Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO219.TXT

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

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 05:03:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #219
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 19 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 219

Today's Topics:
                "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
                                <None>
                      A modest proposal (2 msgs)
               David Knapp, I can't reach you by email
                       Drop nuc waste into sun
                Energy supplies  was (Re: Population)
                                Ethics
                   Ethics of Terra-forming (2 msgs)
                     Flaming a population fascist
                          microvawe FET HEMT
                           Object 1992 QB1
                PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO
                              Population
                         Population Fascism!
        Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now)
             Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
            Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)

    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: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 16:10:31 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
Newsgroups: sci.space

It is CLEAR that this so-called BOOK is a complete PILE of cranky
BULLSHIT.

Nick

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 14:23:10 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: <None>
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> RELEASE:  92-154
>
> GOLDIN ANNOUNCES INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE NASA PERFORMANCE
>         **  EOS, AXAF, and Cassini High Priority -- Delivery on these science
> missions is a very high priority.

But...
>         **  Cassini Redesigned -- [...]
>         Key features of the re-designed mission include:  Cassini-unique
> spacecraft with body-fixed instruments, and a lighter spacecraft permitting
> the launch by a standard Titan IV vehicle.

I guess this puts an end to the fiction of the Mariner Mark II
"series," huh?

>         **  Town Meetings -- NASA will share its vision, mission and values
> with the American people during a series of town meetings, scheduled to
> begin in November, as well as allow prime contractors, small and
> disadvantaged businesses and the university community to express their
> views.  Planned locations include Hartford, Raleigh-Durham, Tampa,
> Indianapolis, Los Angeles, and Seattle.

Skipping Chicago yet again...

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 13:33:32 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: A modest proposal
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas
Clarke) writes:
> >Reminds me of a scheme a friend and I batted around once:  Rent a GAS
> >CAN (Shuttle getaway special cannister), fill it with small open glass
> >vials.  Once in orbit, expose the interior to space and seal the vials
> >with timed resistance heating or some such mechanism.  After recovery
> >mount the vials tastefully on wooden plaques and sell as PERSONAL SPACE.
> >
> >I wonder if the treaty Henry cites prohibits the private possession
> >and commercial sale of bits of nothing returned from space ?
>
> Not that I know of. :-)  But the NASA regulations on what you can do in
> GAS cans most assuredly do.  (Assuming you could even get a GAS flight
> opportunity; last I heard they were so horrendously backlogged that
> it was "don't call us, we'll call you".)
> --
Yeah, the NASA regs were evntually stopped our speculations.
Now there's Pegasus and other commercial launchers though.
Let's see, if a vial weights 1 gram, that's about 400/pound.
I you could sell a vial of space for $30 retail, you could maybe
make a profit if each via cost $10 to fill.  So if launch
(and recovery) costs were < $4000/lb, it might be commercially
viable.  -- Wait a minute, you could grab some space with
a suborbital flight; that would bring costs way down.

Pet Rocks - the way to space ?

Can you think of other high mark-up potential consumer
products from space, e.g.:
-high end audio cable, annealed in zero-G for smoother sound
-art objects made in zero-G
????
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 15:38:33 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A modest proposal
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:

>Yeah, the NASA regs were evntually stopped our speculations.
>Now there's Pegasus and other commercial launchers though.
>Let's see, if a vial weights 1 gram, that's about 400/pound.
>I you could sell a vial of space for $30 retail, you could maybe
>make a profit if each via cost $10 to fill.  So if launch
>(and recovery) costs were < $4000/lb, it might be commercially
>viable.  -- Wait a minute, you could grab some space with
>a suborbital flight; that would bring costs way down.

Yah, maybe you could rent and modify DC-X to do the experiment
after the test flights are done...

>Pet Rocks - the way to space ?

>Can you think of other high mark-up potential consumer
>products from space, e.g.:
>-high end audio cable, annealed in zero-G for smoother sound
>-art objects made in zero-G
>????

None of this sounds as good as the fact that I need my personal space...

--
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: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 19:00:56 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: David Knapp, I can't reach you by email
Newsgroups: sci.space

My email to [e-mail] keeps dying, so I'm posting this
mail reply here....

To: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terra-forming
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 18 Sep 92 08:30:04 MDT."
             <[e-mail]>

HS = Homo Sapiens.

