Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO221.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 05:08:23
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #221
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 19 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 221

Today's Topics:
                       Drop nuc waste into sun
                                Ethics
                   Ethics of Terra-forming (3 msgs)
                        Ethics of terraforming
                      Galileo Update - 09/18/92
                         Ion for Pluto Direct
                         Nasa's Apollo rerun
                       Need SETI & NASA people
                         Population Fascism!
        Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...) (3 msgs)
            Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
     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: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 18:43:37 GMT
From: "Don M. Gibson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Nick Janow) writes:
>[e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> So, oh wise ones, enlighten me. What am I missing? Thanks
>
>Simple: that mass of transuranics isn't waste, it's a valuable resource we
>simply haven't developed a market for...yet.  Politicians, supported by
>ignorance, have made it difficult to do anything with the "waste".  From an
>engineering standpoint, that "waste" is a compact source of high-level energy,
>with many uses.  It can sterilize/preserve foods better than toxic chemicals,
>it can provide safe heat for remote areas, it could sterilize sewage, or it
>could be "burned" in a different reactor, providing more energy.
>

i heard once that the russians used to spread their nuclear
"wastes" on the streets to melt the snow.  might be true:)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 16:37:11 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.space

All first-level quotes are From: [e-mail] (Tom)

>>FLAME!  And I'm not dead yet.  :)
>
>So you're claiming to hold the 'anti-life' premise as true?  How do you
>reconclie your own existence to your belief that life is bad?  I'll bet
>you watch a lot of TV. :-)

1)  Anti-life premise?  What gobbledegoog is that, anyway?  You sound like a
brainwashed fundie christian...

2)  I say life is good, just that we have no right to destroy others.

3)  I watch very little TV.  Don't have the time.  SOME of us have work to do.

>>Assume:   1)  There is life on Mars
>>          2)  We understand it _completely_  (how long will that take,
>>              anyway?)
>
>Completely?  Do we understand AIDS completely?  Polio?  That bear that tried
>to run Daniel Boone down was doubtlessly only slightly understood by him at
>all, yet you cheered when the bear died.  How about "We understand it so
>much that no-one wants to spend the time/energy to learn more"?

The bear that was about to run D.B. down was not the last of its species.

As to polio and AIDS (etc.)...they aren't a passive life form with respect to
us.  They're a disease, and we have the right to defend ourselves against them.

Hypothetical question for you:  What if there weren't just bacteria on Mars?
Suppose there is a highly advanced society there, and they object to our
attempts and come wipe us out.  By your argument, THEY'd be in the right.

>'Right' is a legal question, not a moral one.  We have no rights on Mars, as
>Mars is not the jurisdiction of any law-making body.  Neither does any
>potential Mars-life have rights, as it does not hold citizenship anywhere
>on Earth.

And speaking of rights, it IS a moral issue.  If I decided that for me to
improve my standard of living I had to kill you, wouldn't you be right in
feeling that this was unjust.  Wrong?  By your arguments I'd be perfectly
justified in killing you.

So if we discover intellegent aliens someday they don't have civil rights to
free speech?  Simply because they weren't born here? That's bigotry.

>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.

If there is life on Mars, you're contradicting your own statement.  What
makes their "life" any different than our "life"??  What makes theirs any
less important than ours?

AHA!  You're an Earth-chauvanist!  :)

>But that's just another argument for terra-forming Mars! (Or any other terra-
>formable world.)

But not at the expense of the (non-proven) life already extant there.

Here's your argument:

Life is good (given, which I agree with).
There is life on Mars (assumed for the case of argument)
Therefore life on Mars is good.  (direct)

If life is there, it is good.  (Chances are, it'd be different from ours.)

If life is good, and life on Mars is good, how can you justify wiping it out?
Especially when there are so many alternatives for spreading "Earth-life" that
don't call for destroying other life.

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 17:52:07 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Have you forgotten that one of the leading causes of cancer is
>linked to life-style (nicotine addiction)?

You are certainly correct there, but there is an order of magnitude
greater number of deaths each year from breast cancer than AIDS and
there is only a _small_ percentage of the research funds available
to breast cancer research versus AIDS.

>What about people who see economic possibilities in space travel?

You are free to develop anything in space that you like. But this
sin't what you're talking about is it? You want the government to
fund the space research and then you want private companies to
reap the benefits.

I suggest that the taxpayers are better served by tax dollars
being spent here for infrastructure maintenance than by developing
space exploration for those of us interested in it.

