Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_713.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-26 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EcO3JA600WBwA1:05b>;
          Wed, 26 Jun 91 02:33:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 02:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #713

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 713

Today's Topics:
            SPACE Digest V13 #616
          Re: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go
      Discussion summary for talk.politics.space - week 1 (long)
              [R] Laser testing
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 07 Jun 91 20:19:54 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Fri, 7 Jun 91 05:06:42 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #616
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re: space exploration / expansion

>This -- the basic human drive for exploration, adventure, and new
>frontiers -- answers question (1).  Whether it can also answer
>question (2) depends on who are the "other people" who are going to
>pay for it.

>If they are business people, they are unlikely to find this
>compelling.  The way to convince them is to show that you can make
>money from space -- that may not be your ultimate goal, but it is
>theirs.  Convince the private sector that space development can be
>truly profitable, and not even the Luddites will be able to keep their
>ventures on the planet.

If you define 'make money' as 'find and refine resources', which it
essentially means, than my goals ARE the same as the 'luddites'.  Am
I to assume that you think space-expansion should procedd for the
'dream/wow/terrestrial, dude!' benefits?   What's the point in going
if you can't afford to stay?

>If the "other people" are taxpayers, it depends.  If you could
>convince the media to undertake a full-spectrum news/entertainment
>campaign like the one they are currently putting on for
>environmentalism -- but focused on the dream of creating a spacefaring
>civilization instead of the nightmare of global eco-catastrophe --
>then it might work.

Actually, it would be quite easy to ABSORB the green movement as just one
of the benefits of space-industrialization.  Another plus is to tout
space-expansion as a way to wreck the current political power system (which
it is) and get the radical/rebellious vote that made the green movement.

The media might buy it.  Pictures of space are a lot more interesting
than pictures of protesters.  Convince the liberals that ARE the major
media that space is 'right' and 'good for the public', etc, and you've
got it made.

Dont' forget the 'exotic job opportunities' line that the Army uses.

Might as well use the 'brainwash them while they're young' system that
was used by the peace movement.  The anti-nuke-heads basically went
to elementary schools and filled little kids heads with images of atom
bombs and burnt bodies as a form of 'education'.  Images of people
living in space, in beautiful, exciting places seems to have a
lot more staying power, though.  I still have THOSE images in my head,
but I ignore the bomb ones, becasue I don't like them very much.

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 91 13:40:29 GMT
From: cbmvax![e-mail]  (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Subject: Re: Democracy:  Easy Come, Easy Go

In article <[e-mail]> (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>Government is not some kind of a formalized debating society, as you seem
>to think it is.  There is absolutely no obligation for the government to
>fly some random (exactly how do you determine who the lucky person is who
>gets to go to Washington, anyway?) person in to lobby.  Lobbying isn't
>defined anywhere legally.  If you want to lobby, fine, but you have to do it
>on your own money.  NASA has to use its own money...

Gee Matt, whose money do you think NASA's is?



--
=============================================================================
  Mark Ricci - CATS              | "I don't think so! Homey don't play dat."
  Commodore Applications and     |
  Technical Support              |    - Homey the Clown
  [e-mail]     |         In Living Color
==============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 91 21:09:41 GMT
From: eagle!ariel.lerc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: Discussion summary for talk.politics.space - week 1 (long)

Here is a summary of comments I have received to date regarding the above
proposed new group, via postings and e-mail.  I have retained most of the
content for discussion, and will respond to a few in a separate post.

RG

**********************************************************************

Frank Crary <[e-mail]> is in favor of this group:

Also, IF a talk.politics.space is set up, I would also be in favor of making
sci.space moderated.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Harry Bloomberg) (via e-mail)

   As part of this RFD, how about the creation of sci.space.news?  This
group would be populated by news bulletins similar to the NASA headline
news, and the JPL mission reports.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Kent Paul Dolan)

I agree that talk.politics.space could serve a useful constituency, and
divert a lot of chatter from sci.space, but it should be a group with
a focused discussion agenda of its own; in particular, speculation about
the forms of ETs seems an unincorporable side agenda.  If that is really
a topic that seriously impedes sci.space, create sci.space.seti to contain
it, so that talk.politics.space can indeed limit itself to political
questions.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Randall Atkinson)

The proposal for talk.politics.space appears to be well-done
in charter, rationale, and naming.