3: "causes mass extinctions on a daily basis"

Nope. "causes extinctions on a daily basis," yes. But a _mass_
extinction is an event like K-T (extinction of the dinosaurs), and
simply cannot happen every day.  Possibly HS could be accused of a
single mass extinction.

4b: "Has the capability to wipe out all life currently known in one
    fell swoop"

Nope. Definitely not "all life", probably not even "most life". Most
life is fairly radiation-hard, and even global thermo-nuclear warfare
would leave most of it standing. IMO it would even leave some hom.sap.
alive (not many, probably only ~1e8). I read an analysis once which
uniformly distributed the radiation from such a war across the surface
of the planet. The rainforests actually _benefit_, in a way, because
people stop chopping them down and the increased mutation rate does
wonders for the variety of species.... The greatest effect turns out
to be from the `nuclear winter' scenario, which could cause a mass
extinction but which would definitely be smaller than the K-T event.

5. "Controls their environment, in all aspects, to suit their needs"

Well I might consider my needs suited by having 0.5 gravities in my
office....

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the thrust of your argument: that
since we have significantly screwed this biosphere we need to be
extraordinarily careful with any other which we encounter (if we
discovered _any_ life on Mars I would advocate leaving the planet
entirely alone, barring scientific missions). But I think you put it
too forcefully: HS does not affect the Earth as radically as you
suggest.

Nick

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 19:24:41 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun

> >So, Venus gets my vote, assuming the problems and concerns with
> >launching the material from Earth are solved.
> >
>

> Hey! What about us Vesuvians??
>


You sho' don't sound italian... :-)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 19:33:19 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Energy supplies  was (Re: Population)

> Geothermal power from liquid and from dry reservoirs offers the
> potential for very very large amounts of power. A few shallow
liquid

> reservoirs are being tapped today, but the greatest potential is
for

> deep dry heat reservoirs. This is probably the largest untapped
source

> of energy on the planet that is obtainable with minimal engineering
> advances.
>


A minor quibble with an otherwise fine peice: geothermal has been
having problems in some areas (California). It depends upon there
being enough subsurface water to bring the geothermal energy to the
surface in the form of high temperature steam. Over drilling depletes
the water table and energy extraction falls off. And no, it is not
all that easy to get water pumped down into the layer. There have
been suggestions of doing things to cause fracturing of the rock
layers, but I don't think anything has been really done on this yet.
And I doubt Project Plowshare is going to be revived any time soon
:-)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 17:21:20 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes a
lot of rather bizarre things, of which this is a rushed sample:

   So, again, the question is "Is it GOOD to terra-form Mars?"  Unless you
   contradict your own eixistence by asserting a) that life-in-general is good,
   regardless of human existence, or b) that values have no realtion to human
   choice, you must conclude that terra-forming Mars is good, if you beleive
   that life is good.

Neither of these contradict anything of the sort.

   It's really that simple. You can't have a 'should' in a conclusion without
   a 'should' in the premise.  If you have a should in your conlcusion, it's
   pretty easy, in this case, to trace back the logical steps to the premise.
   In your case, the premise MUST BE 'Life is bad'.

Bull.

   Oops, sorry, there are a few other positions possible. But I've totally
   ignored them, making certain assumptions about the people on the list.

Unwise.

   You can claim that 'value' has independent existence, which means you
   have to measure it, explain what it's made of, etc.  Or, you can claim
   that some force/being/diety/whatever makes value, not Humans.  The first,
   though possible, is so unlikely, given the (lack of) evidence that I am
   calling it impossible.  The second requires the existence of something
   that makes all science and logic impossible (the untestable hypothesis,
   God, or the omnipotent premise, whatever you want to call it).  Since
   it defeats logic, the best it can do for you is to make the question
   unanswerable.

And you then go on in other places to say "God is dead" and "God
doesn't exist". Well, I'm sure the philosophers of the world will be
delighted that you've settled this so definitively for them. Whether
terraforming Mars is arrogance or not, _this_ is. "God makes all
science and logic impossible" indeed. Try telling that to the many,
many scientists who believe in some God or other. One can argue
equally that the _nonexistence_ of God makes science and logic
impossible. Read some history and philosophy of science.

   [...]

   I refuted it, and have yet to see an argument based on LOGIC that supports
   the premise that "we can/will hurt Mars by terra-forming."

Right, here's two:

1. Fred values diversity of lifeforms and living environments. If
there is life on Mars, then terraforming Mars will irrevocably destroy
the living environment there. You can't just terraform half of Mars,
or just 99%: it's all or nothing. Therefore it is a BAD thing (by
Fred's value system).

