Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO214.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 05:02:51
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #214
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 18 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 214

Today's Topics:
                Alien substance from space: maybe not?
                          A modest proposal
                         Clinton, Gore, Space
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (2 msgs)
                   Ethics of Terra-forming (2 msgs)
                     Flaming a population fascist
                         Ion for Pluto Direct
Ley and *Engineers' Dreams* (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)
                   Libertarian platform on space...
                      Modest moon rock proposal
                    Ozone depletion (satellite ?)
            Problems answering people from The Federation.
        Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now)
  Seeding Venus (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
        Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) (2 msgs)
                              Space Poop
     Where is it, then? (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)

    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: Thu, 17 Sep 92 11:32:07 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Alien substance from space: maybe not?

Stupendous Man writes:

\Okay people, enough "dilithium crystals" and Andromeda jokes.  Isn't
/anyone really interested in this?

\Brett

Yah. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not the "growth" may just
be some sort of corrosion pattern, i.e. it's part of the Teflon
that didn't corrode away while the rest of that layer evaporated
or something...

\_____________________________________________________________________________
/Proconsul Computer Consulting                                       CHA-CHING!
\Better, Cheaper, Faster                            (Pick any two :)

Cheaper, Faster, and a little eggroll on the side.


--
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: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:36:16 GMT
From: Terry Ballard <[e-mail]>
Subject: A modest proposal
Newsgroups: sci.space

   I expect to get flamed for this, but it's been more than 20 years, and my
understanding is that any research concerning moon rocks has already been
done.  Considering how much moon material there is down here, why couldn't a
few of those rocks be ground into little bits, mounted and sold to the
people who financed those rides in the first place - i.e., the American
public.  Why shouldn't we all have a shot at owning a piece of the moon?
It might even bring down the deficit a bit.

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|                    |                                          |
| Terry Ballard      |    [e-mail]           |
| Systems Librarian  |    or [e-mail]         |
| Adelphi University |    Garden City, New York                 |
| 516-877-3547       |    11530                                 |
| Fax: [phone]  |                                          |
|                    |                                          |
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
*                                                               *
* "Truth is our most valuable commodity - let us economize."    *
*                                                               *
*                                                               *
*                                        Mark Twain             *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 11:16:14 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Clinton, Gore, Space

Alex Howerton writes:
\In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
/>In fact, private ventures will be very important in the future
\>because they aren't subject to the extreme short-term thinking
/>of the government...

\No, they'll only be subject to the short-term thinking of businessmen ;-)

Which isn't as bad as the short-term thinking of government. A lot
of the "never mind long-term, what's the profit this quarter" stuff
is mandated by government investment rules...

--
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: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:05:40 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes:
>Why not drop all the longlived nuclear waste into the sun to permanently
>dispose of it.

1. Transport costs to the sun would be c. $50,000/kg.
2. About 5% of launches go *boom*, to quote a previous post.
   Radioactive materials must be packaged to survive
   this, which can and has been done but is expensive for
   large amounts of material.



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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:17:06 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes:
>Dear wise ones -
>
>Here's a commerical space application that always seems to make a lot of
>sense to me, but I've never seen discussed.
>
>Why not drop all the longlived nuclear waste into the sun to permanently
>dispose of it. The waste is a *very* expensive problem that will otherwise
>be with us (children's children to the nth power) for along time. I've
>seen studies developing warning signs to stay away from disposal areas
>that assume no language commanlity with today. Implies quite a long time.
>I think the halflife of some of the waste is on the order of tens of
>thousands of years.
>
>What little I do know:
>1. The volume and mass of the really nasty stuff is not unreasonable for
>multiple launches.

This would take a very detailed survey. Where have you seen this?

>2. Launch accidents can be designed for so that the waste material stays
>contained and the container is recovered.
>3. Significant (space class) dollars are being spent on what appear to be
>unacceptable alternatives.
>4. Waste disposal is the single biggest technical problem preventing
>growth in the nuclear power industry. (technical, not pr).
>
>So, oh wise ones, enlighten me. What am I missing?

If you can convince congress that the cost of getting many hundreds of tons
of waste out of the Earth's gravitational potential and flying nuclear waste
over the heads of the constituents is worthwhile, you're all set.

You may be correct that it would be cheper to launch it all away than to
constantly pay big dollars on shuffling around and researching 'safer' ways
to store the stuff. But maybe that is a good thing in that it keeps money
being spent in the US and keeps jobs!

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 16:56:01 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   How many species do you know of that:
   1) Can think about long term consequences of their actions.
   2) Are capable of at least some degree of terraforming.
   3) Causes mass extinctions on a daily basis.
   4) Should, many times, "know better"
   4) Has the capability to wipe out all life currently known in one fell swoop.
   5) Controls their enviroment, in all aspects, to suit their needs.
   6) Expands to live in every environment on the planet.
   7) etc. The list can get very long. Point to anything that differentiates
      us from all other life.