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 17:57:32 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>
>'Right' is a legal term, not a moral one.

It is a philosophic one that is the basis of law.

>1) There isn't a god.

Prove it. You ought to be able to do that easily since you are so adamant
about it.

>This is an argument against acting without forethought, but not an argument
>against terra-forming.

Hey, I'm all for terraforming if you can show me how it's going
to be done. But of course it is always the same -- we _could_
do it if only twenty sciences made major breakthroughs.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 17:46:59 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

Just a question: I have been watching people here discuss how
man is the biggest influence on the planet at present. The mind
boggles.

The plankton i the ocean isn't exerting many times more effect on
the atmosphere? I suggest you look it up.

The forestation isn't effecting the environment more?

In central Africa it is a toss up whether man's seeking fuel
or goats and cattle seeking food are responsible for the desertification.

One has to wonder about people who would believe that man is the
controlling interest of the planet.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 15:16:21 PDT
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Ethics of terraforming

Subject: Ethics

In Space Digest V15 #216,
Tom <[e-mail]> writes:

[vast number  of lines of argument versus at least two previous posters
 on the subject of terraforming deleted]

>If you want to continue, try the aesthetics angle.

Actually, the aesthetic angle was the gist of my post.  I called your
arguments a "Procrustean formula" because you seem to be trying to
measure every opposing argument against your "more life is better" theme
whether it fits or not.  Your response reinforces this observation.

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

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

Date: 19 Sep 92 02:05:06 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 09/18/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                   GALILEO
                      MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                                POST-LAUNCH
                          September 11 - 17, 1992

SPACECRAFT

1.  On September 11, as part of the Dual Drive Actuator (DDA) No. 3 pulse
activities, real-time commands were sent to checkout the star scanner.
This activity was performed as a precaution to protect the star scanner
from "seeing" bright particles which could release if an HGA (High Gain
Antenna) rib released.  Additionally, real-time commands were sent to open
the Star Scanner (SS) shutter and to reacquire celestial reference.
Precise wobble data was collected which indicated no change in the HGA rib
configuration.  Also, real-time commands were sent to reconfigure the System
Fault Protection (SFP) AACS-INIT (Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem)
pointing slot from the Sun to the Earth after the DDA pulse No. 3 activities.
This change will allow the spacecraft to lock up on the star set in the Earth
slot if an AACS Power on Reset (POR) occurs and maintain its currrent attitude.

2.  During the period of September 12 through September 13 a navigation cycle
was performed.  This navigation cycle provided near-continuous acquisition of
two-way doppler and ranging data during four consecutive passes of the
spacecraft over DSS-43 (Canberra 70 meter antenna), DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter
antenna), DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna), and then back to DSS-43.
This data will improve orbit determination in preparation for the TCM-15
(Trajectory Correction Maneuver #15) scheduled for October 9.

3.  On September 14, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer
to 264 hours, its planned value for this mission phase.

4.  On September 14, real-time commands were sent to modify the system fault
protection RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) overpressure response.  This change
was necessary to maintain a spacecraft configuration which was not vulnerable
to low probability Spin Bearing Assembly (SBA) debris induced CDS (Command
Data Subsystem) latching relay faults.  This fault scenario was determined
several months ago as part of the Project's AC/DC bus imbalance anomaly
closeout effort.

5.  On September 14, real-time commands were sent to update the acquisition
sensor parameters.  Specifically, the sun pulse width parameter was updated
to compensate for the decreasing solar AU distance.

6.  On September 16, a periodic RPM 10-Newton thruster maintenance activity
was performed.  Ten of twelve thrusters were flushed during the activity.
The P-thrusters were not flushed because they were used to perform the science
turn (SITURN) activities on the same day.  Spacecraft performance throughout
the activity was normal.

7.  On September 16, the spacecraft performed a SITURN.  The purpose of the
SITURN is to maintain the spacecraft within a plus or minus 10 degrees of the
sun while within a solar distance of 1.6 AU.

8.  On September 16, the Earth vector and Earth stars were updated to the
spacecraft's present attitude.  This change implements the post-fault attitude
maintenance strategy.  If a fault occurs which terminates the currently
executing onboard sequence, the spacecraft will maintain its current attitude.

9.  On September 17, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for
the Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and
Magnetometer (MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data
was received properly.

10. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some change. The AC
measurement remained unchanged and reads 3.3 volts.  The DC measurement has
ranged from 125 DN (14.6 volts) to 131 DN (15.3 volts) and now reads 130 DN
(15.2 volts).  These measurement variations are consistent with the model

developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team.

11. The Spacecraft status as of September 17, 1992, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  70 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 5 degrees
           off-sun (leading) and 20 degrees off-earth (lagging)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna-40 bps (coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- UVS, EUV, DDS, MAG, EPD, and HIC are
           powered on
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 187 hours


UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:

1.  The EE-9 (Earth-Earth #9) Preliminary Sequence and Command Generation was
approved by the Project on September 17, 1992.  This sequence covers
spacecraft activities from November 23, 1992 to December 5, 1992.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, September 17, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft
trajectory status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         56,817,100 miles (.61 AU)
    Distance from Sun           137,693,900 miles (1.48 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed           56,600 miles per hour
    Distance from Jupiter        637,590,600 miles
    Round Trip Light Time        10 minutes, 18 seconds

SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of September 17, 1992, a total of 8206 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 3280  were pre-planned in
the sequence design and 4926 were not.  In the past week, 92 real time
commands were transmitted; 44 were pre-planned in the sequence design and 48
were not.  In addition, 5677 mini-sequence commands have been transmitted
since March 1991; 3519 were pre-planned and 2158 were not.  In the past week,
no mini-sequence commands were transmitted.  Major command activities this
week included commands to checkout the star scanner, open the star scanner
shutter and reacquire celestial reference, reconfigure the SFP AACS-INIT
pointing slot, reset the command loss timer, update the System Fault
Protection and modify the acquisition sensor parameters.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 18:53:52 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>I've been thinking lately, though. The people running the Pluto
>mission are dead set on using experimental sensors and never-before
>-at-that-scale solid rockets...

The coverage I've seen says they have orders to *avoid* experimental sensors,
sticking to things that are considered reasonably proven.  I haven't seen
technical details, however.

As for the solids, how high are they stacking them?  Magellan had three
solid stages on top of the shuttle, as did Ulysses.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 19:55:43 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa's Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>Certainly, in the narrow goal of "putting a man on the moon and
>returning him safely" it was a smashing success.  It was exciting
>as well. In terms of other expectations people had for it -- opening
>up a new frontier, for example -- it was a very expensive failure.

Really?  The Apollo era was the only time in history that human
beings ventured beyond Earth orbit.  Sounds like opening up a
new frontier to me.  The fact that politicians on Earth decided
that they didn't *want* a new frontier notwithstanding.

So, Nick, please tell us about all the success your $10.98
Radio-Shack robots have had mining the asteroids.


>Its very success at achieving its narrow goal provided
>closure on the space race; that and its visibility made
>NASA a prime target for budget cuts.

This is nice rhetoric, but a semantic null.  Are you
saying that the budget cuts would not have occured if
Apollo had failed to reach the Moon?  Sorry, but the budget
cuts did *not* begin "during the trips to the Moon", they
began before we reached it.


>But the most expensive part of all may be that we don't seem to
>have learned Apollo's lessons yet.

What lessons are those, Nick?  That we can build hardware
that actually works instead of gold-plated, impractical
designs like Space Station Freedom or Nick Szabo Robotics?


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

Date: 18 Sep 92 20:27:33 GMT
From: Thomas Gunter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need SETI & NASA people
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,soc.net-people

I am a senior in aerospace engineering, and I'm doing research
for a paper titled "Policy and Procedure upon the Discovery of
Extraterrestrial Intelligence."  There are some names that keep
coming up in multiple sources, and I would like to get in touch
with some of these people.  I have 'snailmail' addresses for
some, but I would prefer electronic contact.  If you know email
addresses for any of these people, please either send them to me
or forward my message to them.

Thanks,
Tom

**********
Dr. John Billingham    -    NASA Ames

Linda Billings        -    Author        &    Co-chair
                            AIAA

Dr. Frank Drake        -    Astronomy professor  &  President
                U. C. Santa Cruz    SETI Institute

Dr. John M. Logsdon    -    Director
                Space Policy Institute

Dr. Carl Sagan        -    Founder
                Planetary Society

Dava Sobel        -    Author
                _Is Anyone Out There?_
                Delacorte Press

Dr. Donald E. Tarter    -    Emeritus Associate Professor
                U. of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Jill Tarter        -    SETI Project Scientist
                NASA Ames

    *****PLEASE REPLY VIA EMAIL NOT BY FOLLOWUP*****
--
Thomas A. Gunter                   | Only two things have ever given
[e-mail]         | me trouble in spelling:
Aerospace Engineering              |
The University of Texas at Austin  |         vowels and consonants

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 18:07:15 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population Fascism!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <gdavis.716823126@griffin> [e-mail] (Gary Davis) writes:
> 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.

