Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO301.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Fri,  9 Oct 92 05:03:32
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #301
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  9 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
                                (none)
          an idea for simulated flybys of planetary surfaces
                 Asteroid Toutatis Closes In On Earth
               Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase (2 msgs)
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (3 msgs)
                         Laser Space Mirror
                          Magellan (2 msgs)
                          orbital lifetimes
                            Pioneer Venus
                       SETI positive? (3 msgs)
                 UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan (2 msgs)

    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: 9 Oct 92 04:38:25 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (none)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>There is another, and extremely important, reason for colonization, namely,
>escape from an oppressive government.  The Spanish colonies were moderately
>successful only where they were eminently profitable; the missions in
>California must be considered a failure.  The French colonies in Canada
>and Louisiana were not particularly successful.  On the other hand, the
>English colonies to escape oppression were generally quite successful,
>even bringing in others.  A major part of the US immigration in the 19th
>century was to escape oppression.


I have one simple question.
If you're trying to "...escape from an oppressive government.", how are you
going to escape from this "oppressive government" when they're funding this
project?

Keep searching until a group of private corporations get together and fund a
majority of this project.


                    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:10:55 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: an idea for simulated flybys of planetary surfaces
Newsgroups: comp.graphics,sci.space

The simulated flybys of planetary surfaces appear a bit fake because the
topography is often much smoother than the textured image.
I suggest adding texture bump maps generated with a fractal dimension
proportional to the fractal dimension of the image.  The proportionality
factor could probably be derived by comparing the fractal dimension of high
resolution topo maps and images in a Terran landscape.
Has anyone tried this yet?  I see that E&S flight simulators make generous use
of [ flat ] texture maps for realism.  The flyby movie- LA: the movie- used
a high resolution topo map and looks more real (except for the aliasing jaggies
in this early attempt.)

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

Date: 9 Oct 92 01:27:08 GMT
From: Wolfgang Zenker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asteroid Toutatis Closes In On Earth
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
: [..]
:      The approach of Toutatis this year and the one in 2004
: represent the two closest Earth passages of any known asteroid
: for the next 30 years, said Yeomans.
:
:      Toutatis was discovered Jan. 4, 1989, by Astronomer
: Christian Pollas at Caussols, France, and was named after a
: Gallic deity called "protector of the tribe."

And according to a popular comic strip, the only thing the worshipers
of Toutatis ever feared was that the sky might fall on their heads.

Wolfgang

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 12:40:09 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Bringing water to earth doesn't strike me as very profitable.

Well, that's good. :-)

> Even bringing
>water to LEO doesn't strike me as profitable.

First off, we're bringing back water, methane, ammonia, organics, and
whatever else interesting is on the comet or "wet" asteroid, not just
water.

It doesn't matter what "strikes" people; what matters is the economics
of the situation, what the rocket equation says, what the equipment
thruput is and if we can aerobrake payload (see my post, "Safety
of flyby and aerobraking of large bodies).  The target orbit is
probably GTO and not LEO, for the record.   GTO is the halfway-point
for commercial payloads to Clarke orbit.  Also polar earth orbit,
Mars orbit and the lunar surface, assuming somebody can find the
$100's of billions for FLO, could be markets.  The project is
economical without aerobraking, because the extraction equipment
thruput is high and the ice rocket has practically a zero tankage factor.

>A lunar colony needs to have PROFITABLE EXPORTS and a minimium of heavy
>imports. The only profitable export of the near-term is going to be power.

You were talking about a lunar "base" with a few astronauts living
in Winnebago-sized modules, not a lunar colony with potentially
self-sufficient families.  Let's not start misusing the word "colony"
for PR, lest the very goal of space colonization be lost in the process.

Power export is  not near-term, because the up-front investment required is
probably 1,000 times what commerce will spend on any new venture, even after
NASA gets done with FLO.  Furthermore, the amortization of that investment alone
is far more expensive than building natural-gas and nuclear reactors earthside.
The limiting factor on electricity costs, BTW, is capital cost of plants
not energy supplies.  We don't win on capital costs by using $10 million
an hour construction labor on the moon.  :-)

>Once you land the initial hardware, LunaOne should be able to use native
>materials to generate its own oxygen and extract metals to produce more
>machines.

No it cannot do this, because large volumes of volatiles are critical
to such processes and do not exist on the moon.  Study your industrial
processes, please.

>Where d'ya get $40 mil/ton, laddy? Is that NASA costs?

No, it's an extrapolation of commercial costs by the extra delta-v
needed to land on the moon.  If NASA will be building its typical
astronaut-safety structures, I care not to imagine how expensive
it will be.

>I'm going to subcontract
>to the Russians.

Not if NASA is helping, you won't, except for minor pieces of
tech here and there.

><<buzzer>> WRONG! All my R&D has been done thanks to the folks at Freed

R&D is only a small fraction of SSF costs.  The cost of launching and
maintaining astronauts dominates even for LEO, and will be even much
more dominating a factor foor the moon.  Besides, FLO is redesigning
everything -- new suits, modules, etc.  It turns out that astronaut
equipment is designed for special-purpose use; what works in LEO
probably doesn't on the moon.  Besides, the whole purpose of NASA
studying this is to design their next pork barrel project, and
that won't work if they can't get the R&D boys in on it.