I fully support it.  I stopped reading sci.space some time back
precisely because of the flood of "political" postings.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (W.A.Simon)

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin)
     writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
     [e-mail] (Randall Atkinson) writes:

>> The proposal for talk.politics.space appears to be well-done
>> in charter, rationale, and naming.
>> I fully support it.  I stopped reading sci.space some time back
>> precisely because of the flood of "political" postings.

>I agree with the first paragraph.  However, I do not see that it is
>possible to separate the political from the scientific.  How would one
>class the recent arguments about manned space which hinge on what is
>scientifically true or technologically possible?

    The real world is not divided into discrete class intervals |8-).

    I agree with you that very little that affect our life can
    be split from its political underpinnings.  But the focus of
    interest can be legitimately narrowed.

    Cross-posting will, by necessity, occur.  But there are a
    number of philosophical, or political question that could be
    best segregated from the main scientific news flow.  An L5
    pamphlet would definitely belong there, when a study of the
    properties of Lagrange points would belong in sci.space.  A
    defense of the Lagrange point approach, to the establishment
    of a space colony, would demand X-posting.  A thread on the
    respective merits of private and public funding, would belong
    in t.p.space and sci.econ, but not be welcome in sci.space.

**********************************************************************

[e-mail] (Tarl Neustaedter) supports the group.
[e-mail] (Mike Fischbein) supports the group.
[e-mail] supports the group.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Joel Plutchak)

   I'm all for separating the science from the non-science aspects of the
current newsgroup, but I question the implicit assertion that "guesswork"
(see the last topic above) on space issues fits into a talk.politics
subcategory.  [...] In other words, I support the spirit of the proposition,
but would change the charter to reflect my above-stated opinion.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Ian Taylor)

I think that it's not a good basis to start a new newsgroup simply
because some people are not interested in certain aspects of the discussion.
eg I am not particularly interested in NASA prediction bulletins, so why not
sci.space.nasa.prediction.bulletins?

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail]

    I think the idea of this new group is not to stop talk on
political issues as such, but rather to separate (when possible, cross-
posting otherwise) them from the technical discussions. Most current
sci.space readers will probably end up reading both (I know I will) but
for those who don't want to wade through hundreds of postings (sci.space
is approx the 25th most profilic group on this system) there is a choice.
    As easily as creating a political subgroup, we might of created a more
technical subgroup (as has been suggested).  I personally think this is a good
first step in improving the readability of this group.  However
sci.space.political would be a better name IMHO.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Craig E. Ward)

We have an activist hierarchy in the pipes.  Why not "misc.activism.space?"

The "talk" hierarchy tends to not be a good place for reasoned discussion,
but sci.space is also often lacking so maybe it would be okay to move it.

One problem I see here is that funding and other political considerations
*are* technical, just not part of the School of Engineering.  That this point
has been missed by so many posters to sci.space is one reason why so much of
the policy "discussion" on sci.space is so silly.

>o   guesswork regarding the nature of extraterrestrial life forms
>    or of the methods of space and planetary colonization.

What?  The existence or non-existence of ETLFs is not a political question.
Finding and communicating with any is a investigative science problem; doing
so or not *now* is a political one.  This part should be dropped.

A technical mailing list already exists, (No, I don't have the info on it
handy.) just as a commercial, investors, list also exists.  Each mailing list
might be large enough to support subgroups.  Any conventional wisdom on how
big a list should be before moving to a newsgroup?  100? 500?

