Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_2/V15NO242.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 05:02:56
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #242
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 24 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 242

Today's Topics:
                             21 cm rights
                             ? about SETI
            ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission (2 msgs)
                                Ethics
 Getting Ion Thrusters off the Ground (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct)
                           No More Ethics!
                            overpopulation
                       Phobos/Deimos observer?
  Practicing comet mining aboard Fred (was Re: what use is Freedom?)
                           Property rights?
                      Radio and property rights
                             Radio rights
                   satellite construction question
                      Sayonara, Mariner Mark II
     Self-genociding space colonies & the Fermi Paradox (2 msgs)
            space news from Aug 17 AW&ST (Hermes project)
                         what use is Freedom?

    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: Wed, 23 Sep 92 17:26:58 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 21 cm rights

> If someone wanted to do that, they'd be high, as the only intrinsic
> value of that frequency is it's use for astronomy.  (Or super-long
>


By any legal definition one would care to use, radio astronomy has
homesteading rights, squatters rights, possession is nine points of
the law, etc over 21cm. If Andre Marrou and a libertarian majority
were magically to take office in January, the only frequencies up for
sale would be the ones that are currently "unallocated" within
territories under jurisdication of the USA, or those that the current
users decide to sell because they can suddenly make a profit on them
instead of hoarding them.

> Also, with strict property rights, you own whatever is over your
> land.  So, radio emmissions are, technically, pollution.  Anyone
> could sue for quiet in the 21cm band...in their neighborhood.
>


Not an entirely true statement. Property rights are defined in law,
and whether you own the "aether" over you physical property is a
matter of title and homesteading. Absolute property rights simply
means that what it says on your title can not be changed by anyone's
fiat, it can only be changed by what you buy or sell.

Water rights are a similar sort of property, since water doesn't tend
to stay put on one physical peice of land. In practice property
rights have to be defined in such a way as to account for pragmatics.


If you did title searches, you would find that most people (possibly
to their surprise) do not hold title to mineral rights under their
own homes because the mineral rights were sold separately when large
tracts of land changed hands decades or even a century ago.

The interaction between property rights of different sorts is a case
where Stein's comment about legal complexity and ambiguity are indeed
correct. It would probably be necessary for you to prove that my
utilization of my existing property right at x MHz interferes with
your existing property right to the land surface at Earth coordinates
<lat,long>. That is indeed a long and drawn out civil case unless it
is a clear cut matter, ie if I build a giant microwave oven
transmitter and fry your pussycat, the case is pretty clear. But if
you claim that my private backyard dynamo at 60Hz has increased your
possibility of contracting cancer by .0000000000000000000000000001%,
then you might need a good lawyer :-)

There also may be a tad of difference in our definitions. When I
speak of absolute property rights, I mean property that is only
transferable by the title holder, and that can be used in any way the
title holder desires in so long as it does not damage other property.
Your use of strict property rights seems to imply a situation that is
probably impractical because physical property is divided into many
different sub categories of rights which are split among multiple
owners.

Do you know which coal company owns the vein under YOUR house?

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 16:03:07 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: ? about SETI
Newsgroups: sci.space

The current technique is to look for a period signal from the sky that has
a doppler shift.  The doppler shift is caused by the rotation and motion of
the earth and the other body.  This means you have to examine a set of nearby
frequencies at given moment.  For if you look at a single narrow-band signal,
it will doppler shift out of that frequency band and be lost.

The technique for looking for periodic signals is to compute a power spectrum
by autocorrelation and see if there are any peaks.  NASA and Stanford built
special spectral analysers that will no this computation for millions of
frequency bands at once.  If you make a plot of frequency band versus autocorrelated
frequency, doppler shifted signals appear as diagonal streaks.

NASA and Stanford built a large spectral analyser.  I think it cost about $40M per year
to built and run.  Every year the past few years it gets eliminated in the
preliminary Congressional budget (large enougth to be a line-item budget)
and every year until this year it has been partially restored.

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 10:22:41 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

> [Heretofore unsuspected startling top-secret Russian tech!
> CIA lawyer reveals all!]