2. Harry values all life. He thinks that if you can genuinely
terraform Mars, and make it into a fertile planet, that would be a
good thing. But he's sceptical that you can actually do what you
claim: he thinks that slamming comets into Mars will destroy the
fragile ecosystem that exists there but _fail_ to make it fertile.
Therefore attempting it is an UNWISE thing (by Harry's value system).

If there is no life on Mars, do whatever you like with it: it's just a
rock (by my value system).

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 10:14:03 GMT
From: Bertil Jonell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>>>How many species do you know of that:
>>>3) Causes mass extinctions on a daily basis.
>>>5) Controls their enviroment, in all aspects, to suit their needs.
>>>6) Expands to live in every environment on the planet.
>>
>>  All species that have the capability of doing so.
>
>And how many are that?

  All species 'strive' to do so. Some species cause the extinction of others
(blue-green algae, for example), some control their environemnt (if you belive
in the Gaia hypothesis, most species shape their environment), and some
species are very wide spread.

  The difference between humanity and the rest is just a matter of degree.

>>  The common theme of all this is obviously a self-congratulatory "We're
>>Special!"(1).
>
>Which, you must admit, we are. At *least* in the areas I've outlined.

  Compared to all other currently living species, humanity is the *single*
largest influence, but just a tiny fraction of all the things that influence the
environment are of human origin.

>>>We are a *major* influence here like no othe species before us.
>>
>>  Changed the environment more than the blue-green algae did?
>
>Yes.

  Not until humanity has increased the percentage of a certain gas in the
atmosphere from close to zero to 20%, and extinguished most of the species
on earth, can we start to do the comparision.

>>reformatted quotes:
>>>....Mankind is most certainly a special case when you point to 'nature.'..
>>>..The power that mankind currently has....You can see the bullet holes all
>>>around you....*We* decide what is moral....What you see in nature is nothing
>>>near the result of a 'relatively ignorant' species.
>
>What is your point?

   That the quotes are just different ways of bragging about how all-powerful
humanity is.

>>(1) This also has some connection to the question "What's the difference
>>    between George Bush and Noam Chomsky?" where the correct answer is that it
>>    is very small. Both believe that the US is the mightiest country in the
>>    world. Both believe that US domestic politics drives all international
>>    politics. Both believe that the world as it looks today is a creation of
>>    the US.
>>    1/2:)
>
>I don't understand the connection.

  The connection is that similarly to that many humans want to think that
humanity is all-powerful and rules the world for worse or better (depending
on if they are environmentalists or not), many Americans want to think that
the US isn't a country like all the rest, different just in degree, but some
all-powerful entity that all alone shape the thoughts, politics and history of
the world.

  If you answer "But arn't we?" to both questions you are merely proving my
point:)

>>-bertil-
>David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 14:28:28 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>>>  To make a very silly example, if mooses suddenly would become capable of
>>>living anywhere, escape any predator and plan for the future, I'd expect them
>>>to use all this (especially the last thing) to exapand and spread to their
>>>utmost limits.
>
>>Yes, that *is* a silly example, because that isn't reality. Why pose silly
>>examples to realistic problems?
>
>I think the point is that humans are no more or less moral, in their
>treatment of the environment, than any other animal, although the
>effects of our actions may be more noticable.

Which is a sad statement considering we are the only species that can come
to conclusions based on moral judgments.

>>>>We are a *major* influence here like no othe species before us.
>>>  Changed the environment more than the blue-green algae did?
>>Yes.
>
>Didn't this radically alter the composition of the atmosphere (raising
>oxygen from near zero to almost 20%) and thereby cause a huge number
>of species to become extinct? Are you saying that humans have altered
>the environment more than this?

I guess it's a subjective statement, huh. I think that humans have the
*potential*, the capability, to change the environment *much* more than that.
Yes. Perhaps the reason we haven't had full nuclear exchange, or done
more damage than we all ready have is because of moral considerations? Can
you imagine how the world would be if all industrialized nations had
the XSU's approach to environmental mangament?






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

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 19:08:20 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Flaming a population fascist

> ("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.
>


Keep it clean guys. No punching below the belt, no eye jabbing, no
jock strap pulls...

Debate hard, but watch the direct name calling, okay?

