Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 05:04:02 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #605 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 29 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 605 Today's Topics: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Acceleration fast-track failures Galileo HGA Justification for the Space Program (2 msgs) Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Overly "success" oriented program causes failure Stupid Shut Cost arguements (2 msgs) Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw) (2 msgs) 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: 28 Dec 92 19:34:20 GMT From: nathan wallace Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Newsgroups: sci.space There is an excellent book on this subject and several similar designs called "Starflight Pioneers". It is a hardback, and came out about two years ago. I got my copy at a college bookstore, and i'm sure others could obtain a copy also. It has a lot of information on the bussard ramjet system, and gives complete technical references. I am a computer science graduate student but have long been interested in real space and interstellar flight and ways that technology may evolve. I found this book very accurate and informative. I will try to dig out my copy (my den is the current resting place of primordial chaos) and post the exact ISBN number to make it easier for people to order it. +----------------------------------------------+------------------------+ | | __ | | | / /\ | | Nathan F. Wallace | ______/ /_/___ | | email: wallacen@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu | / ____ ______ \ | +----------------------------------------------+ / /\__/ /\____|\/| | | | | |\/ / / / \|/ | | Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and are | | || / /_/_____ | | not those of any other person, | | ||/_______ /\ | | organization, or supreme being. | | ||\______/ / / | | | | || / / / | +----------------------------------------------+ \ \_____/ /_/__/\ | | "War is the art of deception." | \_____ _______/| | | Sun Tzu | \___/ /\______|/ | | | \_\/ | | | | +----------------------------------------------+------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 92 18:10:24 GMT From: _Floor_ Subject: Acceleration Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1hkr76INNji2@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: ] Certainly electronics can be built to be flexible, it's just what degree ] of flexibilty you desire. Flex is a stress/strain relationship. ] Steel is flexible, rubber is rigid. you just need to define these terms ] first. besides, if you build with amorphous materials, you can get ] quite a flex out of silicons. And retain precisely the same semiconducting properties? Anyhow, I was thinking more along the lines of welds and other connections. Stresses would occur in bending electronic boards - everything would have to be completely secured. ] and i believe the designers understnad the material characteristics ] of their probes quite well. I expect so too. It isn't that I disbelieve they'll do this, but that I find it astounding they could achieve such durability. ] >] But other than that, and factors such as prolonged stress on human hydraulic ] >] systems, the greater problem can be with rapid changes in acceleration, which ] >] are of course associated with short bursts of acceleration. (I believe the ] >] usual term for the time derivative of acceleration is "jerk".) These rapid ] ] Actually, i think the term is Impulse. No, impulse is equal to the change in momentum, which is equal to force*time. ] >You're joking me if you think the Galileo probe will experience constant ] >deceleration. There's going to be buffeting worse than we could imagine, ] >I imagine (:-). Especially at speeds many times that of sound (which I'm ] >sure will be different for the Jovian atmosphere)! So you're point is ] >very applicable. Experiencing this jolting for milliseconds (as per ] >a dropping watch) may not cause any damage. But if you dangled the watch ] >from the ceiling and proceeded to place a jackhammer at its face, ] >slamming into its face for a couple of minutes, liklihood is that ] >the watch will no longer function! Ditto for an atmospheric probe. ] >That thing is going to get one whale of a beating. You've helped me ] >emphasize my point even more! Thanks :-) ] ] Hopefully this kid will take a physics class. ] ] I think he is mistaking Work with Force and energy. ] ] Work is force through a distance, Energy is work*time, Force is mass*Accel ] ( boy i hope i got these right :-) ) Gee, thanks for the diminutive attitude towards me :-). Sorry, energy is not work*time. Energy applied is _equal_ to the work. Energy and work, however, are power*time. ] It takes energy to achieve a momentum change. Sure, OK. ] A probe has high momentum hitting atmosphere. it gets a high acceleration, ] on a small mass. not a lot of force, exerted through several miles of ] atmosphere, for a few minutes. Small force? I think they said the probe would feel an acceleration of 350 g's. It's receiving a force 350 times that of Earth's gravity at the surface of the Earth. That's quite a bit of force if you ask most people. ] I think the kid is missing the fact that while the accelerations of dropping ] a watch and hitting it with a sledge are the same, the work products are significantly different. Huh? Me litle kid not udnersnad wy if force and disstence same, work difrent. And _significantly_ at that! ] Try this. drop a timex. work out the