Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO209.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 05:03:45
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #209
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 17 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 209

Today's Topics:
                 Alien substance from space (2 msgs)
               Bioeffects of magnetic field deprivation
                      Clinton and Space Funding
                       Ethics of Terra-forming
                        Ethics of Terraforming
                       Pinging Phobos with TOS
                   Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
                         Population (3 msgs)
                        Pulsing rocket engines
  Seeding Venus (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
             Space Platforms (political, not physical :-)
                              Space Poop
                   Terraforming needs to begin now
            The real issue: massive misallocation of funds

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 92 02:25:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alien substance from space
Newsgroups: sci.space,misc.headlines

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stupendous Man) writes:

:    Anyone have any ideas as to what the substance found on NASA's long
:term exposure unit is?

:    Apparently it's something never before seen on Earth.

:    The substance is a few microns of crystal-like material found on a
:piece of teflon from the structure.

You mean the green crystals that they code named Andromeda?

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------221 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 04:41:46 GMT
From: "Elizabeth G. Levy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alien substance from space
Newsgroups: sci.space,misc.headlines

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>:    Anyone have any ideas as to what the substance found on NASA's long
>:term exposure unit is?
>
>:    Apparently it's something never before seen on Earth.
>
>:    The substance is a few microns of crystal-like material found on a
>:piece of teflon from the structure.
>
>You mean the green crystals that they code named Andromeda?
>
>  Allen


No, no, it's got a strange colour, right?  Just like out of that
Lovecraft story?



--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 02:22:36 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bioeffects of magnetic field deprivation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof)
writes:

>The US and Japan have excellent room-sized magnetically shielded
>facilities.  Dr. Asashima used one for his newt experiments.  Even
>UC San Diego (my alma mater and current employer) has one, but
>it's used mainly for physics experiments.

Hmmm, one of the effects quoted was hair loss.  I bet that the experimenters
at UCSD spend more than 1/3 of there life there....Did you notice if
there were an unusual number of bald physicists?  :)    :)     :)

--
 Shari L Brooks                  |      [e-mail]
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             [e-mail]
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
The US Navy probably disagrees w/all statements/opinions above, which are mine.

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 23:16:52 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Phil G. Fraering) writes:

[opinions on space funding, of course]

>
>I am cross-posting this back to sci.space because I think
>that right now the idea of a separate talk.politics.space
>is asinine.
>
...for which, those of us who can neither recieve nor post to talk.anything
or alt.anything, are profoundly grateful, as this topic does touch on our
livelyhoods...

>           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

Indubitably!  :)

--
 Shari L Brooks                  |      [e-mail]
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             [e-mail]
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
The US Navy probably disagrees w/all statements/opinions above, which are mine.

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 02:03:33 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>I should have known my post would have drawn fire from the anti-lifers..

huh?  I have heard of pro-choice before...   :)

>2) You totally missed the point.  Ethics questions are based on values.
>I submit that you either value life, or not.  No middle ground.

>If you do not value life, then messing with rainforests is OK, as are CFC's,
>DDT, Aids, Polio, and lots of other DEMONSTRATED life-damagers.

>If you do value life, then you will want to protect life here, particularly
>life-forms or -systems upon which your own survival may depend.  Protection
>of other, non-affecting life-forms may be desired for aesthetic reasons,
>or simply to have a 'cushion', or to be safe, in the case of systems or
>forms we don't know much about.

I have puzzled over this a while, and my conclusion is that it is missing
an adjective.  "your" should be in front of "life"; otherwise it is self-
contradictory.  Either there is a middle ground or not; and the last paragraph
quoted above describes a middle ground, where some life is valued more than
other life.  This makes no sense unless "life" is replaced by "your life".

>But, if you do value life, than you must conclude that terra-forming
>Mars would be good, as it would support more life, and, especially, Human
>life.  Or, you may decide that the terra-forming question is intractable,
>unanswerable, nuetral.  In no case would you conclude that terra-forming
>would be bad, unless you are an anti-lifer.

>The only way you can logically make the situation on Mars the same as on
>Earth is to a) Demonstrate that life there affects life here, or
>b) Assert that life-in-general has value without Human life. (This
>choice is the route many greens take, and it is for this reason that many
>people correctly identify them as anti-life double-thinkers.  Anti-life
>non-double-thinkers have to be dead.)  You can also jump out of the system
>and c) claim that value exists seperate from Human Choice.