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Warmink)

> BTW I think that it not a good basis to start a new newsgroup simply
> because some people are not interested in certain aspects of the discussion.
> eg I am not particularly interested in NASA prediction bulletins, so why not
> sci.space.nasa.prediction.bulletins?

I would like to see a separate "politics" newsgroup; separating the "factual"
from the "viewpoint" postings is a great idea I think. It wouldn't be a case
of deciding what discussion are interesting or not - sci.space would contain
updates, news items etc. and talk.politics.space (or even sci.space.politics?)
the usual heated discussion :-)

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech)

>BTW I think that it not a good basis to start a new newsgroup simply
>because some people are not interested in certain aspects of the discussion.
>eg I am not particularly interested in NASA prediction bulletins, so why not
>sci.space.nasa.prediction.bulletins?

    Actually, that makes a certain amount of sense.  Given the wide
variety of information-only postings to sci.space, sci.space.shuttle,
and sci.astro, collecting them someplace apart from the discussions
might be useful (sci.space.announce?)

    One problem with proposals for breaking down sci.space into more
discussion oriented groups is that there are least two large gateways
- BITNET SPACE-L and Internet SPACE Digest - into sci.space, and those
groups would probably continue to feed material into sci.space rather
than the appropriate subgroup.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)

I think a group for non-science space related postings is a good idea and
I wold support it. However, I think people will find a lot of overlap between
them. Sci.environment and talk.environment went through this a while back
and last time I looked there was a lot of crossposting.

There is also the matter of space-digest. Will they want to see the political
postings? If so, will they be made available? If not, you may find a lot
of political postings from digest readers.

**********************************************************************

From: [e-mail] (Todd L. Masco)

For my part, I'd like to see a different newsgroup for the political
bickering.  I'm biased, of course, but I would prefer not have to put
work into dealing with such a large volume of pure opinion.

I'd probably be unlikely to feed the new group into the SPACE Digest
-- its volume is high enough already.  If there's really a large
outcry from subscribers, I'd be willing to throw together a SPACE
Politics Digest -- but only if enough people already subscribing to
the Digest want to get it.  For my part, I'd be glad to never see the
material again [except for the inevitable cross-posting, I s'pose].

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 18:23:00 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: &[e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], &[e-mail],
        &[e-mail], [e-mail],
        frenchja"%mrgate."[e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail],
        [e-mail], &[e-mail],
        &[e-mail]
Posted: Jun  7 18:14 EDT (Jun  7 22:14 ZULU)
Subject: [R] Laser testing

The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility is now represented on TECNET
and can provide expertise on a wide variety of laser topics.  Please
feel free to address any questions or comments to this address.


MAJ Vernon (Charlie) Bice, U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command, HELSTF

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 91 21:52:11 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Well, it looks like we get to watch Fred bleed and bellow Italian
>lyrics for a while.  Anyone care to guess how long before the fat
>lady sings?

Perhaps a couple years.  Sooner or later the astronaut groupies have
to realize that pissing off scientists and calling their financiers
"bean counters" and making a cult out of centrally planned, pork barrel
space projects is not the best way to keep their beloved astronauts flying.
Sooner or later the Republicans (who voted nearly unanimously to save
Fred against a strong Democrat opposition) will realize that Fred is
180 degrees opposed to their policy of promoting private enterprise and
"letting the market choose the winners" (to quote George Bush).
Even if it is "later" Fred will die much sooner than the NASA bureaucracy
will ever get around to flying any station hardware.

Meanwhile, Freddy Kreuger is back, and ready to start slashing away
at space science, NFS, development of commercial space projects like
COMET, Joust, SII, and advanced satcoms, and whatever other convenient
targets come in range.  Until the vote is reversed, blood will continue
to spill in the war for NASA budget and, more importantly, the war for
the hearts and minds of the space community.   We have a chance to
learn from the past 30 years and return from ignorance; I hope this does
not also get delayed.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #713
*******************