Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 05:08:29 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #381 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 5 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 381 Today's Topics: astronauts voting Comet Collision Gravitational assist Light sails again MS Windows Shareware Progs via Anon. FTP NASA Coverup (5 msgs) Russian Engines for DC-Y? Scenario of comet hitting Earth Space coverage on television, authenticity Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth? (3 msgs) U.N. Moon Treaty Why Vote? 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: 5 Nov 92 01:55:47 GMT From: Patricia Gellert Subject: astronauts voting Newsgroups: sci.space Do any readers know if the shuttle astronauts voted by absentee ballot? I hope this is not considered non-topical for this newsgroup. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 92 23:43:04 GMT From: Wayne Harvey Subject: Comet Collision Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary >In black@breeze.rsre.mod.uk (John Black) writes: >>Maybe a near comet approach could be a good thing. I did a rough calculation >>and estimated that there must be something of the order of 10 to the power 11 >>metric tonnes of water. Maybe in 130 years time somewhere on the Earth could >>do with some water, Here's something that people seem to be missing, that has been bandied about by SF writers for a long time: 10^11 tonnes of water (and associated other shit), if we could capture it and place it in Earth orbit, would provide us with an awful lot of fuel for rockets. Perhaps we could even have fusion rockets when the comet comes back in 130 years, and that would make for some pretty inexpensive colonisation fuels. Has anybody read Arthur C. Clarkes' 2051: Oddessey 3? Cheers. W. -- +________________________________+ 'Life is long, and love is _______+ | Wayne Harvey | Always over in the morning' | | wharvey@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au | The Sisters of Mercy. | |________________________________|____________________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 00:57:21 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Gravitational assist -From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) -Subject: Re: Query Re: pluto direct/ o -Date: 3 Nov 92 21:07:27 GMT -Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University -In article mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes: - >While I'm here, anyone know if a gravity assist trajectory can be used to - >*reduce* speed? - There's no end to the fun you can have playing interplanetary snooker; I - think the fundamental limit for any single encounter (confirmation, please?) - is the vector sum of spacecraft and accelerating body beforehand. Another important factor is the maximum angle of deflection of the trajectory of the spacecraft. This is a function of the density of the body being used for gravitational assist - if it's very dense, the spacecraft can get relatively close to the center of gravity of the body, and can thus make a tighter turn. -As I understand it, a gravity assist trajectory is simply a hyperbolic -path around the relevant body. Such a path is characterised as -follows: >- the departure speed is the same as the arrival speed >- the change in direction is larger for a closer approach >- the higher the speed, the smaller the change in direction. -Work out the path in the frame of the planet, then add the planet's -velocity to all the results. That's one kind of gravitational assist. You can also greatly increase your delta-V by burning your fuel at closest approach on a flyby trajectory. The quickest way to get out of the solar system using a conventional chemical rocket is to go out to Jupiter, use a slingshot around Jupiter to kill almost all of your solar orbital velocity, fall in toward the sun on a very close flyby, then burn the remainder of your fuel as you pass the sun. There's a long-term proposal for such a mission. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 00:06:29 GMT From: David Goldschmidt Subject: Light sails again Newsgroups: sci.space I know this has been hashed around before, but there was no mention in the FAQL, so... A light sail works by light pressure (I calculate F = Power/C,= 4.66 E -6 /m^2 at 1 AU) My question comes from what happens if you tilt the sail. It will red or blue shift the light just as much as a nontilted sail, so the force on it should be the same, but is it applied in the same direction as the light, or perpendicular to the sail? force force | / \ / |/ or \/________> light path /_____> /| /| / | / | Subject: MS Windows Shareware Progs via Anon. FTP Newsgroups: sci.astro,comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.misc,sci.edu,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,sci.space Folks: My Microsoft Windows shareware programs were recently uploaded to simtel20 and are available for anonymous ftp: Program Name