Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO217.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 05:10:49
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #217
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 18 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 217

Today's Topics:
                Alien substance from space: maybe not?
                       Ethics of Terra-forming
                          Hubble's constant
                         Ion for Pluto Direct
                   Libertarian platform on space...
                     NASA working on Apollo rerun
                   phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory
                         Population (2 msgs)
        Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now)
                     Re- Terra-forming, The E-ca
   Require a 10" - 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain for Amateur Optical SETI
        Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...) (2 msgs)
        Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) (2 msgs)
          The Federation is still here, problems answering.

    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: 17 Sep 92 20:32:46 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alien substance from space: maybe not?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

Wasn't this settled, like, two years ago?  At least it was about two years
ago that I attened a presentation at MCAIR that talked about strange
corrosion patterns which included pieces of material mysteriously left
behind.  At first glance they did look like a growth of some sort.  Could
we be talking about the same phenomenon?

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 22:57:07 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alex Howerton) writes:
>Man is not God, Man (or, for the pc sensitive, hupeople) is man, who by
>her very nature must kill and eat to live. No life has the "right" to
>exist, for rights are intellectual creations of mankind. Spacies have a
>biological imperative to survive.

Aren't we getting a little far afield here? We aren't discussing the survival
of the human race. All of the conversation here cannot convince me that
human survival depends on flinging multi-megaton ice comets onto Mars
and Venus. Nor can they convince me that terraforming is anything other
than a fantasy idea from science fiction writers who make money by writing
fantasy.
    If we decide to colonize Mars with earth-developed life forms or
not is purely a matter of choice and ethics. Ethics tells me, at least,
that we should not interfere with any life that may already be there.
Since Mars in all probability doesn't have any life, then it is a
moot point that will only require time and money to ascertain.

>Who knows, a species on Mars might hold the miracle cure for AIDS.

We _already_ know how to prevent AIDS. We _know_ that if homosexuals
limit themselves to monogamous relationships with uninfected individuals
they cannot become infected. We _know_ that intravenous drug users
need only cease their practice to reduce their chances of contracting
the disease to near zero.

We _know_ that should these groups desist their dangerous behavior
that AIDS would no longer exist as a threat.

So why is AIDS funding at almost the same level as cancer research
funding that (cancer) kills 100 times as many people each year and is something
that is only slightly related to behavior and life-style?

And what has this to do with space? As I said before, this whole idea
of space exploration and space colonization requires a fairly stable
and economically (read energy) independant civilization. _All_ problems
that limit the economic well being of a given society threaten the
development of space travel. We must clean up our own backyards
in order to have other backyards to dirty.

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

Date: 17 Sep 1992 13:55 PST
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's constant
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]>, Jon J Thaler <[e-mail]> writes...
>
>> (As a side comment - If my memory is correct, Hubble's constant is used
>> in determining distances in space.  Does this mean that the size of the
>> universe is changing?)
>
>In the standard cosmology the first sentence is true.  Thus, if the
>"constant" is really changing, either:
>* We're in *BIG* trouble, or
>* The standard picture (big bang, and all that) is wrong.  In the standard
>  picture, the time derivative is about one part in 10**10 per year.

OR:
 * You didn't follow the recent sci.physics thread on this subject.  The
Hubble constant is constant in space, not in time.  Simple explanation:

Let's consider two widely separated galaxies, A and B, which are currently
M megaparsecs apart and travelling with relative velocity V.  Let's neglect
peculiar velocities, and talk as if V were all due to the Hubble flow. In
some units, the hubble constant is H = V/M.  Now wait for a time T = M/V.
(V is measured in Mpc/sec).  After T seconds have passed, the separation
of the two galaxies is now 2M.  But the relative velocity is still V,
so the Hubble "constant" is now V/2M = H/2.  This value would be somewhat
modified depending on whether the Universe is open or closed, i.e., what
the overall decceleration due to self-gravitation the Universe has.  But
you get the idea.

I've added sci.physics to the distribution, since if you have any more
questions I will immediately be in over my head without some help.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 14:35:47
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct
Newsgroups: sci.space

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


   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...

The real reason is that there are no ion thrusters
available with the thrust necessary that have been tested
for continuous very long period firings. ie no ion thruster has
imparted a large delta v to anything, and no one mission is willing
to be the test bed, not being willing to risk losing the science when
it can be done using chemical thrusters.