Ah.  I suppose that works too; instead of "life" we could say "human life".
Actually that's better.  It makes sense that way.

Of course I disagree.  I guess that in Tommy's doublespeak I am an anti-life
double-thinker, as I think that life-in-general does just fine without Human
life.  Or, more to the point, its purpose is not to augment Human life.
Although it might be fun for us to pretend otherwise, we are not God.  The
rest of life, Earth-based or Mars-based, was not put there for us to casually
destroy just because it does not augment our convenience.

>The only possible question about Mars-terra-forming;  "Is it good for us?"

This reminds me of a bit of history.  In the 1970's the US got involved in
some covert activities in Chile.  The US Ambassador to the UN, Jeane
Kirkepatrick, replied when asked about this, "What is good for the US is not
necessarily good for the rest of the world."

>If you think there is some other, more important question, you are an
>anti-lifer, and, unless already dead, a hypocrite.

I guess, then, that I am a hypocrite, because I do think there is some other,
more important question.  A question of ethics.

Of course when it comes down to survival, one wishes to choose one's own
individual life and species survival over and above other individuals and
species.  But when we have developed the ability to completely wipe out
an ecosystem (this assumes we can Terraform Mars, and Mars has some sort of
life, two fairly tall suppositions, I admit), and choose to exercise this
ability just because we *can*, just because it is *convenient* for us, I
maintain it is unethical.

If we have the luxury to truly figure out how to terraform Mars, why then
we have the luxury to figure out how to do it in such a way as to leave the
(already discovered) life and ecosystem intact.

--
 Shari L Brooks                  |      [e-mail]
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             [e-mail]
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
The US Navy probably disagrees w/all statements/opinions above, which are mine.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 08:18:15 PDT
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Ethics of Terraforming

In Space Digest V15 #202,
Tom <[e-mail]> writes:

> [lots of mathematically precise argumentation deleted]
>
>But, if you do value life, than you must conclude that terra-forming
>Mars would be good, as it would support more life, and, especially, Human
>life.  Or, you may decide that the terra-forming question is intractable,
>unanswerable, nuetral.  In no case would you conclude that terra-forming
>would be bad, unless you are an anti-lifer.

This reminds me of the argument of a scientist working here, who, because
of his devotion to Catholicism, said it's always better to have more
people because it means there are more souls to worship God.  He even went
so far as to affirm that it would be even better if humans had shorter
life spans and reproduced more quickly, since that would make even more
souls for the same purpose.

It doesn't necessarily follow that anti-terraformers are also anti-lifers.
Consider the limit, for example, where there are as many humans packed onto
the Earth as the land will allow, packed like sardines in a can, and assume
this state could somehow be maintained indefinitely.  By your formula, you
would be forced to say this was a better situation than the present one,
since there would be more humans, and more is always better, and humans
are better than other life.

Clearly there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dream't of in
your philosophy.  There is a place in Peru that is the driest place on this
planet, where the time between rains is measured in decades.  You could
"terraform" this place, make it into a lush garden, but then you would
have destroyed a thing that exists as much in the mind as it does in
reality.  Mars and the Moon are such places, places where the mind
escapes the solipsism of artifice...

Anyway, the point is there are plenty of points of view that exclude
the desirability of terraforming that do not fit into your Procrustean
formula.  And if you don't think people can righteously object to
terraforming rocks, why don't you suggest making farmland out of
the Alps or the Himalayas?

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
                 "Pave Paradise, put up a parking lot." -- Joni Mitchell

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 10:49:35 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Pinging Phobos with TOS

Nick writes:

Along these lines, perhaps we can steer upper stages headed for
deep space into intercept trajectories, and get some observing
time on a big telescope like Keck or Hubble to see what happens.
For example, could Mars Observer's TOS be steered into Phobos,
or would we have had to tinker with TOS's navigation box beforehand?
Do we know Phobos' orbit well enough to steer blind?  What
could we learn by doing imaging and spectroscopy on the resulting Phobos
debris cloud?  I suspect this would be a great way to learn what lies
underneath the surface layer of regolith.