acceleration. ] ] Now, hang the timex from a string. Let a pendular mass strike it, at low spe ] ed. work out the acceleration. keep increasing the mass and speed. ] continue until the timex dies. I suspect you will be surprised at how ] high you can go. ] ] Halting a 5 lb sledge witha watch is a major momentum change, hence mucho ] work in a millisecond. ] ] Conducting momentum transfer via pendular masses, is much less work. ] you can simulate this with that desk toy, using pendular ball. ] tape a timex on to one of the balls. it should survive. He he ha ha! What a joyous laugh you've given me this morning! This just isn't the truth. Have a pleasant day! :-) _____ "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks / ___\ ___ __ ___ ___ _____________ gene@cs.wustl.edu | / __ / _ \ | / \ / _ \ | physics | gene@lechter.wustl.edu | \_\ \ | __/ | /\ | | __/ |racquetball| gev1@cec2.wustl.edu \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/ | volleyball| gene@camps.phy.vanderbilt.edu Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:21:13 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: fast-track failures Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1992Dec23.114601.22583@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>Of course the SR-71 was a black program funded by clandestine government >>agencies to the tune of we don't know how many billions of dollars. > >Well, we do know that Kelly Johnson had no more than 100 engineers >working on the project. > >How many billions can 100 engineers manage to spend in just 18 months? How many billions have you got? It takes almost no time at all to add zeros to a check. Engineers can spend money faster than a woman with a gold card in Saks if you let them. >Like most government reformers, you refuse to recognize that >the conditions you decry are the *results* of your reforms. >You simply ascribe the worsening conditions to the fact that >your reforms have not been implemented thoroughly enough. That's rich. Not only am I not a government reformer, I'm enough of a practicing engineering manager to know that projects only come in on time and on budget when you've throughly done your homework and made allowances for the contingencies that always come up during development. This has nothing to do with government, as incompetent an exercise in mismanagement as I've ever seen. This has to do with sound engineering management of high risk development programs with real schedules and real budgets. Cutting corners up front on the assumption that everything that works on paper will work in metal usually bites you in the rear. How that affects your project's schedule and budget depends entirely on how well you've planned for such failures and how well you've developed alternative strategies. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 15:51:09 EST From: "S.K. Whiteman" Subject: Galileo HGA It seems to me that a lot of energy is being stored in the stuck HGA ribs; kinda like loading a spring; isn't this going to give the whole spacecraft quite a jolt when/if they release? \ /___________________ Sam \_____/ | IBM Systems Programmer Chicago/ | * | O Indiana University - I | Ft. Wayne | H Purdue University at Fort Wayne L | 1794-1994 | Fort Wayne, Indiana USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:39:40 GMT From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec28.172419.1305@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz, dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes: >The differences between the age of exploration and today are >considerable. The raw mineral and agricultural products (and slaves) >that profited the explorers of that age are a much smaller fraction of >GDPs today. Since the whole arguement is based on unforeseen long-term benefits, which may or may not be animal, mineral, or vegetable, this "difference" is neither valid nor pertanent to Herman's point. Furthermore, raw materials may be a smaller fraction of GDPs, but they are not inconsequential to the health of an economy. Furthermore, in some present-day economies, oil is most of the GDP. Finally, if a naturally-occuring rare or unknown substance (or microgravity manufactured substance) of great applicability were found/produced in space (or on another body), it could result in a shift in the importance of raw materials to the GDP. I know that you are going to now ask "what material?". However, since Herman's arguement pertains to unknown benefits and the danger of lack of foresight, it is a valid arguement. Even as we speak, satellite weather/soil monitoring and satellite communication and navigation, which not very long ago were unforeseen applications, have changed our world. Some of the benefits you claim will never come are already here, right under your nose. Note too, that they are not animal, vegetable, or mineral. > >More generally, arguments by analogy are essentially circular. You >have to assume that the analogy is valid to believe the argument. I >don't see any reason to do that here. That is because you are being really short-sighted. Paul, are you so sure you can see our future well enough that you can discount this arguement? Can you tell me any compelling reason to believe we will gain nothing from aggressive space exploration and development based on fact rather than speculation? >There are contrary analogies: >for example, exploration of Antarctica has been of little practical >benefit to the exploring countries (although it has been of scientific >benefit to humanity as a whole). Very bad example. Antarctica has remained