Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO226.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 05:00:18
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #226
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 21 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 226

Today's Topics:
           Clinton's platform on the space program (2 msgs)
                  Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs)
                           Ethics (4 msgs)
                   Ethics of Terra-forming (2 msgs)
                         Ion for Pluto Direct
    Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars)
                   Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
        Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now)
               QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations
                      Radio and property rights
                   satellite construction question
                    Solar radiation and astronauts
              Spacelab-J Frog Embryology Experiment :-)

    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: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 20:36:25 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton's platform on the space program
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

      CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM



The end of the Cold War offers new opportunities
and new challenges for our civilian space program.
In recent years the program has lacked vision and
leadership.  Because the Reagan and Bush
administrations have failed to establish priorities
and to match program needs with available
resources, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) has been saddled with more
missions than it can successfully accomplish.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore support a strong U.S.
civilian space program -- for its scientific value,
its economic and environmental benefits, its role
in building new partnerships with other countries,
and its inspiration of our nations youth.  A
Clinton/Gore Administration space program will seek
to meet the needs of the United States and other
nations while moving toward our long-term space
objectives, including human exploration of the
solar system.  A Clinton/Gore space program will
also promote the development of new technologies,
create new jobs for our highly-skilled former
defense workers, and increase our understanding of
the planet and its delicate environmental balance.

Move beyond the Cold War

*    Restore the historical funding equilibrium
     between NASA and the Defense Departments space
     program. The Reagan and Bush Administrations
     spent more on defense space initiatives than
     on civilian space projects.

*    Achieve greater cooperation in space with our
     traditional allies in Europe and Japan, as
     well as with Russia.  Greater U.S.-Russian
     cooperation in space will benefit both
     countries, combining the vast knowledge and
     resources both countries have gathered since
     the launch of Sputnik in 1957.

Improve the American economy through space

*    Direct NASA to give high priority to continued
     improvement of the American civil aircraft
     industry, which faces increasing international
     competition.  NASA research can play an
     important role in developing less polluting,
     more fuel efficient, and quieter aircraft.

*    Work to improve our space industries
     competitiveness.  Well direct NASA to develop
     cutting-edge rocket and satellite
     technologies.  We will also develop a new,
     cost effective, and reliable launch system to
     maximize scientific and commercial payloads.

Link NASA and the environment

*    Support NASA efforts -- like Mission to Planet
     Earth -- to improve our understanding of the
     global environment.

*    Call on NASA to develop smaller, more focused
     missions which address pressing environmental
     concerns.

Strengthen NASA and education

*    Direct NASA to expand educational programs
     that improve American performance in math and
     science. Space education can help maintain our
     technological edge and improve our
     competitiveness.

*    Direct NASA to expand the outreach of its
     educational efforts beyond its five field
     centers, so that millions more people can
     learn about space.

*    Maintain the Space Shuttles integral role in
     our civilian space program.  The Shuttle is
     extremely complex and will always be expensive
     and difficult to operate.  But we must take
     full advantage of its unique capabilities.

*    Support completion of  Space Station Freedom,
     basing its development on the twin principles
     of greater cooperation and burden sharing with
     our allies. By organizing effectively on this
     project, we can pave the way for future joint
     international ventures, both in space and on
     Earth.

Encourage planetary exploration through the best
space science

*    Stress efforts to learn about other planets.
     These improve our understanding of our own
     world and stimulate advances in computers,
     sensors, image processing and communications.

*    Fully utilize robotic missions to learn more
     about the universe.

*    Although we cannot yet commit major resources
     to human planetary exploration, this dream
     should be among the considerations that guide
     our science and engineering.  Because the
     entire world will share the benefits of human
     planetary explorations, the costs for any such
     projects should be borne by other nations as
     well as the United States.

The Record

*    Senator Al Gore chairs the Senate Subcommittee
     on Science, Technology, and Space, which has
     primary responsibility for NASA and plays a
     key role in efforts to strengthen and
     revitalize America's space program.