The collision wouldn't damage Phobos, just put another impact
crater on it.  Some future isotopic ratio studies might be
effected, and the spectroscopy study itself would have to factor
out the TOS debris.

---- end of quoted material...


Who here works on Mars Observer? Who can we talk to about this?


--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 07:16:47 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes:

>[reasons why planetary missions keep ignoring ion rockets -- everybody
> wants the other guy to go first]

>Chemical rockets can get us to Pluto, and quite fast, so ion drive has
>limited appeal.  And as someone else correctly pointed out, using such
>a drive for a orbital mission, as opposed to a flyby, would require that
>you start to slow down after reaching roughly the halfway point.  Flight
>times would be much longer, and there is a sense of urgency to get there
>as soon as possible, for a variety of reasons.

Ion rockets (or more generally, electric rockets including plasma
thrusters) can get us to Pluto faster than chemical rockets, and
with much more payload, for a flyby mission.  They allow missions
that don't need to wait for gravity assist windows, as needed for
Galileo, Cassinni, etc.  They allow missions that rendesvous or orbit
instead of fly by small or distant targets -- even if that is not
desired in this case, it is in many others (CRAF, Rosetta, etc.)
They can increase the target choices of NEAR-like missions manyfold.

Electric rockets can be a superior form of travel for just about any kind
of exploration beyond the Moon, and may also be useful for Earth-orbit
transfers, such as the heavily travelled GTO to GEO run.  If they are a
useful comsat stage, they can most certainly bring enormous improvements
to deep space transportation.  Let's get the planetary exploration
community together to bring about these improvements instead of every
project sitting around waiting for the other guy to do it.


--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 08:52:14 PDT
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Population

One thing many people don't understand about population growth is that
if the birth rate were immediately cut down to the replacement rate,
the population would double in one average life span and then stabilize.

You've probably seen those graphs that show the numbers of people
according to age rank.  In less developed countries, these graphs look
like pyramids, much wider at the lower age ranks that at the higher
ones.  For a stable population, the graph looks more like a rectangle,
with nearly equal numbers at all age ranks except when you get past
the average life span.

Age        Before             After
Rank    Stabilization     Stabilization
70+          ||                 ||
60-70       |  |         |              |
50-60      |    |        |              |
40-50     |      |       |              |
30-40    |        |      |              |
20-30   |          |     |              |
10-20  |            |    |              |
 0-10 |              |   |              |

The population at each age rank stabilizes at the population of lowest
rank at the time stabilization was achieved.  The replacement fertility
rate in the US is about 2.3 children per woman.  The current fertility
rate is about 1.8 children per woman, but the population is increasing,
even after excluding immigration, because of this pyramid filling effect.

So how does this relate to space, and why did I feel compelled to post it?

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Pave Paradise, put up a parking lot." -- Joni Mitchell

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:13:03 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Electric vehicles aren't what's being talked about here. At $35 a barrel
>equivalent, alcohol produced from biomass is economical with known and
>tested techniques available *now*. At $55 a barrel equivalent, Fischer-
>Topish (sp) process synthetic gasoline from coal or shale is economical
>and feasible with techniques known and tested in volume production over
>50 years ago. As the price of oil eventually rises, there are known,
>developed, and available alternative liquid fuel technologies that will
>come on line to take the place of oil. This is a solved problem.

Do I interpret what you are saying is that all fossil fuel dependent
machinery will be supported on alcohol from *biomass*?  I don't count
much on coal extractions much since when they are taxed (shut up, Doug)
they will be diminshed even sooner. A recent lecture I attended reported
oils etc running out in 50 years and coal running out in 100.  50 years
doesn't seem that far away considering our current approach (our
administrations) to alternative enrgies, which seems to be to ignore it.

>Electric vehicles are touted for two main reasons. One, they have low
>point of *use* emissions. And two, they are the ultimate multi-fuel
>vehicle since any fuel that can be used to make electricity can power
>them. However, the storage battery problem remains intractable after
>over a century of development.

Yes, my point from above.

>Electric vehicles, if they become common,

They are already routinely used, although not a wide scale. ~100 mile
range, overnight charge. They are reportedly lower on emissions, even
taking into account coal burning for electricity generation.