Filename Ver. Description Req'd Astronomy Lab ALW113.ZIP 1.13 Astronomy program MS Win 3.x Anim8 ANIM8.ZIP 1.02 Animation program MS Win 3.x Astronomy Clock ACLOCK.ZIP 1.12 Clock for astronomy MS Win 3.x enthusiasts Bog BOG.ZIP 1.05 Word search game MS Win 3.X FracView FRACVIEW.ZIP 1.03 Fractal viewer MS Win 3.x Hangman HANGMAN.ZIP 1.01 Hangman game MS Win 3.x Puzzle-8 PZL8.ZIP 1.02 8 tile puzzle MS Win 3.x RCALC RCALC103.ZIP 1.03 Talking RPN MS Win 3.1 calculator Stopwatch SW.ZIP 1.02 Clock/stopwatch MS Win 3.x Talking Clock TCLK_106.ZIP 1.06 Talking clock MS Win 3.1 They are stored in the simtel20/windows3 directory. If you don't have ftp access, feel free to send me a 3 1/2" or 5 1/4" high density floppy disk in a self-addressed POSTPAID POSTPAID POSTPAID mailer and I'll send you the programs (please include a cover letter telling me what you want). Eric Bergman-Terrell Personal MicroCosms 8547 E. Arapahoe Rd. Suite J-147 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 USA ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 00:10:14 GMT From: Steve Linton Subject: NASA COVERUP Newsgroups: sci.space The most likely explanation is that the definition of neutral point has changed, perhaps from a stationary geocentric frame of reference to a rotating frams locked to Earth and Moon, oir perhaps in some other way. In this, as in most other fields of science, notations and definitions do change with time, and often vary between authors as well. The incidental evidence that the Moon's surface gravity is roughly 1/6 of that of the Earth is overwhelming, and that for the inverse-square law of gravity even more so. Also, what would be the motivation of this supposd conspiracy? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 01:43:20 GMT From: Anson Kennedy Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy snarfy, You should have read the rest of Abell's book. Your reasoning is flawed on at least two counts. First, your math is based on a two-body problem. The problem of the "neutral point" is actually the "restricted three-body problem." Your error is assuming that the only forces at work are the gravitational forces of the Earth and the Moon. There is another. It's not the gravitational force of the spaceship (its mass is so small in comparison to the Earth and Moon that it can be neglected, which is why the problem is "restricted"). The third force is the centrifugal force of the spaceship. Neglecting this will significally change the calculated mass of the Moon. BTW, there are five points in a two body system where these forces balance. They are called Lagrangian points in honor of their discoverer. But I digress. Second, you are thinking one-dimensionally. You assume that the figure given by Time magazine and Von Braun is colinear with the line drawn from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon. This is probably not the case. A spacecraft travelling from the Earth to the Moon does not traverse a straight line. Its path is hyperbolic, so the "revised" neutral point you quoted will *not*, in any case, correspond to the Lagrangian Point (normally called L2) you attempted to base your calculations on. Back to the drawing board for you.. -- Anson Kennedy anson@netcom.com Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!) "If you don't watch the violence, \ "If I had been the Virgin Mary, you'll never get desensitized to it." \ I would have said 'No.'" -Bart Simpson \ -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 92 06:20:53 GMT From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy >> No they don't . Abell's lunar gravity figure of 1/6 assumes the earth >> and moon rotate around a common barycenter. The neutral point figure is >> a direct derivation of that result. >> >> My calculations assume the neutral point to be motionless with respect >> to the earth and moon . What do your calculations assume? >> >> snarfy >> In message-ID: <3NOV199209041648@judy.uh.edu> Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville comments : >A very easy way to blow this one up is to look at the weight of the >Apollo LM and the thrust of the engine. The rocket equation says that >there must be at least a 1.141 thrust to weight ratio. Remember the LM >only had one Ascent stage. Dennis ,recall my earlier comment : >> The issue is not necessarily whether we landed on the moon , but how we >> did it. I'm not trying to suggest that we didn't land on (and return from) the moon. What I doubt is that we could have done it all with rockets. > Also remember that the Astronauts suits and baggage were set up for 1/6 > g and not .6 gee. So we made them extra heavy so the astronauts couldn't jump too high , or wander off too far, right ? (see my most recent post.) > Henry can probably provide the numbers. Who's Henry? > If any of you out there know Buzz Aldrin, there is no way he would keep > something like this covered up. Probably not , sorry , gee, I guess you're right . Do you think there's a chance