That was a fun read.  You gotta admit, it's refreshing to see comets
as the target of choice, instead of the usual astronaut travelogue
to That Which is Closest or Most Resembles Earth.  Comets, besides
being the most primordial objects in the solar system and therefore
quite scientifically interesting, have a vast potential for providing
nearly all the mass needed for large-scale space activities: propellant,
shielding, industrial inputs, life support, etc. -- from native sources.
Comet sample returns should play a strategic, central role in SEI.

Gee, _two months_ to get to a comet, that'll be the day... :-) :-)

For the record, Jupiter-family comets, the proposed targets for such
missions, have a period of 3.5 to 7 years, and the round-trip times
are typically 6 years for a direct (electric rocket) mission, 8 using
chemical and earth gravity assist.

Here is hopefully a more practical alternative -- how about substituting
the Artemis lunar lander from SEI for the Mariner Mk. II derivative,
and a plasma thruster for the chemical upper stage?  Here is a comparative
breakdown:

Rosetta/Artemis            Rosetta/Mariner Mk. II
---------------            ----------------------
Ariane 4     $120m        Titan 4      $270m
electric stage  $100m        Centaur          $30m
Artemis        $150m           Mariner Mk. II $1,000m
misc./ops    $200m                 $200m
TOTAL COST    $570m                   $1,500m
time til return  6 yrs                8 yrs

For more info on the Rosetta/MMII proposal, see Atzei, Hechler, Coste,
"ESA Preparatory Programme for the Rosetta/CNSR Mission", in
    Space Technology, v11, n1, pp1-13, 1991


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

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 12:48:15 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>> [Heretofore unsuspected startling top-secret Russian tech!
>> CIA lawyer reveals all!]
>
> That was a fun read.  You gotta admit, it's refreshing to see comets
> as the target of choice, instead of the usual astronaut travelogue
> to That Which is Closest or Most Resembles Earth.


Nick, I can't REALLY believe that your life will be BETTER if the
SAUCER PEOPLE get interested in your favorite TARGETS.

Soon we will be reading CLAIMS that the U.S. Government has STASHED
the FROZEN bodies of ALIENS in the nucleus of COMET TEMPEL or
someplace.

Interesting proposal for Rosetta-type mission, though.  It's worth
noting that *ESA Bulletin* and *ESA Journal* have had some articles on
Rosetta.

Bill Higgins                           | In the distant future,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | nuns will be bartenders
Bitnet:      [e-mail]       | aboard starships
Internet:  [e-mail]       | and Sternbach paintings
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | will hang on every wall.

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 06:20:04 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

The only sucessful *planned* genocide ever committed was against the
smallpox virus. I guess that you consider the WHO compatriots of Hitler
and Stalin, eh?

Gary

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 08:29:18 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting Ion Thrusters off the Ground (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Macrae) writes:
[good remarks on electrode erosion and chamber erosion deleted]
>
> Funding continues at a low level for research along these lines.  I believe
> we have made great advancements since the last American ion thruster flight.
> The technology is mature, and for some applications, flight qualified
> thrusters and power processors exist as 'off the shelf' items.

Greg, what are the steps needed before ion thrusters, or other
electric propulsion gadgets, are competing on an equal footing with
chemical rockets for deep-space missions?  I shot off my mouth about
engineering test missions the other day, but I would like to hear what
a real expert thinks.  I presume there is a consensus on the
appropriate development path, but I'm not very familiar with the
field.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Treat your password like
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | your toothbrush.  Don't let
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | anybody else use it--
Internet:       [e-mail]  | and get a new one every
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | six months."  --Cliff Stoll

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 20:07:32 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: No More Ethics!

>It's obvious that Tom and I will never agree, so I'm dropping the debate.

I would have dropped it while ago.  But, being in a minority of one, what
would I have heard had I not responded?  Here's a clue:

>I haven't been "out-logiced", just have more things to do than I have time
>for...