None. HS is ruled out by points 3, 4(b), and 5.

Nick

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 13:07:51 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

>  The common theme of all this is obviously a self-congratulatory "We're
>Special!"(1).
>
>>We are a *major* influence here like no othe species before us.
>
>  Changed the environment more than the blue-green algae did?

No, B-G algae did more...BUT they did it w/o awareness that they were doing
it.  Going on the assumption that there is life on Mars (or anywhere for that
matter) then by terraforming we could be destroying a unique thing.

Suppose some aliens showed up tomorrow, and decided to "alienform" the
Earth.  By your arguments they'd be in the right to do so...




David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  [e-mail]    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 11:49:08 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Flaming a population fascist

\And that is exactly the problem,as illustrated so well on this board.
/When the issue of world population emerges noone can agree.
\If the first world subtly or otherwise advocates population control
/they are accused of being both selfish and racist.
\Unfortunately population growth in absolute terms is far more distructive
/when it means more roads,fossil fuel consumption,conversion of agricultural
\acres to paved urban jungles.

Absolute bullshit. The Jungles aren't being burned down by industrialized
people, or replaced by cities. They're simply being turned into desert.

Greater population means more fossil fuel consumption only because
competing sources of energy which are very clean (specifically,
nuclear) have been legislated out of existance, after being legislated
into the least clean form it can take (i.e. the "environmentally correct"
Carter administration banning the recycling of nuclear fuel increaced
the amount of "waste" material a thousandfold and the amount of wasted
effort probably more (since most of the fuel is still useful).

The Sahara wasn't made by cities, or by people burning fossil fuels.
It was made by goats.

\It means all these things much more in the developed countries than
/the third world,but these arguments are frequently used as "smoke
\screens" and leave all population control discussion at loggerheads.

The developed countries can afford to save their wilderness. The
undeveloped ones can't. The developing countries may or may not get
the chance to try, depending on how fast they develop. An interesting
place to look at this is Vietnam: can they get industry fast enough
to not have to destroy their rain forests in order to eat?

\Population control in terms of environmental damage is far the more
/crtical in the USA than Southeast Asia or non-industral areas.

Fine. Supposing I get my tubes tied tomorrow, how in hell is this going
to stop the destruction of the Amazon? How is my not having one child
going to be more helpful than some stupid Brahmins not having
ten (usually all boys, because that's what they've done with _their_
birth-control resources: aborted all of the girls...

How is my sacrifice of the one or two kids I might have going to help
the people in the third-world who are right now having many more kids,
who they cannot take care of without destroying large parts of their
enviornment?

\The world collectively must first admit that human numbers need to be
/controlled. If we can't do this nature eventually will in the cruelest
\terms.

/Unfortunately relgion is 2000 years out of step with reality in most
\places and the status of women the poorest in areas with highest
/population growths.

How you can talk about collective guilt and the need to improve the
status of women at the same time bothers me. Because if there is
such a thing as collective guilt, _they're_ having all the babies.
Personally, I think the only thing 2000 years out of step with reality
is the collectivism. Because that gives all the people an out from
their individual responsibility, and in the avalanche of enviornmental
destruction, each snowflake can plead innocent (apologies to Stanislaw
Lem).


\Perhaps what will evetually happen already has happened in Croasia.
/Open season on all two legged bipeds.
\Perhaps not a bad idea,but not the most humane method of population
/control.

No. That is a case where humans, and the surrounding enviornment (as
trees take the place of fossil fuels in places the fossil fuels
can't get to, and whole forests are wrecked for fuel), are both
being destroyed by a bunch of fascist communist, _collectivist_
("We're going to take those Muslims to task for the collective sins
of their religion, and kill all the five-year-olds!") assholes.
You look like you're on the road to becoming one, you're already
trying to justify them.
--
\                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
/        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
\ References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965

If I could seriously advocate UN military action against anyone,
know I know who...

--
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: Thu, 17 Sep 92 11:53:50 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct

Dave Tholen writes:

\The current Pluto flyby mission design calls for chemical rockets and NO
/Jupiter flyby, and the flight time is about seven years.  Your posting seems
\to be claiming that an ion drive can place twice the payload into orbit around
/Pluto with a flight time of about 3.5 years.  If this were true, I'm quite
\certain that the Outer Planets Science Working Group would have heard of it.

"If it were better, we would have considered it."

I don't want "because". I want the real reasons...

--
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: 17 Sep 92 09:26:17 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Ley and *Engineers' Dreams* (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>
>_The Cooling_ deals with the great environmental Jabberwocky of
>the 70's: The Coming Ice Age, And The Need To Prepare For It.
>The nice part is where it deviates from being politically correct,
>and talks about manmade climate modification on a global scale,
>to help stave off the cooling.
>
>You know, stuff like damming the Bering Straights, and pumping
>water the other way to melt the north polar ice cap...
>
>[Trick question: how much does this raise the sea level?]