I might get to talk with your good buddy Buzz? Over the ol' modem? Us investigative types just like to get told off by those in a position to know , y'know ? >So there snarfy. Yeah , don't rub it in O.K.? I'm very sensitive. Now that you mention Buzz Aldrin, didn't I read somewhere that he went through severe depression and "therapy" after his one moon excursion? What was this all about? Was he confused or upset about anything after this experience? >Also the pertubations of Lunar orbits by the Earth and Sun become >significant at altitudes above 800 km and dominate above 22,000. Where did you read this ? Was this a paper based on theory or the actual flight trajectories of real spacecraft ? If it's true , I'll be the first to admit that it shoots my theory ...but I'd like to see for myself. snarfy ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 92 17:25:05 GMT From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.space Dillon Pyron writes: >Basically, when you start on the premise that people are lying to you, >any argument beyond that point is circumspect, at best. If you had >stated "I've been doing some looking, and something ain't right", I'd be >willing to look at your calculations with a scientific interest. Instead >you shout that NASA is lying and ramble on with some calculations that >start in mid-air and land ??? You don't like my attitude . I see . Not enough groveling. My calculations are invalidated by my attitude. Math has changed since I went to school, I guess. > To the point. Your calculations assume that the earth and moon have the > same density, and that it is homogenous. Which body does your pronoun "it" refer to ? My calculations are taken right out of Abell's pre- Apollo astronomy text "Exploration of the Universe" (Holt Reinhart, 1964) and Beiser's "Physics" (Cummings) ,1973. Beiser states , on page 118 , "A spherical object behaves gravitationally as if it's mass were concentrated at it's center" . He also states,on page 119, that the earth's gravitational pull on an object varies inversely with the square of it's distance FROM THE CENTER OF THE EARTH. I also assume that a similar rule applies to the moon. If you run the computer program I wrote to facilitate the neutral point calculation, you can start by simply making a guess as to the minimum and maximum distances from the moon's center that the neutral point might be. The program simply figures the relative "pulls" exerted on the object by both the earth and moon at increments of 50 miles in the direction Earth -> moon. When the moon pull exceeds earth pull , the program prints out the relative forces in pounds ,and the distance from the moon's center where these forces exist,thereby locating the neutral point within 50 miles. The figures derived by the program, when a gravity of .1667 (1/6) is entered for the pull at the moon's surface ,AGREE with the pre Apollo published estimates for the location of the neutral point. Time Magazine ,and Werner von Braun ,AFTER Apollo however give us a Neutral point figure consistent with a Lunar gravity of .64 earth. >Second, while you do allow for a point of zero influence, what you call a >barycenter does not hold up. It just doesn't move, and in real life it >does. You lost me here. So what if the barycenter moves ? That doesn't alter the inverse square law for gravitational effect at a given distance. >Finally, you still haven't addressed the issue of the so-called >conspiracy. Why? What is the motive. Unlike the CIA/Mafia hit on >Kennedy, there is no gain in it? And there are multiple governments >involved. The Soviets (at the time) would have delighted in pointing out >an error from NASA. I'll get to all this ,be patient .I'm trying to first build a case that the gravity of the moon is about .64 at the moment . If I can't do this, other assertions relative to conspiracies are not supported. > And I don't understand your comments about the > Nipponese. It's not that important - forget it. >BTW, who are you? Do you have any credentials or is astro a hobby >(that's not a knock) or did this come up at the local conspiracy club (I >know you guys meet somewhere)? And maybe a real name, unless you're >ashamed of who you are. I'm R&D electronics technician with bad experimental physics habit. I'm generally happy with and unashamed of the identity given me by my parents. However , given the possible danger and ridicule that one opens oneself to when attempting to expose conspiracies on this planet , I prefer the pseudonym snarfy, at least for the time being.If this sounds paranoid, so be it. snarfy In message-ID: ,someone else writes: >I (and a couple others on this list that I know of) have met several of the >people who have been there (Luna). I myself have spent time over rum and cokes >and/or dinner with some of them. I will take first hand accounts of people >whom I respect over any imaginative "theories". Ie, my experimental data is >right from the mouths of those who been there. You can't