I honestly don't know what that test from a couple of decades ago
you referred to consisted of, but it cannot have fired long and hard,
and there are known lab problems with continuous firing ion thrusters,
one I know of is erosion of the electrode which degrades the
performance severely after N hours of operation.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 20:25:34 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Libertarian platform on space...
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

Not as controversial as some believe it is.  TDRSS already is privatized
(it's owned by Contel), and DSN is owned by JPL (which is operated by
CalTech).  NASA already is purchasing launch services from McDonnell Douglas,
Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, and EER Systems (did I forget anyone?)
The Pentagon also purchases launch services from OSC/H trhough DARPA.
Consort, Spacehab, most Get-Away-Specials, and many mid-deck locker experi-
ments are quasi-commercial ventures.

The controversy erupts over *how much* commercial R&D should be funded at
the expense of exploration.

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 20:50:52 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

Some miscellanous responses to comments on this thread:

I also applaud Dan Goldin.  I hope he or somebody like him lasts
through the election.

Commercial procurement for these kinds of projects is a good idea,
but it is still not the same thing as providing services
to several customers in a market.  We need to specify the goal as
abstractly as possible: for delivering cargo to the moon, specs
like where it is delivered from, how it is delivered, etc. should be left
up to the market.  On the other hand, one can question why we should deliver
it to the moon, instead of for example to Clarke orbit, which is much
more important commercially.

There should at least be solid business plans and working
industrial prototypes in hand showing that the commercial
moon-ventures are going to pay off, before NASA decides that
that market, and not another (eg asteroids) is worthy of major
incentives.  Otherwise, it is likely that the moon-ventures will
claim to be "commercial" more in order to get NASA contracts, than
because they serioulsy expect commercial promise beyond NASA.
I note we have several "commercial" ventures of this kind today,
that are after several years still totally dependent on NASA, including
COMET (formerly Space Services Inc.) and Spacehab.  A far more
successful example is comsats, where NASA came in after major
market players like AT&T had already invested over $100 million, and
helped get that market off the ground.  It followed and supported the
market instead of going off in its own direction.

I agree that as long as they are postulating new launchers, FLO really
should go with SSTO and skip the monster-HLV spectaculars.  The
automated equipment, for example prototype LOX plant and brick-maker,
can use existing launchers like Ariane, Titan, and Atlas 2.  I find
it very improbable that FLO will be funded before SSTO is flying, anyway.

Alas, exploration and science seem to provide little justification
for such ventures -- the NASA planetary science budget is now down
to $300 million per year, infinitesimal compared to the needs of
just this one astronaut lunar project. The priorities assumed
by FLO are just way out of whack.

I agree completely on the point about how much our society
wastes in lobbying government to do things, instead of doing them
ourselves.  It was claimed by some wag that _most_ of the cost
of NASA missions is devoted to PR in one form or another, and
I couldn't disprove it.  The very choice of the missions they
undertake seems dominated more by PR than by considerations
of scientific, engineering or commercial value.

Pet lunar rocks we're suggested, but that may not be a very
large market; after all we have thousands of space-rocks in the form
of meteors which aren't that pricy.  One near-term lunar industry
may be VR tourism, with near-real-time teleoperation of lunar rovers,
hoppers, walkers, etc. by the tourist.  This could get off the ground
with little capital by sharing the Artemis lander/rover infrastructure
with NASA, ESA, etc. scientists and explorers.  In one or
two decades we may all be able to walk on the moon for $50
an hour or so, with the experience superior to walking in a spacesuit
in most ways.

FLO remains politically improbable. It has to either borrow heavily
from other parts of NASA -- eg cancel SSF and totally kill the rest
of the planetary science budget -- or NASA's funding has to increase
substantially in an era where politicians are finally getting around
to being concerned about the deficit.


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

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 14:39:11
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leslie A Dent) writes:


   Does anyone have a phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory which is on top of
   Mt. Hamilton in San Jose, CA.  My husband wants to find out if he can
   take a group of jr high students up there for a tour.

   Thanks,
   Leslie Dent


mail bounced: here's the info...

From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Sep 17 14:05:25 1992
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:01:33 -0700
From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Message-Id: <9209172101.AA17288@topaz>
To: steinly@topaz
Status: R

  --- The transcript of the session follows ---
421 ruts.ccc.amdahl.com.tcp... Deferred: A system call received a parameter that is not valid.
550 [e-mail] (Leslie A Dent)... Host unknown: A system call received a parameter that is not valid.