Nada. The ice is already floating.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 11:19:15 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Libertarian platform on space...

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>I strongly support the former, but my own position on the latter
>is more relaxed: NASA should reform its bureacracy, privatize its
>infrastructure, such as the DSN and TDRSS communications networks,
>should purchase all launch services, and should pursue R&D in support
>of the commercial space and airline industries as well as conduct
>exploration of space.

And *davE* replies:

\I rather like your idea on the latter.  Keeping NASA but reforming it would
/likely make it better and worthy of tax buckage yet at least give it the
\potential to reach some level of self-sufficiency.  I also think repealing
/laws that restrict private enterprise in space travel and exploration would
\be appropriate as well, as to give NASA some competition.

Please keep in mind that that those positions are too controversial
for a lot of people on the net. I wonder if they think they're helping
NASA or only setting it up for a big fall. When that fall comes, I
wouldn't want all our eggs to be in one basket...

--
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: Thu, 17 Sep 92 12:04:11 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Modest moon rock proposal

\I expect to get flamed for this, but it's been more than 20 years, and my
/understanding is that any research concerning moon rocks has already been
\done.  Considering how much moon material there is down here, why couldn't a
/few of those rocks be ground into little bits, mounted and sold to the
\people who financed those rides in the first place - i.e., the American
/public.  Why shouldn't we all have a shot at owning a piece of the moon?
\It might even bring down the deficit a bit.

I'm not going to flame you. I have a better idea, though.
NASA currently treats the moon rocks as if they're irreplacable,
and there isn't a huge moon still there. They have acted all along
like there will be no more flights to the moon...

Why not rebut that belief: one could build an unmanned sample return
mission that tested fuelmaking from native resources in order
to take back as much moon rock as could be auctioned off...

Any investors?

--
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: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:12:19 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ozone depletion (satellite ?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Andres) writes:
>
>I've been puzzled about something about all the hype with ozone
>depletion and our current status. In the past I've seen pictures
>of the globe indicating "hot spots" and I understand that measurements
>are made with wind ballons over the poles, but this raises a number of
>questions on this subject matter.
>
>[1] Is there, or was there any satellite/payload/module which was
>ever sent up to measure the quanities (?) in space ?  If so, what
>did the actual experiment entail and to whom should I contact for
>further information.

There have been measurements made from just about every type craft you can
imagine; airplanes, sounding rockets, setellites, etc. Papers detailing
those experiments can be found routinely in Science and JGR issues as well
as occasionally Physics today and Sci Am.  You can call the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) here in Boulder and request that you be
sent info on CEDAR (Coupling Energy and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions).
From their newsletter, and their conferences, you will be directed to many
more works on the subject.



>[2] If measurements are done, what are they measuring ? and is this
>being done below the Earth's atmosphere or not ?

Measurents have been made in UV transmission (amount of UV hitting the
surface) UV reflectance (from satellites) and in situ. In situ measurements
have also measured [CFC] and chlorine radical abundances.

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

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 14:09:17 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problems answering people from The Federation.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sounds like an excellent thing to put on an FTP site.

==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |
=(___)=      |    Space Debris Guru    | "You must be," said the Cat, "or you
   U  ...ack!| [e-mail] |       wouldn't have come here."
==============================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 14:57:19 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now)

> 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.
>


It is not uninformed or naive to state that I consider certain
principles to be important. Yes, the world does not work on the
priniciple of absolute property rights and never has. It works on the
principle of who has the most guns and the least morals. That doesn't
make it right.

>   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 ???
>


One can assume that at the time Europeans arrived that the native
peoples "owned" their land through whatever mechanism was
appropriate. The ownership might be vested in the tribe. Property
rights in parts of the US went from tribes to settlers sometimes by
purchase and contract. In those cases there was a valid transfer of
property rights from one group to another. Ie, mutual contract. Sad
to say it was not all so up and up.

> 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.
>


Yes, it does matter, and that IS why wars of independance are fought
today. I'm sitting in the middle of one of them.

> 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.
>


I've not heard Belfast described that way before :-) If saying that
going onto someone elses land without their consent and without
recompense is arrogance, then I'm the most arrogant SOB you are ever
going to meet. If I accept this logic it means that the Serbians are
justified in forcing Croats and Moslems of their lands at gunpoint in
Bosnia. Or do property rights only hold if you are white and
christian?

>   You seem to think the determination of 'rightful ownership' is
> something simple. If 'twere simple, we wouldn't need courts to
> mediate disputes.
>


I hardly said it was simple. I said it was a matter for independant
courts of uninterested parties. Probably decades of adjudication.
Just like Eastern Europe is going through right now.