>will be externally powered or have short range and a limited performance
>envelope until the battery problem is licked. I don't hold out much hope
>that a miracle battery is on the horizon that will change this. Battery
>science is as complex, if not more so, as rocket science. Rocket science
>hasn't delivered cheap payload of orbit, and battery science hasn't
>delivered cheap, light, high capacity batteries. Some here would claim
>that that's *because* of government funded research, not in spite of it.

Please explain the last sentence.

--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 16:12:23 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

   [ideas for helping the underdeveloped world to feed itself]

    Without these accomodations we will have brushfire wars running out of
   control forever and threatening the erst of us continuously.

But those brushfire wars are going to be significant contributors to
Western economies for the next 20-30 years at least. Sad but true.
Look for instance at the German pullout from the EFA: so they can
develop a cheaper fighter more readily saleable to the 3rd world. Or
at the recent sales of fighters to Taiwan, or the delight of arms
manufacturers at the Gulf War ("Combat-proven" stickers are worth big
$$$). The wars in sub-Saharan Africa would not be so troublesome if
the locals weren't buying arms from elsewhere, nor would the people be
so poor if they weren't spending so much on arms.

The interest of the West lies in fomenting these conflicts, not
preventing them. While this remains true, world-wide peace is a crazy
fantasy.

   If we can put these sorts of controls in place then we _can_ look forward
   to expanding space explorations, even some sorts of colonization. But
   unless we get our own house in order there will never be enough surplus
   energy or political will to do much.

Agreed.

Nick

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

Date: 14 Sep 92 17:18:19 GMT
From: Urban F <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pulsing rocket engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ali AbuTaha, of Dynamic Transients, is claiming that
pulsing-engine technology could enable the Shuttle to carry a
payload of 105.500 kg, as apart from 29.500 today, and also that
an Ariane 4:s first stage could become so efficient as to make it
a SSTO vehicle.

The effect responsible for this is "dynamic overshoot", which is
said to occur at sudden start-up of rocket engines, which has
been largely neglected, he says. He admits that existing systems
would need extensive modifications, and that it won't go quickly.

I'm not capable to judge if this is reasonable, comments please?
[Flight International 16-22 Sept 1992]
--
 Urban Fredriksson   [e-mail]
 "When a woman thinks quickly, it is called intuition." -- Barbro Alving

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 22:49:08 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Venus (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Shari L Brooks) writes:

>>But I have
>>always thought, there are plenty of bacteria & single-celled algae
>>capable of putting up with the Venusian extremes.

>Excuse me?  If by the "Venusian extremes" you mean the surface
>of Venus (with its extreme temperature and pressure), this is
>simply wrong.  No living creature based on the common terrestrial
>model (proteins, DNA, etc.) could survive those conditions.  Indeed,

No, I am thinking of the upper atmosphere, above the sulfuric acid...
I seem to recall that there is oxygen and the atmospheric pressure there
is still survivable.  [to bacteria, not humans!]

I was thinking, that if the upper Venusian atmosphere were "seeded" with
a variety of bacteria, algae, even viruses (although I am fairly unsure
of the efficacy of that), that some would survive, adapt, and thrive.
Eventually evolution would dictate that something would adapt to surviving
lower down.

>even the somewhat less extreme conditions inside hydrothermal
>vents here on earth are too hot for amino acids to survive.

Are these conditions less extreme than the upper atmosphere of Venus?

--
 Shari L Brooks                  |      [e-mail]
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             [e-mail]
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
The US Navy probably disagrees w/all statements/opinions above, which are mine.

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 05:49:00 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>
>Well, now that we've seen bandied about various versions of both the
>Democratic and Republican Official Platforms Re: Space, would anyone
>happen to know the Libertarian Official Space Platform?

From memory, the Libertarian platform has two signficant statements on space:

* Privatize the radio spectrum and orbital slots, and disavow all
  treaties (Sea, Moon, Antartica, etc.) that prohibit private
  property and enterprise in frontier areas.
* Disband NASA, turning over science to the universities, R&D
  operations to commerce, and anything the military needs to the
  military.

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.


--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 03:18:07 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Poop
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jarle
Brinchmann) writes:

Re: debris in space

>If I may ask a question..
>Is there any plans whatsoever to remove or collect some of the debris
>up there ?