*    Strongly favors a balanced manned and unmanned
     space program. Supports completion of Space
     Station Freedom and enhancements to the fleet
     of Space Shuttles to ensure safety and
     reliability.

*    Has championed Mission to Planet Earth, an
     initiative designed to gather comprehensive
     information on the Earth's changing
     environment. He strongly supports  efforts to
     channel information on the Earth's environment
     to teachers and school children.

*    Strongly supports efforts to strengthen our
     leadership in aviation.

*    Has tried to use space exploration as a bridge
     to international cooperation, not competition.
     Pushed the administration to investigate the
     possibilities for integrating surviving
     elements of the Soviet space program into the
     U.S. program in ways beneficial to America and
     its aerospace workers.

*    Following the Challenger disaster, Senator
     Gore uncovered quality assurance deficiencies
     at NASA, gaining a greater commitment to
     quality assurance and accountability at NASA.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 03:10:40 GMT
From: Cameron Randale Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton's platform on the space program
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>
>      CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM
>
>
>
>The end of the Cold War offers new opportunities
>and new challenges for our civilian space program.
>In recent years the program has lacked vision and
>leadership.  Because the Reagan and Bush
>administrations have failed to establish priorities
>and to match program needs with available
>resources, the National Aeronautics and Space
>Administration (NASA) has been saddled with more
>missions than it can successfully accomplish.

     Translation: slice the budget without regard to anything.

>*    Restore the historical funding equilibrium
>     between NASA and the Defense Departments space
>     program. The Reagan and Bush Administrations
>     spent more on defense space initiatives than
>     on civilian space projects.

     Translation: slice the defense budget without regard to anything.

>*    Although we cannot yet commit major resources
>     to human planetary exploration, this dream
>     should be among the considerations that guide
>     our science and engineering.  Because the
>     entire world will share the benefits of human
>     planetary explorations, the costs for any such
>     projects should be borne by other nations as
>     well as the United States.

     The 'Everly Brothers' plank.

                                   dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            [phone]

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 16:48:21 GMT
From: "Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona" <gtephx!forda>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> >
> >Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
> >necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
> >economically beneficial.  And you're probably totally off base, given
> >the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore.
>
> Wrong on both counts. How do you define "economically beneficial"? The Global
> Positioning System is one pretty nifty spin-off from the Evil Military, hm?
> Smaller computers? Smart-optics compensation for telescopes?
>
>
And remember that the current day cellular radio telephones are only feasible
because of the military R&D in semiconductor electronics: without the
current day VLSI CMOS chips, the cellular telephone (car phone) would
require a semi-trailer to hold the electronics and most of the engine's
output to power it.

911 telephone service, automated dialing, caller id, and a host of other
micro-electronic devices would also not exist if it were not for
military R&D spending.

Oh yeah, we also get a whole *lot* of our fancy medical gadgets
from military R&D offshoots.

Entitlements and foreign aid are examples of gov't expenditures which
are not "economically beneficial."  Foreign aid devalues the dollar.
Entitlements prevent people from contributing to the economy.

Military R&D provides jobs (Damn good paying jobs) not only for
those who do the work, but also for a great deal more who make
the supplies for the work.



--
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx![e-mail]  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda

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

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 22:56:03 GMT
From: Mark 'Henry' Komarinski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

[e-mail] (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> >
>> >Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
>> >necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
>> >economically beneficial.  And you're probably totally off base, given
>> >the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore.
>>
>> Wrong on both counts. How do you define "economically beneficial"? The Global
>> Positioning System is one pretty nifty spin-off from the Evil Military, hm?
>> Smaller computers? Smart-optics compensation for telescopes?
>>
>>
>And remember that the current day cellular radio telephones are only feasible
>because of the military R&D in semiconductor electronics: without the
>current day VLSI CMOS chips, the cellular telephone (car phone) would
>require a semi-trailer to hold the electronics and most of the engine's
>output to power it.

[Benefits of military spending, etc...]