For those still interested, I've gotten a bunch of requests (as though it
was all my doing) to get it off the net.  That's cool.  If you still care,
take it to private mail, as have several others.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 18:59:54 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: overpopulation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

   Aren't you all missing the point that the growth of Earth's
   population will level off somewhere around three times the present
   population around the same time that cheap energy is getting scarce?

Best guesses I've seen have been 8-10bn, actually. No serious
demographers are talking about 16bn any more. Read some demography (I
did, after the last time this went around here. I was a doomsayer
before).

Nick

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 11:31:19 GMT
From: Ian Taylor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phobos/Deimos observer?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Are there plans to use Mars Observer (MO) to investigate the Martian moons?

There would seem to be an opportunity to get some new data while MO performs
its orbit insertion maneuvers for the first four months.

+-- I -------- fax [phone] --------------------- voice [phone] --+
| T a y l o r  Alcatel-ELIN Research, 1-7 Ruthnergasse, Vienna A-1210 Austria  |
+-- n ---- [e-mail] --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+

    Current signature under review for ISO 9000 compliance.

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 08:14:59 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Practicing comet mining aboard Fred (was Re: what use is Freedom?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gay, good to see you posting to the Net!

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (USRNAME) writes:
> Who will use the space
> station when it is ready? The types of science mostly talked
> about are life science and microgravity. Microgravity is
> somewhat incompatible with people being on board and
> jostling the station.

Depends upon the details of the experiment, I suppose.  Don't forget
that, after the sixth assembly flight,  there's a period of Man-Tended
Capability from 1997 to 2000 with long periods of "low-jostling"
flight between construction flights.  This might be a good time to do
more sensitive experiments, but good luck following up on your

research-- especially with the Columbus free-flyer dead.

> Are there plans now to have a module
> floating free from the main station for that?

Not as far as I know.

> What I am curious to find out is, who wants to use the space
> station Freedom and for what? There are probably scientists
> who want to do basic research, but perhaps there are also
> people in industry who have thought about using the ssF for
> applied research.

Saw a poster paper at WSC which detailed experiments to understand the
formation of interplanetary or interstellar dust grains through
experiments aboard SSF which would simulate them.  Which got me
thinking.

I know somebody who says he's figuring out how to mine Jupiter-family
comets.  Processing cometary or asteroidal material in low gravity is
a technical challenge that could benefit greatly from experiments
in LEO.  How do you make equipment that can remove material from the
surface, or below the surface, of an icy or muddy body, and extract
nice volatiles from it without gumming up the machinery?  Oh, and we
would prefer that this equipment be automated and not require a nearby
operator...  Let's throw together some simulated cometary material,
and try out some ideas on it in free fall.

Unfortunately, this sort of applied experiment would probably have a
lot of trouble getting NASA approval, since NASA probably thinks that
using cometary or asteroidal material is something we won't need to do
for about a century and a half.  But I know it will appeal to *you*,
Gay, and maybe you can shake some people up with it.

> e-mail(Internet):  [e-mail]
>          (GEnie)   :  G.CANOUGH
> phone/fax= 607 785 6499    voice mail = 800 673 8265
> radio call sign:   KB2OXA

Uh-oh, everybody's getting a ham license but me, even *girls*.  Peer
pressure is mounting.

"Do you know the asteroids, Mr.Kemp?...    Bill Higgins
Hundreds of thousands of them.  All
wandering around the Sun in strange        Fermilab
orbits.  Some never named, never
charted.  The orphans of the Solar         [e-mail]
System, Mr. Kemp."
                                           [e-mail]
"And you want to become a father."
  --*Moon Zero Two*                        SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 20:13:58 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Property rights?

>   A judge is supposed to make decisions based on natural law, et. al.
>   When he doesn't, he's called 'a felon', not 'judge'.

>Incorrect.  According to the constitution, a judge is supposed to make
>decisions based upon _written_ law.  Natural law is mentioned
>_nowhere_ in the constitution.  As far as the US is concerned, there
>is no such thing as "natural law".