If you are willing to live in Asimov's "Caves of Steel" the population
capacity that has little environmental impact is many times what
the predicted stable population is.

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

If you are not the most important creature in the universe to
yourself you are missing something in your genetic makeup --
the survival factor. :-)
>
>When asked about population concerns he responded," God would not let
>this planet become over populated."

Are you an expert on matters of religion? Or maybe you mean that this
person doesn't have religious freedom? Maybe religious freedom is
only for those who don't believe in religion -- like you?
>
Not that (as my messages have shown) I don't believe in population
control -- but I don't think that this is a subject for discussion
in the manner described here. This is a philosophic and ethical
question.

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 14:03:28 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>[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.
>
> I agree that newer would probably be better, but just what does a Delta 7925
>have in common with a Delta B (of 1962 vintage) besides the name?  Not the
>same engines or structure for sure, and I seriously doubt the avionics are
>the same.  I think Cary is falling for the "Grandfather's axe" phenomenon.
>You can replace the head and the handle as often as you like, but as long as
>you don't replace both at the same time, it's still grampa's old axe :)

It may have a carbide blade and a fiberglass handle, but it's still an
axe when what we may want is a chainsaw. While parts have changed, the
basic design of the Atlas and Delta are over 30 years old. Since they
are direct descendants of the V2, their design is really more than 50
years old. Other ideas, the Ortag scheme for example, may be better
suited to what we want to accomplish. It could be that the Goddard,
Oberth, and Von Braun design is the best possible for all time, but
I doubt it. No amount of detail refinement will produce an F16 from
a Spad, or a 747 from a Wright Flyer.

Gary

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 18:55:41 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

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

>It may have a carbide blade and a fiberglass handle, but it's still an
>axe when what we may want is a chainsaw.

The problem is that your chainsaw built the way you want to build it, is
far more expensive then the axe nor is it faster enough to jsutify the
added cost.

>While parts have changed, the
>basic design of the Atlas and Delta are over 30 years old. Since they
>are direct descendants of the V2, their design is really more than 50
>years old.

So what? It still does the job for less money than the alternatives.

>No amount of detail refinement will produce an F16 from
>a Spad, or a 747 from a Wright Flyer.

Sure you could.

Look at evolution, the basic design of the Homo Sapien is over four
billion years old. It still gets the job done.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------218 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 07:31:21 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[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.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>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 difference is that the Wright Flyer could be built by two
brothers, and many of the improvements during the next three
decades were also low-cost.  747 fleets and big launchers take
armies to build and operate, and it is to be expected that such
technology will be much slower to change.



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

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 18:38:06 GMT
From: Scott McGuire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian

>?? 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    |


If I own some frequency (in some limited area I imagine) no one can use
that frequency with out my consent.  If they do they are trespassing and
subject to whatever civil/criminal penalties the law allows.  It doesn't
matter how tiny my transmitter is (or even if I transmit at all).  Also,
if I broadcast with to strong a transmitter and interfere with someones
frequency in a neighboring area, than I am trespassing.

Scott McGuire

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 18:07:29 GMT
From: Woody Ligon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where is it, then? (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> 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
>
>
Well yes but.....this article makes it sound like managers of S&Ls were just
unlucky.  I think it much more accurate to say that they were lending money
in an extremely speculative and risky fashion and that they were doing so
because they knew for a certain fact, that if they were "unlucky" the American
taxpayers would pick up the loss. In my view at least, this brand of
business ethics is a damn site more reprehensible than just being unlucky.

Given that S&Ls have a long term public image of being conservative investors
and given that people who invest in S&Ls get relatively low interest rates
for exactly this reason, I think that such speculative investing is "fraud" by
any rational definition.

Measured by traditional standards of S&L investment "quality",the kinds of
 stuff the S&Ls were doing was grossly irresponsible. What they did is not
exactly the same as moving company money into your personal checking account,
 but it is analogous to doing experimental surgery without telling the patient.

Just because a large fraction of the S&Ls were participating in this incredible
rip-off, does not make it any less deplorable.

Woody Ligon
Standard Disclaimer applies.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 221
------------------------------