>Military R&D provides jobs (Damn good paying jobs) not only for
>those who do the work, but also for a great deal more who make
>the supplies for the work.

So what about the benefits from just plain space exploration?  Imagine the
spinoffs once we get a space platform working, or get a colony on the moon?
Or for that matter, make it to the moon again.  The benfits of this
could be huge.  At the same time, people are getting employed and less
money is going to trying to kill someone else.

-Mark

--
- Mark Komarinski - [e-mail]
[MIME mail welcome]
The only candidate worth voting for is Bill the Cat.  He might not
do good, but that's never been a requirement.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 18:02:55 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.space

If it's an either-or case, then yes, terraform Mars.  But we aren't in
that position.  NOR WILL WE EVER BE.

And if there is no life, then go ahead.

But if we terrafo0rm Mars KNOWING that there is life there, then we become
a race of mass-murderers that Hitler and Stalin would be proud of...

Or does the word "genocide" not burn your ears with shame?


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!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
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: Sun, 20 Sep 92 23:17:07 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Ethics

> So much for "inalienable rights" or "human rights violations" I guess.  If

> you think I have no rights until a system of law is imposed to give them to
> me I'm sure glad you aren't running for office.
>


It looks to me that Tom is coming across as a Utilitarian, whereas I (and
maybe yourself from the above statement) would fall into more of a Natural
Rights paradeigm.

Utilitarianism makes interesting arguments, but it can justify some truly
awful things. One can justify leibensraum with little trouble, because a
simple regression of the ongoing argument makes "our race" better than "their
race" because I am a member of "our race", and anything that improves
conditions for "us" is therefore good. If you push on it at all, it basically
breaks down into the "Might makes right" school.


Oh, well, I'm butting out. There are no winners in a clash of philosophy
schools...

(One of these days I'm going to actually sit down and READ Hegel and
Wittgenstein and Kant... :-)

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

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 18:20:44 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>The argument against t-forming requires that you assume >life-in-general is
>more valuable than Human life.  Since you are a human, you hold a >premise
>that contradicts your own existence.  Anti-life.

No, just anti-human-above-every-other-type-of-life.  There's a difference,
which I guess you haven't noticed.

>>2)  I say life is good, just that we have no right to destroy others.
>
>Then stop eating, or admit the contradiction in your statement.

Again, you're ignoring something.  I eat to survive.  Someday, something might
eat me to survive.  There's a fundamental difference between survival needs
and non-survival needs.

We humans don't need to terraform Mars to survive.  THAT is the crucial
difference which you're ignoring.

>>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.
>
>That right only exists if you think you are more valuable than it.  Thinking
>you are more valuable also makes it logically consitent to kill simple,
>harmless life, if you value life-in-general, and if it is required for Human
>life.

I'm trying very hard to not flame you, believe me.  Again, you're missing a
crucial difference.

1)  The right to defend onesself from attack (be it disease or a foreign
country)
cannot be denied.

2)  Terraforming Mars IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN
SPECIES!!!  Can't you get that through your skull??  _IF_ it were I'd
agree with
you.  It isn't necessary for us to survive.

And again, should it prove that there is no life there, then let's go
great guns,
after we understand everything about Mars in its natural state.

Survival imperatives are different from voluntary imperatives.  If terraforming
Mars were a survival imperative, then I'd agree that we should destroy the
(hypothetical) life there.  After we understand as much as we can about it.

However, as I said before, but it bears repeating:  TERRAFORMING MARS IS
NOT A SURVIVAL IMPERATIVE!



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!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
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: Mon, 21 Sep 92 02:56:40 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>
>In that case, logic also tells you to stop eating, as you must kill to eat,
>and you haven't killed yourself (yet?)

If it wasn't in that particular message it was in this string that
you cannot, repeat cannot, show any self interest in terms of
survival by terraforming Mars. Unless you can there is no case that
you can argue that I am ignoring my own self interest. This argument is
getting stupid. You are just writing in debating style. I don't wish to
argue with blank statements.