>    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.
>


Okay. If so then, you wouldn't at all mind just changing the name a
wee bit? Say to "Aboriginal Lands"?

> 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.
>


I've never even seen a documentary on the subject. I have, however,
had contact with an Australian aborigine, and I have certain strong
principles concerning the use of coercion as a means of public
policy. I discuss the property rights issue because I want to see
strong property rights in space, rights invested in the original
settler that can be transferred by that settler and ONLY by that
settle in any way they deem suitable. The abuse of aboriginal peoples
has a great deal to say about how statists deal with ownership. It is
just a matter of convenience to be abrogated whenever it ceases to be
convenient.

I'd much rather we had a new philosophy with us in space. If a
soldier comes into your house and says the state has declared it owns

your property, you kill him; and then you get off at the trial
because it is declared that you defended yourself against armed
robbery. (Guess what happened to native peoples who defended their
property? They got hung, drawn, quartered and declared traitors to
governments they owed no allegiance to. Exactly which side WAS the
civilized one?)

I think space settlers will eventually have to be very well armed as
individuals because the idea of state derived property rights is
indeed too pervasive on earth to ever be changed.

PS: Notice how I've cleverly brought this discussion back to space?
:-)

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 12:17:56 GMT
From: russell wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Venus (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>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.


First, no organic life form *can* survive lower down. Evolution can't
achieve what's biologically impossible (cf. Antarctica is lifeless,
except for a few lichens and some penguins and seals on the coast. The
life forms on Antarctica had millions of years to adapt as the continent
drifted over the south pole, but they died instead.)

Second, algae are the only thing there would be any point in trying to
seed Venus's atmosphere with, because whatever you use has got to be
able to make its own food.

Third, and most important, no life form even similar to anything we have
on Earth at the moment could survive in Venus's atmosphere, not so much
because of extreme conditions of temperature etc., but because the
required nutrients (particularly water) are not available. There is
hardly an atom of hydrogen on Venus, except for in the sulphuric acid.
Also, where would an alga drifting in the upper atmosphere get the
traces of minerals it would need?

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 15:34:02 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)

> Does that mean no more intenational agreements to keep certain

> frequencies clear for radio astronomy?
>


A possible means of handling these items is to place certain
properties in the hands of institutes at the time at which they are
removed from government ownership.

So Yosemite might go to the Sierra Club and the water hole might go
to world radio astronomy consortium.

Thereafter all reallocation of frequencies would be by sale of the
owner (who has absolute property rights :-)

And if you want to explore another area of the spectrum, you need
only purchase the frequency from the current owner(s), rather than go
through a long political battle.

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 14:26:40 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] (Barry Schlesinger) writes:
>
>
>   Does that mean no more intenational agreements to keep certain
>   frequencies clear for radio astronomy?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>Does it mean Cuba can finally turn on its big transmitter and start
>enlightening the population of Florida (+47 nearest states or so)
>as to the true benefits of socialism? ;-) [etc.]

Privatization means the current assignments become tradeable
property rights.  Thus, if Barry needed a used spectrum for
a new radio astronomy experiment, he would go to its owners
instead of the FCC bureacracy to negotiate purchase or rent of
time.  And vice versa, the FCC couldn't pull somebody's frequencies
without compensation.  Violation of the property would be trespassing
and treated as violations of assignment are now.  International
treaties wouldn't be effected except to the extent Libertarians can
renegogiate them to follow the tradeable property rights model.


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

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 14:16:20 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Poop
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |
=(___)=      |    Space Debris Guru    | "You must be," said the Cat, "or you
   U  ...ack!| [e-mail] |       wouldn't have come here."
==============================================================================

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 09:17:45 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Where is it, then? (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes about Terraforming the Sahara:
>
>>      Keep in mind that the
>>    countries that need this are dirt poor.  Come to think of it, all the
>>    countries of the world seem to be broke about now.
>
>Then who has the money?  The people don't; the corporations are posting losses;
>the govt's have deficits; the black market isn't *that* big of a black hole.
>
>Wait, I got it.  It must be the space aliens.  They have taken the world's
>money to pay for the carving of the Mars Face...

Worse actually, the money *evaporated* as the speculative real estate
bubbles broke. $5 million dollar buildings were suddenly worth only
$2 million. The money evaporated. Most of the money supply is not in
dollars, or coins, or gold. Most of the money is "on the books" of
investors. When those book values change with changing markets, the
amount of money changes. With reduced *collateral* value, banks, S&Ls,
and corporations have less assets that can be changed to liquid money.
That's the real cause of the S&L crisis, less than 1% of depositors
money was siphoned off by fraud and misuse. Most of it just disappeared
as the value of the real estate it was loaned for declined.

Gary

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 214
------------------------------