble "constant" is now V/2M = H/2. This value would be somewhat modified depending on whether the Universe is open or closed, i.e., what the overall decceleration due to self-gravitation the Universe has. But you get the idea. I've added sci.physics to the distribution, since if you have any more questions I will immediately be in over my head without some help. -Scott -------------------- Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death and some mathematician were to tell me that it had been definitely settled, I think I would immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 14:35:47 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: Dave Tholen writes: \The current Pluto flyby mission design calls for chemical rockets and NO /Jupiter flyby, and the flight time is about seven years. Your posting seems \to be claiming that an ion drive can place twice the payload into orbit around /Pluto with a flight time of about 3.5 years. If this were true, I'm quite \certain that the Outer Planets Science Working Group would have heard of it. "If it were better, we would have considered it." I don't want "because". I want the real reasons... The real reason is that there are no ion thrusters available with the thrust necessary that have been tested for continuous very long period firings. ie no ion thruster has imparted a large delta v to anything, and no one mission is willing to be the test bed, not being willing to risk losing the science when it can be done using chemical thrusters. I honestly don't know what that test from a couple of decades ago you referred to consisted of, but it cannot have fired long and hard, and there are known lab problems with continuous firing ion thrusters, one I know of is erosion of the electrode which degrades the performance severely after N hours of operation. | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 20:25:34 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Libertarian platform on space... Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: > >szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: > >>I strongly support the former, but my own position on the latter >>is more relaxed: NASA should reform its bureacracy, privatize its >>infrastructure, such as the DSN and TDRSS communications networks, >>should purchase all launch services, and should pursue R&D in support >>of the commercial space and airline industries as well as conduct >>exploration of space. > >Please keep in mind that that those positions are too controversial >for a lot of people on the net. I wonder if they think they're helping >NASA or only setting it up for a big fall. When that fall comes, I >wouldn't want all our eggs to be in one basket... Not as controversial as some believe it is. TDRSS already is privatized (it's owned by Contel), and DSN is owned by JPL (which is operated by CalTech). NASA already is purchasing launch services from McDonnell Douglas, Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, and EER Systems (did I forget anyone?) The Pentagon also purchases launch services from OSC/H trhough DARPA. Consort, Spacehab, most Get-Away-Specials, and many mid-deck locker experi- ments are quasi-commercial ventures. The controversy erupts over *how much* commercial R&D should be funded at the expense of exploration. Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute All facts in this post are based on publicly available information. All opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 20:50:52 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun Newsgroups: sci.space Some miscellanous responses to comments on this thread: I also applaud Dan Goldin. I hope he or somebody like him lasts through the election. Commercial procurement for these kinds of projects is a good idea, but it is still not the same thing as providing services to several customers in a market. We need to specify the goal as abstractly as possible: for delivering cargo to the moon, specs like where it is delivered from, how it is delivered, etc. should be left up to the market. On the other hand, one can question why we should deliver it to the moon, instead of for example to Clarke orbit, which is much more important commercially. There should at least be solid business plans and working industrial prototypes in hand showing that the commercial moon-ventures are going to pay off, before NASA decides that that market, and not another (eg asteroids) is worthy of major incentives. Otherwise, it is likely that the moon-ventures will claim to be "commercial" more in order to get NASA contracts, than because they serioulsy expect commercial promise beyond NASA. I note we have several "commercial" ventures of this kind today, that are after several years still totally dependent on NASA, including COMET (formerly Space Services Inc.) and Spacehab. A far more successful example is comsats, where NASA came in after major market players like AT&T had already invested over $100 million, and helped get that market off the ground. It followed and supported the market instead of going off in its own direction. I agree that as long as they are postulating new launchers, FLO really should go with SSTO and skip the monster-HLV spectaculars. The automated equipment, for example prototype LOX plant and brick-maker, can use existing launchers like Ariane, Titan, and Atlas 2. I find it very improbable that FLO will be funded before SSTO is flying, anyway. Alas, exploration and science seem to provide little justification for such ventures -- the NASA planetary science budget is now down to $300 million per year, infinitesimal compared to the needs of just this one astronaut lunar project. The priorities assumed by FLO are just way out of whack. I agree completely on the point about how