  --- The unsent message follows ---

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 14:01:33 -0700
From: steinly (Steinn Sigurdsson)
To: [e-mail] (Leslie A Dent)
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 17 Sep 92 17:45:46 GMT
Subject: phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory



   Does anyone have a phone # for Mt. Lick Observatory which is on top of
   Mt. Hamilton in San Jose, CA.  My husband wants to find out if he can
   take a group of jr high students up there for a tour.

   Thanks,
   Leslie Dent

Try 408-459-5936 that is the Mt Hamilton Guide's Office.
If that doesn't work call 408-274-5061 which should have
an information recording, if that doesn't work call
408-459-2993 which is the director's assistant office and
they'll point you in the right direction!

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 20:55:30 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <gdavis.716682418@griffin> [e-mail] (Gary Davis) writes:

> And that is exactly the problem,as illustrated so well on this board.
>If the first world subtly or otherwise advocates population control
>they are accused of being both selfish and racist.... The world
>collectively must first admit that human numbers need to be controlled.
                                    ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

What this really translates into is "human *beings* must be controlled."
You, of course, probably see yourself as one of the controllers,
which means that your goals are not "selfish."  But the accusation
of racism is no less true just because the race you hate is the human
race.

Environmentalist (noun) -- Someone who loves the Earth and
every species on it, except one.

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 23:00:00 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes...
>In <gdavis.716682418@griffin> [e-mail] (Gary Davis) writes:
>
>> And that is exactly the problem,as illustrated so well on this board.
>>If the first world subtly or otherwise advocates population control
>>they are accused of being both selfish and racist.... The world
>>collectively must first admit that human numbers need to be controlled.
>                                    ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>What this really translates into is "human *beings* must be controlled."

So what?  War, murder and rape need to be controlled.  To do so means, likely,
that human beings must be controlled - or more well educated.   What's your
point?

>You, of course, probably see yourself as one of the controllers,
>which means that your goals are not "selfish."  But the accusation
>of racism is no less true just because the race you hate is the human
>race.

You are perhaps the only person on the planet who would identify concern
with the environment with either self-hate or racism.   Personally, I am
concerned for the environment out of pure unabashed self-interest.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 17:40:13 GMT
From: "Gerald W. Lester" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>... Or do property rights only hold if you are white and
>christian?
> ...
>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?)
>

    No, it does not even apply if you are a white christian in the U.S.
In the 1860's thousands of white (and some black) christians (and
non-christians) were deprived of their "property" by an executive order without
any compensation.  This order is commonly refered to as the Emacimation
Proclaimation.  After the fighting was over the states that had withdrawn from
the U.S. were "helped" for several years (read pillaged/looted) with most of
the "natives" not allowed to vote in elections.

    Was the U.S. goverment wrong to step on the "property" rights of the
slave oweners?  If not, how do you reconcile that with your property rights
argument?

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 22:58:53 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re- Terra-forming, The E-ca
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>I bet you thought Arthur Clarke was wasting his time writing about
>communications satellites and geosynchronous orbit.

And I'll bet you thought that Buck Rogers was real.

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 21:50:27 GMT
From: Stuart A Kingsley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Require a 10" - 14" Schmidt-Cassegrain for Amateur Optical SETI
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

From the chairman of SPIE's January conference on THE SEARCH
FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE (SETI) IN THE OPTICAL SPECTRUM.

The last paper in the conference, which is to be held at the Airport Hilton
at Los Angeles airport, is on Amateur Optical SETI.  I am looking to
acquire a 10" - 14" SC telescope for my prototype observatory.  It must
have an excellent drive system that can be interfaced to a PC for
unattended monitoring of stellar spectra.

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has such a telescope to sell.

Stuart

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 20:49:47 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Yes, I'm sure that the Wright Flyer would have been a hell of a biplane
>after 30 years of add ons too. That would still leave it outclassed by
>later designs.

So, do you know how long Boeing's been building the Model 747?
Can you name one later design that has "outclassed" it?  Sometimes
it's better to incororate new technology into an old, proven
"workhorse" design than take the risk of developing a new design,
which may or may not be better, from scratch.  Sometimes.

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 21:44:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes...
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Yes, I'm sure that the Wright Flyer would have been a hell of a biplane
>>after 30 years of add ons too. That would still leave it outclassed by
>>later designs.
>
>So, do you know how long Boeing's been building the Model 747?
>Can you name one later design that has "outclassed" it?  Sometimes
>it's better to incororate new technology into an old, proven
>"workhorse" design than take the risk of developing a new design,
>which may or may not be better, from scratch.  Sometimes.
>
The first Boeing 747-100's flew in 1968 if I remember correctly.  They have
been extensively modified since that time to carry more fuel, passengers,
better engines, control systems.  It is interesting that each time a new
upgrade has been added, the FAA required a new certification program as if
the upgrage was a new plane.