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 15:02:44 GMT
From: massimo mazzucchi <[e-mail]>
Subject: microvawe FET HEMT
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ciao io sono Max studente di informatica di Milano
non direttamente ma per un mio amico, riguardo le microonde,
lui lavoro nel settore spazio e precisamente nella
costruzione di satelliti

vorrei informazioni circa la
caratterizzazione in corrente continua

DI FET HEMT



Sono grato a chi mi sapra' dare una risposta al seguente indirizzo
di email:

[e-mail]



ciao e grazie.




hi

I am Max, student of computer science of Milan

my friend, that work to build of satellit, would know information about
MICROVAWE

and especially for

caracterizaction in direct current

di FET HEMT

If you want\can help me send to me mail at the address

[e-mail]

Thanks and bye!!

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 20:03:30 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Object 1992 QB1
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

                                                  Circular No. 5611
Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION
Postal Address: Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Telephone [phone]/7444 (for emergency use only)
TWX 710-320-6842 ASTROGRAM CAM     EASYLINK 62794505
MARSDEN@CFA or GREEN@CFA (.SPAN, .BITNET or .HARVARD.EDU)


1992 QB1
     D. Jewitt, University of Hawaii; and J. Luu, University of
California at Berkeley, report the discovery of a very faint object with
very slow (3"/hour) retrograde near-opposition motion, detected in CCD
images obtained with the University of Hawaii's 2.2-m telescope at Mauna
Kea.  The object appears stellar in 0".8 seeing, with an apparent Mould
magnitude R = 22.8 +/- 0.2 measured in a 1".5-radius aperture and a
broadband color index V-R = +0.7 +/- 0.2.

     1992 UT             R.A. (2000) Decl.
     Aug. 30.45568    0 01 12.79   + 0 08 50.7
          30.59817    0 01 12.19   + 0 08 46.9
          31.52047    0 01 08.37   + 0 08 22.7
          31.61982    0 01 07.95   + 0 08 19.9
     Sept. 1.35448    0 01 04.90   + 0 08 00.6
           1.62225    0 01 03.76   + 0 07 53.3

     Computations by the undersigned indicate that 1992 QB1 is currently
between 37 and 59 AU from the earth but that the orbit (except for the
nodal longitude) is completely indeterminate.  Some solutions are
compatible with membership in the supposed "Kuiper Belt", but the object
could also be a comet in a near-parabolic orbit.  The particular
solution below is the direct circle (but a retrograde circle some 15 AU
larger in radius also fits); Jewitt and Luu note that a cometlike albedo
of 4 percent then implies a diameter of 200 km and that the red color
suggests a surface composition rich in organics.  Further precise
astrometry during the late-September dark run should eliminate some
possibilities, but a satisfactory definition of the orbit will clearly
require follow-up through the end of the year.  The object's phase angle
reaches a minimum of less than 0.01 deg around Sept. 22.5 UT.

     Epoch = 1992 Aug. 26.0 TT     Arg.lat. =   0.335
                                      Node  = 359.440   2000.0
     a = 41.197 AU                    Incl. =   2.334

1992 TT     R. A. (2000) Decl.     Delta      r    Elong. Phase      V
Sept.15     0 00.09    + 0 01.7   40.200   41.197  172.5    0.2     23.4
     25    23 59.33    - 0 03.1   40.195   41.197  177.5    0.1     23.4
Oct.  5    23 58.58    - 0 07.9   40.220   41.197  167.5    0.3     23.5
     15    23 57.87    - 0 12.5   40.275   41.197  157.4    0.5     23.5


1992 September 14              (5611)              Brian G. Marsden
--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 13:20:32 GMT
From: Jonathan McDowell <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Greg F Walz Chojnacki):
> This was reported in IAU circular 5611. Marsden computed possible orbits,
> one of which was as described above. The belt, called the Kuiper belt,
> was posited originally by the great planetary astronomer Gerard Kuiper,
> I think the '50s.
> Greg


I think it's too early to be sure that 1992 QB1 is
a Kuiper object, but it's real interesting whatever
it is. I wanted to point out that this is not a
chance discovery; Jane Luu (who was a postdoc
here until a few weeks ago) and her collaborator
have been very carefully searching for such an object
for some time. It's nice to see a well thought out
and planned experiment come to a successful fruition.