>But if it came down to Human vs. Mars-life, you can only
>conclude (logically; ethically) that we are as valuable or more valuable than
>any potential Mars-life.  Hence, terra-forming is at least as good as not
>terra-forming, even if it would kill said (non-sentient) Mars-life.

How do you know what is sentient and what isn't? On the one hand you claim
that you aren't omnipotent, then on the other you make statements that
seem to say you are. Man has never gotten a decent definition of sentience
and yet you know what it is.
>
>1) There are heterosexual, non needle-required-drug using AIDS victims.

I spent 3 years working at a facility that handled HIV on a research basis.
Since it was possible to become infected I made every effort to
inform my self of all of the available information. So I read most
of the CDC reports and the research papers. I suggest you do the same
since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

The rest of that paragraph is rife with the "information" that is
contaminating the homosexual press in and around San Francisco. Most
of it is either lies, distortions or misunderstandings of real
facts.
>

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

Date: 19 Sep 92 15:50:05 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

Sure. Basically all the world's industrial nations *did* have the same
kind of environmental management as the former Soviet Union until about
1970. About the only difference between the US and the SU until then was
that in the US someone could sue if guck leaked onto his property. There
was no legal basis for bringing action for leaks on someone else's
property until the various environmental laws were passed in the 70s.

You have no idea what the water looked like or smelled like downstream
of a textile mill. You have no idea, until you visit Copper Hill Tenn
what a copper smelter can do to the vegetation of an area. You have
no idea what a coal tailings pile weeped. Only 20 years ago these things
were as common in the US as they are now in the ex-USSR. How could
things have been this bad only 20 years ago? You have no idea how
*big* this country is. Most people never saw these things and those
that lived amongst it earned their *living* producing the messes.

Environmental disasters aren't new. The Great Sahara *Forest* was
turned to desert by bronze axes. Nuclear weapons couldn't have done
the job more throughly.

Gary

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

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 23:40:50 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>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.

I give up.

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

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

Date: 20 Sep 92 20:54:22 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct
Newsgroups: sci.space

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 on their probe to avoid having to use
> ion rockets. So could another probe be used to test this out?

Just what is your source for this information???  Experimental sensors???
I've heard of nothing experimental about the instruments proposed.  If
they are able to make them as lightweight as they hope to, they would
different from previous instruments in this way, but hardly what I would
call experimental.  And you make it sound like the mission designers are
going out of their way to AVOID using ion drive.  Nonsense!  The launch
vehicle hasn't even been selected yet, nor would I expect them to unless
the mission actually gets funded.  Atlas-Centaur, Titan IV, and Proton
have all been suggested as launch vehicles at different times during the
mission planning, with the preferred vehicle depending on the tradeoff
between spacecraft mass and flight time.  Just exactly what "never-before-
at-that-scale solid rockets" are you referring to?

> What about a probe to look at Chiron, or 1992-QB-1? Maybe we could finally
> find out whether or not it's Planet X...

Define Planet X and I'll tell you whether it is or isn't.  If size is your
criterion, Ceres is larger than Chiron or 1992 QB1, so the tenth planet was
found almost 200 years ago...

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 17:04:55 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:


>There's an exhibit of Soviet Hardware in St. Louis.  Has anyone seen it yet?
>Bill, would you like to join us on a trip?

Is there anyone down in this direction interested in going I could
possibly split costs with?


--
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 WA

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 02:00:20 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes:
>David Knapp writes:
>
>> What is your criteria for 'isothermal'? Wouldn't we expect *some* temperature
>> differentials from solar heating even though albedos may not be extremely
>> low?
>
>The criterion was given right in the earlier message:  "...which could be the
>case is methane frost is everywhere."

This does not preclude temperature gradients.

>It all depends on the material.  For
>example, consider a swimming pool, half of which is in sunlight, and half of
>which is in the shade of a house or tree.  Walking around the concrete deck,
>you may notice that the temperature of the concrete is different whether it
>is in the sunlight or in the shade, but the temperature of the water will be
>much more isothermal.  It's all a question of energy transport, the thermal
>inertias of the materials involved, and so on.