undeveloped for essentially political reasons. I can't remenber the treaty name off the top of my head, but it has reserved Antarctica as a wildlife reserve and research laboratory. There have been challenges to this treaty recently because it is believed that there may be huge caches of minerals to be found there. Even if Antarctica were open to development, it may take awhile for the benefits to become apparent. However, since the question being debated here is long-term benefits, there is no reason to put stringent time limits on those benefits coming to full fruition. Norman Dr. Norman J. LaFave Senior Engineer Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro Hunter Thompson ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 92 20:42:43 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec28.193940.10495@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave writes: > Since the whole arguement is based on unforeseen long-term benefits, > which may or may not be animal, mineral, or vegetable, > this "difference" is neither valid nor pertanent to Herman's point. Since your reasoning seems inherently incapable of being disproved, even if wrong, I don't see that it has any value. Theories have to be falsifiable to be useful. In practice, you *will* have to argue that a project has specific benefits or it will not be funded (or, rather, you won't get funded for your *next* project, as with Apollo). You mention comsats, etc.: yes, but that has little to do with the Club of Rome/wild schemes of space resource exploitation that started this thread. Moreover, these benefits were not unpredicted: Clarke forecast geostationary communication relays in 1947. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 92 20:29:20 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US >taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. OK Gary you win. I'll accept that there is nothing wrong with Governement engaging in activities which would get you or I put in jail. It's OK for NASA to spend $34 billion and then pretend they didn't. Under these rules, let's look at the costs. The follwoing cost are from a spreadsheet I put together to evaluate these costs. We get: Shuttle SSTO 1. Launches per year [1]: 10 10 2. Amortization years [2]: 30 10 3. Development costs [3]: 0 $3,000M 4. Production costs [4]: $1,500M $ 333M 5. Amortization costs: $ 66M $ 58M 6. Launch costs [6]: $ 550M $ 20M 7. Total launch cost (5 + 6): $ 616M $ 78M 8. Cost per pound to LEO: $10,272 $ 1304 So even ignoring $34 billion in Shuttle costs AND doubling SSTO costs, SSTO comes out ahead. Even if you doubled Shuttle flight rates (which not even NASA pretends any more) and quadrupled all SSTO costs, SSTO still wins. [1] I used the number of Shuttle launches scheduled for this year and next. Doubling this number will not change the end result. For SSTO, I assume it takes 80% the domestic MLV market and that the market doesn't grow. I think both of these assumptions are unrealistic but it makes SSTO look worse. [2] Amortization happens over 30 years for Shuttle vs 10 years for SSTO. SSTO must recoup costs faster since competitors can be expected. Allowing SSTO more time will greatly reduce its costs. [3] Shuttle gets a free ride here. To keep Gary happy we won't worry about the $34 billion Shuttle development costs. To also keep Gary happy, we WILL amortize SSTO development costs and double those costs just in case. [4] Again, we use Gary's number for the cost of an orbiter. I have doubled the cost of an SSTO to add margin for error. [6] SSTO launch costs are again, double the estimated costs to add a margin. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 92 16:33:39 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure Newsgroups: sci.space From: AUSROC II : A Post Mortem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tzu-Pei Chen "The design of AUSROC II was in many ways too "positive". Much thought had been put into each of the systems, but little thought had been allocated to possible failures and their consequences. Obviously, greater testing of each component may have shown up some of these problems earlier. This simply highlights the very limited resources with which the group currently works. The six static firings were in themselves, major system tests, but they were already a major strain on our resources. Hopefully AUSROC II-2 will be able to proceed in an environment where financial and man- hour constraints become secondary to the process of engineering." Here is an example of what can go wrong with "fast track" programs where too positive an outlook leads to overlooking simple, and in 20/20 hindsight, obvious problem areas. The problems were only obvious in hindsight, however, which is the main risk of a success oriented program. Pegasus' teething problems stem from a similar outlook. As Chen notes, financial and manpower requirements for adequate engineering studies and testing for the project were overly optimistic leading to complete vehicle loss and a major financial and schedule loss to the project. We hope they'll be able to muster the financial and manpower requirements to do the job right the next time. It's an engineering maxim that "There is always time to do it over, but never time to do it right the first time." Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 92 18:07:32 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements Newsgroups: sci.space In article ssi!lfa@uunet.UU.NET ("Louis F. Adornato") writes: >>>In military procurement, the development costs are charged against >>>the prototypes, X, Y, etc, and the operational vehicles of the procurement >>>are charged at "flyaway" cost. >>Which I suspect is done largely to hide the true cost. I point out that if >>the contractors in question ran their accounts this way they would all be >>in jail and out of buisness. >Wrong. Many major corporations consider research and/or development a >"sunk" cost - it's something that's considered part of the cost of >staying in business, Sure, but that is not what we are talking about here. Research and some conceptual development are part of overhead. However, when a decision is made to productize something, it always gets a separate account and costs are charged to that. These costs are amortized over the expected life of the product. Boeing, for example, is currently designing the 777. There is a section on it in the corporate budget and costs associated with it WILL be specifically included in costing the product. If they didn't, then they couldn't be sure they where recouping development costs and thus would go out of buisness. Can you name a product ever made by a successful company which DIDN'T keep track of product development costs (as opposed to pure research) and assign those costs to the product? Outside government, you won't. >>But why should we follow that model? >Because NASA paid for the design and development work (and precious >little research) up front, and doesn't have to pay anyone back for >those costs. I wouldn't say nobody. There is after all, the taxpayers. I think they would like to see their money spent wisely. The other issue is what we want from space. If your happy with a few Shuttle launches a year then your all set. On the other hand, if you want an active space program you need commercial involvement which you won't get by forcing them to amortize development costs when the government competition doesn't need to. >> Hiding costs like you advocate only >>encourages waste and inefficiency. >On the contrary, by keeping development and operational costs separate, >there's less opportunity for waste and inefficency in one phase to get >buried in the lifecycle costs. Of course, that 'waste and inefficiency' also tells you that you simply can't build the product so it should be cancled. That is very useful information which is suppressed under government procurement systems. It also encourages designers to take the short view and minimize design costs which tends to maximize operations cost. I have worked on more than one project where the company decided that development costs couldn't be made back with the product. In these cases they cancel the project so they can invest it in other products which CAN recoup costs. >Besides, development and operations are >two completely different kinds of costs, so drawing a clean line >between the two also provides better historical information for >budgeting, forecasting, and cost control on the next project. Of course. Such a clean line is indeed drawn. There is a development line item and an operations (or manufacturing) line item. >Of course, amortizing the development costs does have one real >advantage; it ensures that the shuttle's per-flight costs will always >be astronomical, The advantage sir, is the realization that we are spending too much for a system which doesn't work very well. I consider realizing that fact (helped by reasonable cost accounting) a good thing since it allows us to spend our money more wisely. Why doesn't it bother you that we are spending (in your words) 'astronomical' amounts of money for launch services? Are you so carefree with your own money? If not, why are you so carefree here? >while allowing the DC program to hide it's own >development costs behind a vaporware figure of useful lifespan. If you have some specific technical justification for this, please post it. If not then it must fall under Gary's 'is doesn't exsit so it won't work' line of arguement. I am happy to compare DC (or existing expendables) to Shuttle. No matter what rules you pick, Shuttle looses. We simply aren't going to get into space by shoveling money under a SSME and waching it burn. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 92 16:46:45 GMT From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec28.180732.2643@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: I am happy to compare DC (or existing expendables) to Shuttle. No matter what rules you pick, Shuttle looses. Pah. Assume the first and third manned DC flights crash and burn, the first in a hard landing after abort-to-orbit due to two engines failing. Guidance fails to correct the asymmetric thrust and it swipes some structures, the fuel tanks and bay collapses completely after unexpectedly high vibration weakens the crumple-zones and the crew dies, two firefighters on the ground die when some trapped LH2 vapour explodes. The second flight is successful but the third goes drastically off course during ascent and nosedives into an apartment building 600 miles from the launch site - investigation reveals a subcontractor delivered sub-spec parts causing a foobar hardware failure and software errors caused the thrust compensation to be in the exact opposite direction, the pilots were knocked unconscious when a piece of metal failed under the vibrations and hit them on the head. McD goes bankrupt and the SSTO program is hit by lawsuits from relatives of victims, Rifkin and Nader which are not resolved (in McD's favour, less $800M compensation to victims) until 2017. Them's the rules... who wins? | 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: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:29:53 