Not that I know of...not that I would know.

> I haven't really calculated anything, but I guess that any
>big space-station would have to face the problem that quite a lot of
>debris are flying around up there.

There is a good paper in the most recent issue of the AIAA'a _Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets_ on this problem.  I don't have it handy but the
author has written an analytical model to study the problem of debris in
LEO.

Cross=posted to sci.space because folks who know more about this will be
in that group...

--
 Shari L Brooks                  |      [e-mail]
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             [e-mail]
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
The US Navy probably disagrees w/all statements/opinions above, which are mine.

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 08:33:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Terraforming needs to begin now
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>  This keeps cropping up among the uniformed.
>I'm not uninformed. I just happen to believe in absolute property
>rights held under clear titles.
 That makes you uninformed, or at best naive. What you believe in,
bears no relationship to reality. There is no such thing as absolute
property rights.

>At which time it was taken from them at gunpoint.
 So ???
>No, you cannot turn
>back the clock and give them the continent anymore than you could do
>so in the United States. Ireland isn't big enough to hold all the
>claimants to Irish ancestry in the two places :-) But that does not
>also mean that the "Crown" holds clear title to other lands. It holds
>it only by right of the gun, not by clear title traced back through
>the original owners.
  I can't see your point here. This phrase 'original owners' crops
up several times here, and I can't quite work out who you are
refering to. Do we all trace our ancestry back to the year dot, and
then place claims for land held hundreds of years ago ???
  It doesn't really matter that the land was aquired at gunpoint, this
is a time honoured tradition. You don't seem to understand that the
land was aquired by the Crown in accordance to the laws of the day.
That made it legal in their eyes. If you wish to dispute a claim that
is recognised by law, then you must act outside those laws ie. You
will have to fight. This is why wars of independance are fought.

>I can understand the conditions perfectly. People with more firepower
>came in and raped, killed, stole and otherwise exploited the people
>who lived there. The same thing happened in my country (the USA).
  <sigh> You _don't_ understand. No one living is a nice safe secure
civilised country can possibly understand the mores, morals and
actions of people who were venturing thousands of miles into the
unknown. To impose your own moral pomposity on people living in
conditions you have never experienced is simple arrogance.
>It goes for the US and Canada and Israel and anywhere else where
>property is stolen at gunpoint. As I said, it can never be put back
>as it was. But much property can be returned to its rightful owners.
  You seem to think the determination of 'rightful ownership' is
something simple. If 'twere simple, we wouldn't need courts to
mediate disputes.
   As I've said before, you're ignorant on this subject. Australian
aboringines are, socially, nomadic and natural communists. this is
in the sense that what belongs to one member of the tribe belongs
to all. They have no concept of land ownership, other than that
brought to them by European settlers. The idea of crown, or common
land, is natural to them.

>I might add that there is more to the problems of the aborigines than
>just land rights.
   But as you have pointed out already, these have nothing to do with
the land ownership issue.
>Nuff said in this forum...
  Well why didn't you reply by mail then ??? Public ignorance deserves
a public rebuttal.
 <hint> Documentaries and CNN bradcasts are a lousy way of trying to
understand a society. Too many of us (self included) make the mistake
of taking a little knowledge, applying our own prejudices and coming
up with a black and white answer. Things simply don't work this way.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  voice/fax: [phone]

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 06:09:22 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: The real issue: massive misallocation of funds
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>[NASA spends 66% of space budget on astronauts, less than
>> 1% on telepresence -- does this reflect benefits of each?]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Begley) writes:
>No, it does not, but it does reflect the actual cost of allowing
>humans to go into space versus allowing machines to go into space.
>Technology development closed cycle life support and safe transportation,
>and life science studies, do cost a lot of money.

Quite true.  And out here in the real world, where people lose rather
than gain when things cost more, this is considered a strong argument
for spending less on the astronauts, and more on the telepresence.
We want more functionality for the same $$$.  If we want you and I, not
just a few astronauts, to one day be able to go into space, it makes
far more sense to invest in the telepresence, to help build the
industrial capability that can some day support thousands of people in
space.

As for "humans vs. machines", both humans and machines are involved
in both cases.



--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 209
------------------------------