Geez, I thought I was pedantic :-)  The point is, the good judge is one
who makes decisions based upon codified and accepted rules that the
society which has empowered him have agreed to.  The bad judge is one
who makes decisions based on some other, ususally personal, interest,
which go against the aforementioned codified rules, like a bribe or a
political interest, for which, judges can face felony charges.

Or, to bring it back to the original thread, which, I beleive was about
property rights, in particular, radio frequency rights;  A judge does
not determine a lawsuit to determine the law, but, rather, to see how
the law applies in that particular situation.  Since we were talking
about systems of law, the situations should be left to the judge, or
whatever power fills his role, in whatever system is under consideration.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 13:36:21 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Radio and property rights

> If you know of a way to construct an unambigious legal system than
> there are some mathematicians who would really like to talk to you.
>


I won't claim you can remove all ambiguity. There are cases when it is in
fact necessary. I stated that many problems are due to very roundabout
techniques used to provide a legal framework which could be much more simply
defined in a different paradeigm. That is not to say that there are not
things which would not be ambiguous in the other paradeigm. I only assert
that it would be less. To attempt to prove it would require an unending
discussion ala Tommy :-)

>> ... would not be just a civil matter, but one of criminal theft
>> and trespass ...
> Irrespective of the flat assertion that law suits will somehow be
> cheaper and reulst in more consistently just outcome in a
> neoLibertarian society,
As you can see, that is not what I said. Criminal trespass is a different
matter and tends to be dealt with more expeditiously than civil suit.

> how do you compensate that loss of use while to suit is in progress?
There is no compensation today, so it is at least not worst. Look at all the
suits, lobbying, injunctions and such that are going on TODAY over the LEO
systems frequency allocations. See Wales' recent posting.


> How do you enforce your settlement?
> And, why do you expect the rest of the world to follow along???
>


What happens today when someone is convicted of criminal mischief? They go to
jail. In a minimalist state, the policeman still comes and takes them away.
In a fully private society there are also means, but I really don't want to
start THAT discussion here. If you are interested, read Murray Rothbard's
"Towards a New Liberty" (or an approximation of that title)

> What was this about never initiating use of force? Or is this a
> convenient redefinition of "force"?
>

Initiation means you are not the one to start it.


The force was initiated by the trespassers with the bulldozer. A libertarian
jurisprudence would recognize a very large difference between actions taken
against simple trespass and the actions taken when your home is about to be
knocked down. You have a right to deny entry to your property, and to use the
requisite amount of force to prevent said entry. The question which would
have to be asked is, "Was there a lower level of force that could have been
used by the property owner to prevent the imminent destruction of his home?"
If the answer is yes, then he is guilty of using excessive force. In my
opinion, there was NO level of force available to him that could have
prevented the state-initiated vandalism.  Yes, the fellow was quite foolish.
He couldn't possibly win. I won't argue that point, but the action, in and of
itself was justifiable as a response against state initiated force.

And in another post you said:
> guy up and taking whatever he wanted. It only slowed down when the
> little guys realised that if they grouped together and laid down
> some rules this sort of behaviour could be moderated - this evolved
> into social structure and governments - I'm sorry neoLibertarians
> don't like the particular social compromise that they were born into,
> and I applaud their efforts to change it, but don't pretend that
>


This issue is not unattended to. It is dealt with via a different form of
social contract, not the law of the jungle. Again, I can best suggest you
read the Rothbard book. You will probably still disagree, but at least you'll
know where I'm coming from.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 20:28:16 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio rights

>>For that matter, what's wrong with suing, based on the infringement of
>>radio waves upon my peacful, quiet EM field?  Solar power has already
>>brought up the question of 'solar rights'.

>Try this one: "If those people are going to beam signals into my backyard, I
>have a right to use them".  Just let me know what prison they assign you to,
>I'll write.

Well, that's a nice thought, sarcastic as it seems to be :-), but thanks
anyway.  It is just this *correct* logic that is used, and is now
considered precedent, when cable companies sue Sat-dish owners.  You
don't want them to get your signal?  Stop sending it to them!