get any better than >that. What I'm alleging is that ,given the astronauts not having any prior experience with 1/6 gravity, they may not have been able to discriminate between 1/6 and .6 ,given the suits they were wearing were of unknown mass. The other problem , how the lunar liftoff was accomplished at .6 gravity , I allege that a secret technology was used, and the core proof of this is the neutral point distance figure, which is a direct function of the earth - moon radius/distance/assumed gravity numbers. I cited two sources of this apparently revised figure ,Werner Von Braun and Time Magazine. If you are aware of other sources giving different figures , I'd like to know them. Also, I note that someone on the net has viewed a video of an astronaut on the moon dropping a hammer and a feather simultaneously. This video would be extremely pertinent in proving or disproving my allegations. If we knew the approximate height and fall times of the objects, assuming the video was played back in real time, we'd know the acceleration,and the argument would be over. >As to your difficulties, I'm sure Paul Deitz (yet another source of respected >opinion) can answer it if he is in a good mood and isn't overly busy. Great! Can I get in touch with him over the net? snarfy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Nov 92 17:30:53 PST From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us Subject: Nasa Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy Message-ID: <1992Nov3.033855.48781@datamark.co.nz> (David Rowland) >I agree with the statement about the JFK files, however, know the >"cold war" seams to be over, this does not mean we will all live >"happy ever after". When a super power becomes unstable, this causes >waves throughout the world which can have more need for the NSA then >previously. This is about the last sort of opinion I would expect from someone from New Zealand ,of all places. When did you get to vote on what agencies we need in MY government? If you want a National Security Agency in YOUR government in charge of keeping embarrassing information hidden from the general public , you are more than welcome to start lobbying for one over there. None of my business. I suggest you mind yours. As far as "Invalid Stuff Deleted" goes , I think I when one cites something as being invalid , it is incumbent upon that person to assert reasons , arguments , etc detailing just what it is he feels is invalid. Otherwise what you end up with amounts to nothing more than an insult. If you'd like to trade insults I think you've just bitten off more than you might be willing to chew ,MATE. snarfy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:43:12 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Russian Engines for DC-Y? Newsgroups: sci.space > Brad Whitehurst writes: > > Av. Week had a second article on the NPO RD-701, a tri-fuel > engined which burns kerosene, LOX, and LH2, with continuously variable > fuel transition from kerosene to LH2. Is this to customize the rocket > performance as a function of altitude, load, etc.? The thrust figures > for all kerosene were significantly higher than with pure LH2. This makes the RD-701 a "tripropellant" engine. Numerous design studies done in the US have shown that using a tripropellant engine can lower the dry mass of SSTO vehicle by a modest amount. The engine uses mainly kerosene/LOX during the early part of the flight, when specific impulse is not so important, and thrust and propellant density is very important. Later in the flight, the engine switches to LH2/LOX because specific impulse becomes more important than thrust level and propellant density. The upper stages of multi-stage vehicles or the later parts of SSTO flights are critically dependant on specific impulse, because all the propellant for these sections of the flight has to be boosted to several thousand meters per second before use. If a given lower stage can only boost say 100 tons of propellant to say 6000 meters per second, then it is far more useful to have 100 tons of LH2/LOX than 100 tons of kerosene/LOX at this velocity. Propellant burned however at the beginning of a flight does not have to be boosted through any great velocity increment and its specific impulse therefore is not too important. However for an SSTO vehicle, the tank for the early-burn propellant still has to be boosted all the way to orbit, therefore it pays to have a dense propellant combination. In this case, kerosene/LOX wins over LH2/LOX. The design studies generally show about a 20 to 25% reduction in dry mass by using a tripropellant engine in an SSTO. However, this reduction comes at the price of a 50% increase in the number of propellant tanks, piping systems, valves, and turbopumps, as well as the need for a complicated combustion chamber and/or nozzle arrangement to handle the two fuels. The Aerojet Corp. did a number of design studies on a "dual expander" propane/LH2/LOX engine, but to my knowledge never built such an engine. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 14:43:04 GMT From: Cameron Newham Subject: Scenario of comet hitting Earth Newsgroups: sci.space In article <17951@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com writes: > > cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham) writes: > >So, we nuke the comet which in turn would cause lots of radioactive > >debris to fall to earth over a large area. > > Wrong. There would be very little induced radiation, and most of the > radioactive material from the bomb would expand in space and miss the Earth. Wrong. Do you know what fallout is? It is dust sucked up at the hypocenter of a nuclear explosion that becomes radioactive and later falls to earth. I think you would find pieces of your comet to be tainted with radioactivity also. > As has been pointed out, yes and no. They aren't going to outgas (so no > trick shots) but they'll hold together under a significantly firmer "push" > (so you could detonate the nuke quite close for a larger delta-V). I get the feeling that there has been a serious over-estimate of the ability of a nuclear warhead to significantly change the delta-v of an asteroid. Project Icarus (from what I remember) suggested exploding a device at the aphelion point so as to move the asteroid away from the earths orbit. I can't recall anything about doing it "near" the earth. Anyway, this would only work if the object was small. Also, has anyone addressed the problem of guiding such a device to the precise point at short notice? What if the object is travelling retrograde? A doubt you could lob a nuclear device at an asteroid/comet with sufficient accuracy. Especially if we are talking combined velocities of >30 Km/s. (and before you point it out - yes, I know asteroids all appear to be travelling prograde. There are, without doubt, exceptions. Just a matter of finding them. ;) - cameron. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 23:07:56 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Space coverage on television, authenticity -From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) -Subject: Re: NASA Coverup -Date: 4 Nov 92 15:22:43 GMT -In article <1992Nov4.140750.22909@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, doucette@hannah.enet.dec.com () writes: -> Gravity can be mathematically derived -> from physical observations. Case in point: -> -> Monday night on PBS, there was a special on Space Exploration which showed an -> interesting experiment. One of the astronauts dropped a hammer and feather -> at the same time to show that Galieo was right. -[...] -> d = Distance object travels -> a = acceleration due to gravity -> t = time it takes to drop. -> -> d = 1/2at**2 or a = 2d/t**2 -Hidden assumption: this film is playing back on your TV set at the -same speed it was photographed. (Or is it video?) In any case, you -need to know the correct frame rate to get an accurate value for t, and -even then you will have some irreducible error in the measurement, -thanks to the discrete time resolution of film and video. It was video, which many people remember as being broadcast live. Looking at the video at full speed and a frame at a time, it looks pretty realistic. Assuming for the moment that the video is authentic, the release appears to be from very close to four feet up, and the fall from release to impact is ~36-37 frames (at a presumed 30 frames/second for NTSC standard). That works out to lunar gravity of around 1/5.8 to 1/6.1 Earth gravity. I suppose it would have been possible to film it in a large vacuum chamber on Earth, with movie film running at 75 frames/second (or maybe 150 - my VCR doesn't advance half-frame), then transcribe it slowed down onto video, but it would be very difficult to get the astronaut to move at 2.5 times normal rate and to sync the voice to the body movements. Some of the lunar rover video would essentially be impossible to film on the Earth. By the way, "Space Age" is a great television series. Some of the nitpickers might complain that their particular viewpoint didn't get full coverage, but they seem to try to have pretty good representation of the the views they do cover. There's plenty that the general public doesn't generally see (at least those who don't have NASA Select :-), including some really spectacular video. (I've been meaning to post a summary of what's been shown, but there's so much to include that it will be a major undertaking.) With this six-part series running now, and "Inside Space" on the Sci-fi Channel, this is really a great time for space coverage on TV. (The Thursday episode of "Good Morning America" is scheduled to show an item on NASA selection of a rover for use on Mars.) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:53:25 GMT From: Paul A Daniels Subject: Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space long this thread all sorts of figures have been mentioned, does anyone have an estimate of how much kinetic enery would be required to actually shatter the earths crust? Yes I do mean major doom and gloom, and a few more continents. Geologists belive that the earth originally had a super continent don't ask me to spell it's name. I'm just curious, could it have broken up due to a meteor stike? Paul. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:36:37 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article pad@probitas.cs.utas.edu.au (Paul A Daniels) writes: >long this thread all sorts of figures have been mentioned, does anyone >have an estimate of how much kinetic enery would be required to actually >shatter the earths crust? Yes I do mean major doom and gloom, and a few >more continents. > > Geologists belive that the earth originally had a super continent >don't ask me to spell it's name. I'm just curious, could it have broken >up due to a meteor stike? Um, it's already shattered, in many places. Rock on the scale of a planet does not act like an eggshell. It is thought that continents break up because of upwellings in the mantle which pull the plates apart. This process, rifting, continues today (near the Red Sea, for example). The supercontinent to which you are refering is only the latest of many. The cycle that assembles and dissassembles the continents is thought to have gone through tens of cycles since the earth was formed. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 02:24:55 GMT From: Tarl Neustaedter Subject: Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article , pad@probitas.cs.utas.edu.au (Paul A Daniels) writes: > does anyone have an estimate of how much kinetic enery would be required > to actually shatter the earths crust? The crust isn't exactly a solid. It's more akin to some light scum floating on top of the semi-fluid mantle. The convection currents in this underlying mantle drag along the light silicate scum that makes up the continents. For comparison in terms of size, think of the earth being about the size of a basketball. The continents (at that scale) are less than a millimeter thick. Rocks (i.e., planetary crust) are plastic at the large scales (distance and time) used in planetary geology, and behave pretty much like silly putty. So, the term "shatter" doesn't apply. -- Tarl Neustaedter tarl@sw.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 92 15:41:52 CST From: carlis_jc@cs1.lamar.edu Subject: U.N. Moon Treaty Newsgroups: sci.space There is susposed to be something in international law about any country over which the Moon passes directly (plumb) has some kind of claim but I'm having a hard time tracking the particulars. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 92 22:07:10 GMT From: Bob Blackshaw Subject: Why Vote? Newsgroups: talk.abortion,soc.motss,sci.space In <1992Nov2.145619.20752@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: >In article <92307.013333U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >> WHY VOTE? >> >>The reward of a thing well done >>is to have done it. >> --Emerson >> One never notices what has been done; >> One can only see what remains to be done. >> --Marie Curie Well, quite apart from being able to express my opinion in the most forceful way available, there was the reward of knowing that the control freaks must have been gnashing their teeth last night as the returns came in on Maryland's Question 6. Even greater was the satisfaction that in some small way we had given our womefolk their due. [62% for, 38% against] >Etc. >Voting is really only useful for getting those people off your back who >believe that if you *don't* vote, you shouldn't complain about the >current state of goverment. >Clearly, an individual's vote doesn't matter at all as evidenced by the >way the election turns out whether they vote or not. Voting is a symbolic, >not a functional, act. Interesting thought - suppose we had *all* stayed away yesterday, who would have won? As long as people feel this way, the entrenched groups can lead us about by the nose. Incidentally, I also voted against term limits, mainly because I think Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and John Jay were smarter than George Will. >Until we get rid of the electoral college, the individual vote will *always* >be discounted and we will not be living in a democracy. Odd? I thought Clinton and Gore won the popular vote too? Did I read the numbers wrong? :-/ >It is very true that we live in a _democratic republic_, but which do *you* >value more, the democratic part, or the republic part? Well, both kinda. Yes, its a wierd form of government, but it seems to work pretty good. As Bill Bairnsfather's Old Bill would have said "if yer knows a better 'ole lad, go to it". >-- >David Knapp University of Colorado, Boulder >Perpetual Student knapp@spot.colorado.edu Sorry for the digs David, but its only old men like me that are supposed to be so cynical and jaded in outlook. :-) ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 381 ------------------------------