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec23.212100.18194@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >>Really, did Boeing pay for the development of winglets (those little >>dinky wingtip things the latest models have)? ... > >Look, if your trying to say that research has been done in the past and >that research should be treated as a sunk cost, then you are partly >correct. The concept is correct but the word is 'depreciated'. > >Sure there is lots of depreciated costs going into airliner development. >Much of that does come from government funded research. I have no problem >with that. You will note that I didn't say the money used to build the >X-24, an important vehicle for Shuttle, should be charged to Shuttle. > >The fact remains however that we did spend $34 billion to develop Shuttle >and that cost should be accounted for. If we are going to pick and choose >what costs we include and which we don't then why not say Shuttle is >free? > >>for the development costs of the basic jetliner airbody designs >>or did they sink it to military contracts? > >To some extent I'm sure they did. This happens all the time however >in the civilian world. The first signal processing chips where built >for customers willing to pay development. They where then sold to >whoever. The point is that unlike Shuttle, all costs where accounted >for. Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal. NASA's prime mission is R&D. The customer wanted an operational vehicle, and NASA contracted to have them built. NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business. The Orbiters only cost the bent metal cost, administrative overhead, and contractor profit, Rockwell says that's $1.5 billion per each. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 17:53:06 GMT From: JKF Subject: The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,news.misc In article <725535903.AA00373@f-454.fidonet.org> Hugh.Craig@f3333.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Hugh Craig) writes: > J> Which just goes to show that Mary Shafer is also a member of the > J> conspiracy, else she would not go to such desperate lengths to > J> try to explain away NASA's horrible LIES. > > J> Yes, Mary Shafer and all members of the > J> NASA/Bolshevik/Krystal's/NACA conspiracy are in this together, > J> controlled by their true masters... > > J> the lemurs. > > And more quote from The NET... >I have LEARNED the TRUTH. The TRUTH is that Heinlein, Simak, Asimov, and >Leiber, famous science fiction and fantasy WRITERS who "died" in recent >years, did not DIE at ALL but rather were TAKEN CAPTIVE by the lemur >puppet masters and put to WORK generating these PREPOSTEROUS stories which >you then promulgate as FACT. > >We are ON to you, Mr. Volkoff. You are doing good work for your MASTERS >but we have SEEN THROUGH YOU NOW. > quote off >===================================================================== > > You poor misguided fools. None of you has even come close >to understanding the depth of this evil conspiracy. > > I'll attempt to shed some light for you. > > All the misinformation and evil tricks have been master minded >by the Cooridinated Information Apparatus headquarted on the >planet Voltar. The Voltarians are also working with the >KSP (Korellian Secret Police) and The BLACK LENSMEN. >Though at times they are at odds with each other. > > > The Rockefellar Empire and The Illuminatus do the evil bidding > of their EVIL MASTERS here on Earth. > > This evil empire has many arms. SOME of the secondary > organations and prominent individualsw are listed below. > >The Bilderbergers >The Jewish Defence League >MOSSAD >The Trilateral Commission >CIA and its subsidiaries: The MOB, DNC, RNC. >NSA >Matsushita Corporation (Current mission: Destroy Chrysler) >The IMF >Time Inc. and it's subsidarys.(Opinion Control) >Bebe Rebozo and R. Nixon >Proctor and Gamble >Michael Gorbachav (master illusionist) >Jack Anderson (runs smokescreen missions) >General Electric and NBC >CBS,ABC and The Media. (See Time Inc.) >The Capital Gang (spin control and misinformationists) >THEM (frequently mis-blamed for far to much,an excellent smoke screen) >The Sauds (funding) >The British Royal Family (run the drug running empires(great monymaker)) >Microsoft (mission: cripple Earth based computing systems > with crippled operating systems) and the lemurs, of course, let's not forget them >The Men In Black > > It has been reported that the EVIL BLACK LENSMEN have a tendency >to drive black Ford Galaxys. Their attire usually is a black, >sinister looking, business suit. Hat is optional nowadays. But >if worn is black. Black impenetrable sunglasses. They have >an obnoxius, yet effective, habit of passing themselves off >as U.S. Federal Agents when doing 'field work'. > >The entanglements are many. The plots extreme. The meaning is >profound. .... We are DOOMED... > >I shall post no more on this subject as I sense the evil >moderator conspiracy will get me if I continue. I wonder what Dr. Beter has to say on all this. Too bad he's DEAD. BWAH HA HA HA! Joel "hmm, things seem to be getting a bit ridiculous" Furr jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 92 19:46:52 GMT From: Paul Fritschle Subject: The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,news.misc Please take this thread off sci.astro.. it really doesn't go here. -- Paul Fritschle pfritsch@skid.PS.UCI.EDU Have you hugged YOUR shoggoth today? ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 605 ------------------------------