much our society wastes in lobbying government to do things, instead of doing them ourselves. It was claimed by some wag that _most_ of the cost of NASA missions is devoted to PR in one form or another, and I couldn't disprove it. The very choice of the missions they undertake seems dominated more by PR than by considerations of scientific, engineering or commercial value. Pet lunar rocks we're suggested, but that may not be a very large market; after all we have thousands of space-rocks in the form of meteors which aren't that pricy. One near-term lunar industry may be VR tourism, with near-real-time teleoperation of lunar rovers, hoppers, walkers, etc. by the tourist. This could get off the ground with little capital by sharing the Artemis lander/rover infrastructure with NASA, ESA, etc. scientists and explorers. In one or two decades we may all be able to walk on the moon for $50 an hour or so, with the experience superior to walking in a spacesuit in most ways. FLO remains politically improbable. It has to either borrow heavily from other parts of NASA -- eg cancel SSF and totally kill the rest of the planetary science budget -- or NASA's funding has to increase substantially in an era where politicians are finally getting around to being concerned about the deficit. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 14:39:11 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <5etU02P122n601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> lad30@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Leslie A Dent) writes: Does anyone have a phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory which is on top of Mt. Hamilton in San Jose, CA. My husband wants to find out if he can take a group of jr high students up there for a tour. Thanks, Leslie Dent mail bounced: here's the info... From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Sep 17 14:05:25 1992 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:01:33 -0700 From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem) Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown Message-Id: <9209172101.AA17288@topaz> To: steinly@topaz Status: R --- The transcript of the session follows --- 421 ruts.ccc.amdahl.com.tcp... Deferred: A system call received a parameter that is not valid. 550 lad30@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Leslie A Dent)... Host unknown: A system call received a parameter that is not valid. --- The unsent message follows --- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:01:33 -0700 From: steinly (Steinn Sigurdsson) To: lad30@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Leslie A Dent) In-Reply-To: lad30@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com's message of 17 Sep 92 17:45:46 GMT Subject: phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory Does anyone have a phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory which is on top of Mt. Hamilton in San Jose, CA. My husband wants to find out if he can take a group of jr high students up there for a tour. Thanks, Leslie Dent Try 408-459-5936 that is the Mt Hamilton Guide's Office. If that doesn't work call 408-274-5061 which should have an information recording, if that doesn't work call 408-459-2993 which is the director's assistant office and they'll point you in the right direction! | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 20:55:30 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Population Newsgroups: sci.space In gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes: > And that is exactly the problem,as illustrated so well on this board. >If the first world subtly or otherwise advocates population control >they are accused of being both selfish and racist.... The world >collectively must first admit that human numbers need to be controlled. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ What this really translates into is "human *beings* must be controlled." You, of course, probably see yourself as one of the controllers, which means that your goals are not "selfish." But the accusation of racism is no less true just because the race you hate is the human race. Environmentalist (noun) -- Someone who loves the Earth and every species on it, except one. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 23:00:00 GMT From: SCOTT I CHASE Subject: Population Newsgroups: sci.space In article , ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes... >In gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes: > >> And that is exactly the problem,as illustrated so well on this board. >>If the first world subtly or otherwise advocates population control >>they are accused of being both selfish and racist.... The world >>collectively must first admit that human numbers need to be controlled. > ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ > >What this really translates into is "human *beings* must be controlled." So what? War, murder and rape need to be controlled. To do so means, likely, that human beings must be controlled - or more well educated. What's your point? >You, of course, probably see yourself as one of the controllers, >which means that your goals are not "selfish." But the accusation >of racism is no less true just because the race you hate is the human >race. You are perhaps the only person on the planet who would identify concern with the environment with either self-hate or racism. Personally, I am concerned for the environment out of pure unabashed self-interest. -Scott -------------------- Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death and some mathematician were to tell me that it had been definitely settled, I think I would immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 17:40:13 GMT From: "Gerald