In that pool, if you add a dye, you will notice convection currents driven
by the temperature gradient induced by the sunlight.

I still do not understand why a person would posit that the surface or
atmosphere of Pluto would be isothermal.  Isothermal to within, perhaps
.5 K, but even a differential of .5 K is enough to drive some convective
processes.

What am I missing? Am I misinterpreting something?



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

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

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 21:38:05 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Property rights (was Terraforming needs to begin now)

> >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 ???
>


If you have points to discuss (the above is hardly an opening to a debate) you
should have contacted me off line.

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 01:58:33 GMT
From: John Deane <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello Folk,
    I _REALLY_ enjoyed "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual" by Joels & Kennedy
(Macmillan 1983, Ballantine 1982). Ever since then I've wanted something slightly
similar for Apollo and the LM. Does anyone know if such a thing was ever published?

Thanks,

John Deane
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 23:33:36 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Radio and property rights

> How many radio astronomers do you know who can afford to sue CBS?
>

None under the current system. With strong property rights it would not be
just a civil matter, but one of criminal theft and trespass. The cost of
suits is an artifice of byzantine legal structures that attempt to allocate
a resource without actually setting down ownership and a clear definition of
that ownership. When the law is ambiguous, the guy with the best lawyers
wins.


> (Or, to take a real example of RF pollution, how many radio astronomers
> do you know who can afford to sue the Department of Defense over the
> rather unfortunate choice of frequency for GPS?)
>


Again, the problem is that DOD is part of the government. The government
gives favor and the government taketh away favor. There is no defense for

astronomers other than costly and research-time consuming lobby activities.

> Even ignoring that, why do you assume that having a judge make such a
> decision is better than having the FCC make it?  The big guys *will*
> ride roughshod over the little guys unless there are referees to blow
> the whistle on them.
>


If my frequency is my property, as clearly defined as the surveyor lines
that define my backyard, then it is just as easy to define that a crime has
occured in either case. Big guy or little guy, I need only show a title and
prove trespass.

An aside: there was a guy in England a couple years ago who defended himself
against a local authority that was going to bulldoze his house. He refused
to leave the property, and it was such a big deal that the BBC had a camera
when the dozer and a bureaucrat came down. The property owner shot the
bureaucrat, on camera. Most refreshing piece of news I've seen in years :-)
The Lib International should give him a medal, if they could get it to him
in prison...

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

Date: 20 Sep 92 18:11:13 GMT
From: "k.c.archie" <[e-mail]>
Subject: satellite construction question
Newsgroups: sci.space

Over dinner last night, a friend wondered if satellites had air in them.
If they do and are airtight, they must be built to withstand the
pressure in space. If they are evacuated, they must withstand the
pressure on earth.
Since I assume they are built in a room at standard pressure,
do they have pressure relief valves for when they get into orbit
(or is that onto orbit?) or are they built to withstand the pressure?
Thanks for any answers.
**kent
Kent Archie
[e-mail]
I used the word pressure 6 times in this post.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 02:14:33 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar radiation and astronauts
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The bottom line, as I understand it, is that if you use a storm shelter
>against flares (if you don't, and there's a big flare, you die) but
>don't have 10T/m^2 of cosmic-ray shielding, you're looking at about
>one REM per week.

The rate actually depends on the solar cycle also: For some reason
cosmic rays are less intense during the solar maximum.
The rate is ~50 REM/year (1/week) at solar minimum and down to
~20 REM/year at solar maximum. There are some ideas out of Martian
Marietta for 1 tonne/_person_ shielding that would half this.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 02:03:21 GMT
From: Bob Kanefsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spacelab-J Frog Embryology Experiment :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space,shuttle

Anyone know if they took still pictures, as well as video,
of the frog experiment?  Those frogs would make some handsome prints.

                    --Kanef

Any puns expressed herein are the bad taste of the author and not
necessarily that of Sterling Software or NASA.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 226
------------------------------