>>The FCC is supposed to make decisions based on...what?  I guess I don't
>>really know.  I imagine it's something really vague and unenforcable like,
>>'public welfare' or some such gov agency double-talk.

>By the empowering law.  Not that that tells us much :-(

Indeed.  "The common heritage of all electro-chemical beings..."

>>And now, the FCC is 'the big guy'.  Between taxes, licensing, and the
>>disposal of frequencies, the FCC is the de facto owner of the entire
>>EM spectrum in the US.

>By international treaty and US law, they ARE the owner.  And, since they are a
>wing of the US government, and since WE are the US government, we own the
>spectrum.  Yeah, right.

But when me an' my roomate set up that illegal R-rated AM radio X-mitter
in our dorm building (using the electrical system as an antenna), it
wasn't the students that busted us :-)

>Gosh Tommy, I would have expected you to be more cynical by now :-)

Gee, I feel kind of stupid, but I missed the joke.  Why?

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 08:39:25 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: satellite construction question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (k.c.archie) writes:
>>Over dinner last night, a friend wondered if satellites had air in them.
>
>Other than the manned ones :-), generally not, for Western-built satellites.
>Typically they aren't even vaguely airtight; if they turn out to be nearly
>so, vents must be added to depressurize them on the way up.  (For example,
>there are vents for all parts of the shuttle-orbiter interior except the
>cabin.)  Soviet/Russian satellites often are pressurized; my understanding
>is that the main reason for this is so circulating air can be used for
>cooling.  Thermal design of Western-style unpressurized satellites is
>non-trivial if you've got electronic (etc) equipment that runs hot and
>has to be cooled.

Thermal control is a strong reason, but not the only one. In AMSAT Oscar
10, outgassing is suspected to have contaminated an antenna changeover
relay to the point that a 10 db degradation in signal occurred. This
rendered a major payload virtually worthless. Extensive, and expensive,
vacuum chamber testing of satellite components is required to anticipate
and compensate for these effects. With the Soviet approach, if it worked
on the ground, odds are it will work in orbit since the atmosphere remains
the same. Other problems, such as vacuum welding, and bearing grease
evaporation can be a nuisance in a unsealed satellite. The major benefits
to unsealed operation are that leaks aren't a problem and mass is lower.
If a sealed satellite leaks, you're left with an unsealed satellite that
hasn't been tested or prepared for vacuum operations. Building a satellite
to contain 14 PSI internal pressure raises it's mass, as does the atmosphere
itself.

Gary

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 11:36:33 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sayonara, Mariner Mark II
Newsgroups: sci.space

History says it was the automated project Sputnik that caused
the big inrush of space funds, and the astronaut project Apollo that
ended it.  It's a long, long way between children's dreams and space
program funding, but the shortest cut seems to be the self-fulfilling
prophecy -- we can't fund planetary exploration, 'cuz it's not popular,
and lo and behold it doesn't get funded because you spoke out against it.

BTW, the "camel's nose under the tent" is another big example
of astronaut missions being a politically liability to
cheaper/faster/better exploration like Lunar Scout and Artemis.

How many examples do we need?  Tom Wolfe's quote "No Bucks, No
Buck Rogers" is still quite true; the reversal of his quote is
one of the most destructive myths to have swept across the space
program in a long time.   It has no basis in historical reality;
just in too many people's minds as a self-fulfilling prophecy.


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

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 11:16:20 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Self-genociding space colonies & the Fermi Paradox
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>[Self-genociding space colonies]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>This is somewhat off the topic, but do you realize that you have just
>rebutted one of the main arguments against the existence of extraterrestrial
>civilization, namely "If they exist, why haven't they visited us?"

I hadn't thought of that, but it is a fascinating and quite disturbing
idea. The demographics hold for all highly educated human societies,
from Hungary to Italy to Germany to Japan, but I have a hard time
extrapolating that to all possible ETI societies. If ETI life is common
by the Drake Equation, a civilization somewhere should value fertility
over wealth, have achieved immortality, have built Von Neumann machines
that would clue us in even if they had failed themselves to expand, or
some such.  On the other hand, it may be possible that technologically
blocking the effects of evolved reproductive behaviors has a self-genocidal
impact on every alien civilization, across a wide variety of possible
biologies and cultures, and thus plays an important role in the ability of ETI
civilizations to expand.