W. Lester" Subject: Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: >... Or do property rights only hold if you are white and >christian? > ... >I've never even seen a documentary on the subject. I have, however, >had contact with an Australian aborigine, and I have certain strong >principles concerning the use of coercion as a means of public >policy. I discuss the property rights issue because I want to see >strong property rights in space, rights invested in the original >settler that can be transferred by that settler and ONLY by that >settle in any way they deem suitable. The abuse of aboriginal peoples >has a great deal to say about how statists deal with ownership. It is >just a matter of convenience to be abrogated whenever it ceases to be >convenient. > >I'd much rather we had a new philosophy with us in space. If a >soldier comes into your house and says the state has declared it owns >your property, you kill him; and then you get off at the trial >because it is declared that you defended yourself against armed >robbery. (Guess what happened to native peoples who defended their >property? They got hung, drawn, quartered and declared traitors to >governments they owed no allegiance to. Exactly which side WAS the >civilized one?) > No, it does not even apply if you are a white christian in the U.S. In the 1860's thousands of white (and some black) christians (and non-christians) were deprived of their "property" by an executive order without any compensation. This order is commonly refered to as the Emacimation Proclaimation. After the fighting was over the states that had withdrawn from the U.S. were "helped" for several years (read pillaged/looted) with most of the "natives" not allowed to vote in elections. Was the U.S. goverment wrong to step on the "property" rights of the slave oweners? If not, how do you reconcile that with your property rights argument? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 22:58:53 GMT From: "Thomas H. Kunich" Subject: Re- Terra-forming, The E-ca Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep17.173523.4340@microsoft.com> alexho@microsoft.com (Alex Howerton) writes: >I bet you thought Arthur Clarke was wasting his time writing about >communications satellites and geosynchronous orbit. And I'll bet you thought that Buck Rogers was real. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 21:50:27 GMT From: Stuart A Kingsley Subject: Require a 10" - 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain for Amateur Optical SETI Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space From the chairman of SPIE's January conference on THE SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI) IN THE OPTICAL SPECTRUM. The last paper in the conference, which is to be held at the Airport Hilton at Los Angeles airport, is on Amateur Optical SETI. I am looking to acquire a 10" - 14" SC telescope for my prototype observatory. It must have an excellent drive system that can be interfaced to a PC for unattended monitoring of stellar spectra. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has such a telescope to sell. Stuart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 20:49:47 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...) Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space In <1992Sep16.085309.6782@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >Yes, I'm sure that the Wright Flyer would have been a hell of a biplane >after 30 years of add ons too. That would still leave it outclassed by >later designs. So, do you know how long Boeing's been building the Model 747? Can you name one later design that has "outclassed" it? Sometimes it's better to incororate new technology into an old, proven "workhorse" design than take the risk of developing a new design, which may or may not be better, from scratch. Sometimes. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 21:44:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...) Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space In article , ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes... >In <1992Sep16.085309.6782@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>Yes, I'm sure that the Wright Flyer would have been a hell of a biplane >>after 30 years of add ons too. That would still leave it outclassed by >>later designs. > >So, do you know how long Boeing's been building the Model 747? >Can you name one later design that has "outclassed" it? Sometimes >it's better to incororate new technology into an old, proven >"workhorse" design than take the risk of developing a new design, >which may or may not be better, from scratch. Sometimes. > The first Boeing 747-100's flew in 1968 if I remember correctly. They have been extensively modified since that time to carry more fuel, passengers, better engines, control systems. It is interesting that each time a new upgrade has been added, the FAA required a new certification program as if the upgrage was a new plane. Also the follow on for the 747 is in the works. It is called the 777 and is a heck of a bird if all of the Boeing propaganda I have seen is true. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 21:30:18 GMT From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian In article <1992Sep17.165755.12139@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > Does that mean no more intenational agreements to keep certain > frequencies clear for radio astronomy? >Does it mean Cuba can finally turn on its big transmitter and start >enlightening the population of Florida (+47 nearest states or so) >as to the true benefits of socialism? ;-) >Or does it mean I can go out and bomb the local country stations >to clear the air for the low power alternative rock stations? >Maybe Hughes should start development work on "bumper" satellites, >might be some neat ways to clear out valuable orbital slots needed >soon... I doubt it: The Libertarians generally make clear exceptions, for occasions where one person harms another. In all of the above cases, I suspect they would insist on no preventative regulation before hand, but arrest or support civil suits against anyone doing that sort of thing, _after_ they had done it. ??? My understanding on the radio was that if you wanted to pay the money to outpower someone on a frequency they either had to ante up or buy you out. So why couldn't the cubans turn on their counter to Radio Matri (sp?) - which under current rules the US has indicated they'd bomb if turned on... as to the satellite slots, if the treaty is abrogated and no slot assignments are allocated, why not just muscle out your favourite slot? | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 21:39:00 GMT From: Charles L Isbell Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.libertarian szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: [on radio frequencies] |Privatization means the current assignments become tradeable |property rights. Thus, if Barry needed a used spectrum for |a new radio astronomy experiment, he would go to its owners |instead of the FCC bureacracy to negotiate purchase or rent of |time. And vice versa, the FCC couldn't pull somebody's frequencies |without compensation. Violation of the property would be trespassing |and treated as violations of assignment are now. International |treaties wouldn't be effected except to the extent Libertarians can |renegogiate them to follow the tradeable property rights model. You're avoiding the big question by talking about conversion from *now*. How do you address the question of frequency ownership (from a purely private view) absent an initial government intervention? Let us posit that Star Trek had the right idea and subspace frequencies exist. When Widget company invents a sub space communicator, do they immediately own all of the subspace frequencies? Isn't this, by definition, a monopoly? Must a governmental body first divide up the frequencies and assign them before a free market mechanism can be employed? What if two weeks later Acme invents a similar device? By using it to broadcast on the newly discovered subspace frequencies, are they violating the property rights of Widget? I'm not clear on how this becomes a practically ownable resource. Seems like air or something. -- Peace. "Any Black man who's educated and speaks articulately is not considered 'really' Black. It's the same reason people think you're a dyke." "People think I'm a dyke?" "Take it as a compliment, I've learned to." -Kyle Baker, Why I Hate Saturn -\--/- Don't just adopt opinions | \/ | Some of you are homeboys develop them. | /\ | but only I am The Homeboy From hell -/--\- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 92 16:11:52 GMT From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu Subject: The Federation is still here, problems answering. Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.alien.visitors Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Problems answering people from The Federation. Message-ID: <1992Sep15.111505.1@acad2.alaska.edu> Date: 15 Sep 92 11:15:05 AST Organization: University of Alaska Lines: 66 Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: The Federation is still here Message-ID: <1992Aug11.155953.1@acad2.alaska.edu> Date: 11 Aug 92 15:59:53 AST Organization: University of Alaska Lines: 34 Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors Subject: The Federation is still here Message-ID: <1992Aug11.155325.1@acad2.alaska.edu> Date: 11 Aug 92 15:53:25 AST Organization: University of Alaska Lines: 25 Hello All Yes, The Federation is still here, at the moment for those still interested, it is still here and still reachable. We still want to hear from people interested in it or new people interested in the Federation. For those of you who are new to the Federation ideas, this is what we are: We are a group of people who feel it is high time we got off this rock and started exploring the great unknown of space. We have drawn out in blue print form a drive system that is a a super semi conducting crystaline structure. It looks good on paper but we haven't been able to test it yet. As always the problem is money. The Federation has been working on a personal funds of the few members base at the moment. We do have a info packet that we will happy to give you. You must have a mac that has 5.0 microsoftword or better. Send us a 3.5 floppy and we will put it on there for you. send to this adrress The Federation C/O Lady Rhavyn Po box 231772 Anchorage, Alaska 99523-1772 If you have any questions feel free to send to this account. ASLJL@ACAD2.ALASKA.EDU ******************************************************************************** I have had a problem sending the small version of the Federation Manual overthe E - Mail system. It seems it does not like some the of the addressesI am using that people send me. Please be sure that you include in your E-mail request, your internet/bitnet E-mail address so that I have the correct address to send it to you. My problem has been that I have had to, on occassion take it off the beginning of your messages. Either I am not copying it down correctly or the computer is scrambled, or it does not like the address and so I get a message from the postmaster telling me it doesn't like that address. I do apologize to those of you who asked for the info and never received it. Please try again. Member of the Federation * May the Force be With You * Thank you Sincerely Lady Rhavyn Memeber of the ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 217 ------------------------------