Also the follow on for the 747 is in the works.  It is called the 777 and
is a heck of a bird if all of the Boeing propaganda I have seen is true.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 21:30:18 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[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] (Frank Crary) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >   Does that mean no more intenational agreements to keep certain
   >   frequencies clear for radio astronomy?

   >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? ;-)

   >Or does it mean I can go out and bomb the local country stations
   >to clear the air for the low power alternative rock stations?

   >Maybe Hughes should start development work on "bumper" satellites,
   >might be some neat ways to clear out valuable orbital slots needed
   >soon...

   I doubt it: The Libertarians generally make clear exceptions, for
   occasions where one person harms another. In all of the above cases,
   I suspect they would insist on no preventative regulation before hand,
   but arrest or support civil suits against anyone doing that sort of
   thing, _after_ they had done it.

??? My understanding on the radio was that if you wanted to pay the
money to outpower someone on a frequency they either had to ante up
or buy you out. So why couldn't the cubans turn on their counter to
Radio Matri (sp?)  - which under current rules the US has indicated
they'd bomb if turned on...

as to the satellite slots, if the treaty is abrogated and no slot
assignments are allocated, why not just muscle out your favourite
slot?


|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 21:39:00 GMT
From: Charles L Isbell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.libertarian

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
[on radio frequencies]
|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.

You're avoiding the big question by talking about conversion from
*now*.  How do you address the question of frequency ownership (from a
purely private view) absent an initial government intervention?

Let us posit that Star Trek had the right idea and subspace
frequencies exist.  When Widget company invents a sub space
communicator, do they immediately own all of the subspace frequencies?
Isn't this, by definition, a monopoly?  Must a governmental body first
divide up the frequencies and assign them before a free market
mechanism can be employed?

What if two weeks later Acme invents a similar device?  By using it to
broadcast on the newly discovered subspace frequencies, are they
violating the property rights of Widget?  I'm not clear on how this
becomes a practically ownable resource.  Seems like air or something.

--
Peace.
          "Any Black man who's educated and speaks articulately is not
           considered 'really' Black.  It's the same reason people think
           you're a dyke."
"People think I'm a dyke?"
          "Take it as a compliment,  I've learned to."
                                    -Kyle Baker, Why I Hate Saturn
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 16:11:52 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Federation is still here, problems answering.
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.alien.visitors

Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Problems answering people from The Federation.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:15:05 AST
Organization: University of Alaska
Lines: 66

Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: The Federation is still here
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:59:53 AST
Organization: University of Alaska
Lines: 34

Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: The Federation is still here
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:53:25 AST
Organization: University of Alaska
Lines: 25

Hello All

Yes, The Federation is still here, at the moment for those still
interested, it is still here and still reachable. We still want to
hear from people interested in it or new people interested in the
Federation.
    For those of you who are new to the Federation ideas, this is
what we are:  We are a group of people who feel it is high time we got
off this rock and started exploring the great unknown of space.  We have
drawn out in blue print form a drive system that is a a super semi conducting
crystaline structure. It looks good on paper but we haven't been able to
test it yet. As always the problem is money. The Federation has been working
on a personal funds of the few members base at the moment.  We do have a
info packet that we will happy to give you. You must have a mac that has
5.0 microsoftword or better. Send us a 3.5 floppy and we will put it
on there for you. send to this adrress

The Federation
C/O Lady Rhavyn
Po box 231772
Anchorage, Alaska
          99523-1772

If you have any questions feel free to send to this account.

[e-mail]

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

    I have had a problem sending the small version of the Federation
Manual overthe E - Mail system.   It seems it does not like some the of the
addressesI am using that people send me.  Please be sure that you include in
your E-mail request, your internet/bitnet E-mail address so that I have the
correct address to send it to you.
    My problem has been that I have had to, on occassion take it off the
beginning of your messages.  Either I am  not copying it down correctly or
the computer is scrambled, or it does not like the address and so I get a
message from the postmaster telling me it doesn't like that address.  I do
apologize to those of you who asked for the info and never received it. Please
try again.

Member of the Federation
* May the Force be With You *

Thank you
Sincerely
Lady Rhavyn
Memeber of the

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 217
------------------------------