Keep in mind, the self-genociding space colony implies more than just
some ZPG or stasis.  Given the human perfect-birth-control rate of
-50%/generation over stellar timescales, our entire population
would become extinct. Nobody knows how long this trend would really continue,
but as far as I can tell going all the way to extinction can't be
ruled out.  I would certainly like to prevent that, or even going in
that direction, of my own volition,  because I am morally sickened by
such a prospect, but I know few people who share strong pro-propagation
values, or who act on them even if they do; such intellectual motivations
may not be sufficient as a replacment for the sexual drive.



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

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 12:49:02 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Self-genociding space colonies & the Fermi Paradox
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick
Szabo) writes:
>
> >>[Self-genociding space colonies]
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> >This is somewhat off the topic, but do you realize that you have just
> >rebutted one of the main arguments against the existence of extraterrestrial
> >civilization, namely "If they exist, why haven't they visited us?"
>
> I hadn't thought of that, but it is a fascinating and quite disturbing
> idea. The demographics hold for all highly educated human societies,
> from Hungary to Italy to Germany to Japan, but I have a hard time
> extrapolating that to all possible ETI societies. If ETI life is common
> by the Drake Equation, a civilization somewhere should value fertility
> over wealth, have achieved immortality, have built Von Neumann machines
> that would clue us in even if they had failed themselves to expand, or
> some such.

But wouldn't the same demographic problem apply to the Von Neumann
machines also? :-/
--
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: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 16:17:00 GMT
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: space news from Aug 17 AW&ST (Hermes project)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
and also in the news...
The European Hermes will NOT make as it is. The version that will
be proposed to the ministries in Spain will have no wings and will
look more like a capsule.




Igor
Texas A&M University
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You heard it first here.....

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 12:07:53 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: what use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (USRNAME) writes:
>According to a reliable source, at a space station
>utilization meeting of 1500 people earlier in the year, only
>15  of the people in attendance considered
>themselves to be space station users, as opposed to
>contractors, NASA engineers, etc. The question comes to mind
>"What's wrong with this picture?"

_Now_ it's asked!  The question that comes to my mind is,
why wasn't this asked in early 80's when NASA was first pushing
for it (and when people like me lobby for it, I take part of the
blame).  Why do we pursue this technology as a religious sacrament
instead pursuing that which is useful to people?  The human
race has launched over half a dozen space stations, and planned
many more, spending $10's of billions in the process.  Surely if
there was a use for them, we would have found it by now!
Yet there are only _fifteen_ users for this $120 billion
space station!  Those following a religion, as opposed to a
rational plan of space development, continue to ignore reality and
pursue these obsolete, useless technological sacraments.  _That_
is the question; why do we continue to pursue the same failed
strategies, here in the last decade of the 20th century when so many
of us want space development to happen so badly?  Why, to take
the next even more egregious example, do people continue to
promote the "lunar base" as the "Next Logical Step" when it
is so demostrably useless and, worse, diverts huge amounts of
funds and attention from those projects which can advance our
capabilities in space?  Why do we continue to ignore the
many commercial and military uses of space, and the exploration
of the planets, when these are so demonstrably useful?  Until
we start answering these questions, we are stuck in the same
groove, fated to repeat the same futile efforts over and over again,
until we all mercifully die on Earth and make way for a newer
generation, one that can ignore their parents and figure out
how to accomplish this not-so-easy-as-dreaming task in the
real world, instead of in the dream world.

If we wait for our children, Allen and Herman and I can kiss goodbye
to even making major new discoveries and advancing our capabilities
in space, much less going there ourselves, before we ourselves
hit the bit bucket.  How about it guys & gals?  Are we ready to
retool our minds for the 21st century, or are we just going to
make up more justifications for the same failures over and over
again?  What's it going to be?


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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 242
------------------------------