 - Jonathan McDowell


 .-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
 |  Jonathan McDowell                 |  phone : [phone]                |
 |  Harvard-Smithsonian Center for    |                                        |
 |   Astrophysics                     |                                        |
 |  60 Garden St, MS4                 |                                        |
 |  Cambridge MA 02138                |  inter : [e-mail]   |
 |  USA                               |  inter : [e-mail]      |
 '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 14:32:00 GMT
From: Barry Schlesinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <gdavis.716682418@griffin>, [e-mail] (Gary Davis) writes...
>                ...
> And that is exactly the problem,as illustrated so well on this board.
>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.
>                              ...

AIDS, like plague and smallpox before it.

                speaking for myself only
                Barry Schlesinger

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 13:32:06 GMT
From: Gary Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population Fascism!
Newsgroups: sci.space

 Why are those folks who would find the Earth a much more attractive\
place to live with fewer people characterized as population fascists?
Its clear that the carrying capacity of this planet is finite and that
the joys of living for many of us come from open spaces,intact forests,
clear and natural areas and so forth.

Most religions teach that man is the most important creature in the
entire Universe. This to me is the upmost in hubritic none sense.

And Oh, yes... I suppose if God had not wanted so many people on this
planet,why did he make so many of them?

That reminds me of a population discussion I had with a former student
of mine. When I asked him how many children would make an ideal family
he gushed," just as many a Jesus will send us".
When asked about population concerns he responded," God would not let
this planet become over populated."

That iditoic attitude is shared by most devote religions including those
in the USA!
Also I understand from a graduate student who was expelled from Islamic
Iran that women are treated with respect in and only to the extent that
they maintain their status as baby machines.
The schools are so jammed that they run split sessions well into the evening.
Ah yes, that we all could bask in such religious bless that God's in
his heavan and alls right with the planet.

--
                     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

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 12:15:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I've never even seen a documentary on the subject. I have, however,
>had contact with an Australian aborigine,
   Let me get this straight. You presume to pontificate on a subject
on the basis of contact with _one_ member of a minority group with
a grievance ???
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  voice/fax: [phone]

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 09:06:45 GMT
From: John Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes...
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>
>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.
>
 I think the 777 is aimed at another niche of the airline buisness, called long  thin routes - one that are long distance, but not with the numbers of
 passengers wanting to fly that a 747 could carry

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 08:33:13 GMT
From: Bertil Jonell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.war

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>* Privatize the radio spectrum and orbital slots, and disavow all
>>>  treaties (Sea, Moon, Antartica, etc.) that prohibit private
>>>  property and enterprise in frontier areas.
>>
>>   That sounds almost as anti-social as when the Soviet union voided all
>> international agreements (including the Geneva convention) or when the Mullas
>> in Iran felt they were above worldly stuff like diplomatic status.
>
>i think that privatization of space would be much easier.  If US Steel started
>mining and refining ore (say, nickel or iron) in space, and returning to Earth
>refined steel, etc. for use it would be hard to come up with a good reason to
>stop them.

  Since the status of the moon and other bodies are determined in various
international agreements (Ok, it sounds like the pope dividing up America,
but the agreements exist) viritually all the worlds nations would see a big
free lunch hovering before their eyes: Since the agreements say that
'humanity as a whole' or somesuch owns the moon (and probably the rest too),
I can imagine a nation arguing that they should get a piece of the profit
regardless of if they had invested in it or not.
  Nations with high population will argue that they should get a share
according to population, small nations will argue that it should be divided
equally. All of them would argue that if the corporation didn't pay up, they'd
start exercising the prerogatives of a nation (ie violence) on them.

  "We, the following nations, have decided that, in accordance with agreements
so-and-so, corporation X's lunar mining operation, wherever on the moon it
might be located, is a case of squatting and theft, and we have contracted
upon corporation Y [that also have a space capability] to evict them by any
means necessary. In return for this corpration Y get a concession from us to
run the mine and get to keep 50% of the profit."

  Personally, I wouldn't invest in any exploitation (in the possitive sense:)

ventures in an unclear legal situation.

  (If corporation Y was smart they'd refuse, since the same type of reasoning
could be applied to them too, but I wouldn't bet on that.)

>Space, the Moon, etc. is big enough that if
>anyone started claiming that the resources are for everyone, a private company
>could simply say something like ``yes, we agree, and in fact that asteroid
>right over there is just waiting for you to come develop it.  Now let us try to
>get a fair return on the investment we made in getting out here to work.''

  Yes, but it is much easier to let somebody else do the actual work and then
step in and hijack or blackmail it. Nations don't play fair.

>James Zuelow

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 219
------------------------------