>If I don't like the costs here at home, I'll go talk to the Italians, who are
>building smaller modules to be installed on Freedom.

Even smaller than a Winnebago?   Are we now stuffing astronauts
into Honda Civics for 90 days?

>Or the Russians, who have
>lots of leftovers, and hungry families.

May not be a coincidence.

>I respectfully submit the furnace might be the EASIEST thing to construct and
>build now.

It's an entiring mining and processing system you're talking about,
not just a furnace.   The furnace has be cleaned often,
eg how are you going to clean the condensate off the furnace cover?
The inflexibility of astronauts for fixing the myriad Shuttle problems,
even those that could have been fixed in a shirtsleeve environment,
demonstrates that this stuff can't be fiexed.  We have to have stuff
that works autonomously, whether astronauts are there or not.
The astronauts have no magic fix-it capability; for every dramatic
fix they've done in space there have been over a dozen Shuttle problems
they couldn't fix.  Mining and extraction of specific elements
from soils takes hundreds to thousands of specialized craftsmen and
millions of tons of tools and equipment to do in shirtsleeves,
air-filled environments on earth.  We have to start bootstrapping
with the simple processes, and unfortuneately that means leaving
the tough stuff like breaking apart silicate regolith until later.

>Let's see, we get air from our O2 plant.

Air is mostly nitrogen, unless you're planning to repeat the Apollo
fire.  Plants also rely on nitrogen and carbon dioxide to grow.

It would be also fun to see that O2-air used to lubricate the
machine tools.  :-) :-)

Alas, this lunar scheme doesn't just fail the basics of
business economics; it also fails frosh chemistry.

>No Nick. The base is infrastructure.

Ah yes.  That magic word "infrastructure", which releases us from
all fiscal responsibility.  In the real world, somebody has to
pay for that "infrastructure", hopefully the people who benefit
from it.  If nobody who can pay benefits, as in this case, then
some other kind of infrastructure should be built for someone else
who _can_ make a paying proposition out of it.

>[solar cell beaming, I'm castigated for "ignoring it"]

I didn't mention it because the budget was already above $500 billion even
before we started to try to pay for things like mass drivers, big
solar cell plants, etc.   The prereqs were sufficient to demonstrate the
absurdity of the project. A solar cell plant alone would more than
double that budget -- we are talking huge amounts of chemical
plant to purify the silicon, for starters.   Furthermore, just
passing the safety hurdles and building the rectennas will take
up most of the typical powerplant budget, if the ecofascists will
even allow it at all.

>I'm going to skip this, because there's no "market."

Well then who is shelling out the $500 billion, and why?  Congress
won't even pay four orders of magnitude less than that for SEI, last
I heard.

>The Szabo comet express, which is high-risk, and bases itself on the need for
>what? Alleged U.S. government needs, such as inflated SDIO "needs."

I never denied government as market. The military is our primary user of s
pace; both its current and future operations would benfit greatly from
cheap propellant.  Cost of large Mars missions would be reduced an
order of magnitude, with the radiation dosage greatly lowered.  Moon
base would benefit tremendously, as well, but it's not likely to
be an initial market, since it just doesn't make any economic
or political sense until the cost of large-scale space operations
has been radically lowered, primarily with a cheap supply of
volatiles.

BTW how is the need to protect against $trillions in damage and
millions of lives lost from a small nuclear war "inflated"?

There are many large commercial markets as well. Comet organics can
be turned into a wide-variety of materials, including urea-formaldehyde
resin and carbon fiber, for building very large comsats.  The project provides
raw materials that make large-scale space manufacturing economical for the
first time.   I've found over twenty markets; the rate of return after
adjusting for market risk and technological risk (with insurance)
is 30%/year, assuming very modest but important gains in technology
and knowledge of comets from exploration.

Volatile extraction would greatly lower the cost of doing this
lunar base.  If you want to help make it a reality for that reason,
that's great.  Let's work together to fund Spacewatch, an asteroid
and comet composition survey, NEAR, and a comet sample return.
All that put together is less than 1% the cost of FLO; you
wouldn't even notice the funds.  I'll even help work for
Artemis and Lunar Scout as a return favor.

>[Comsats]
>Which was built on a goverment-constructed infrastructure and R&D.

Government R&D done for other, useful reasons, not done in a
vague hope of setting up some sort of comsat industry.  I'm
not objecting to government R&D in support of volatile extraction;
I'm calling for it!


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian

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

Date: 9 Oct 92 04:43:45 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>For the amounts we are talking about it would be cost effective to develop
>>any of several ideas which would reduce launch costs to the moon by one
>>to two orders of magnitude.

>2. We should develop these ideas to reduce launch costs, instead of
>assuming them.

Nick, think for a minute.  Isn't it a little silly to tell _Allen Sherzer_ that
we need to develop this instead of assume it?  I kinda get the impression he
knows that.

>  At one order of magnitude
>drop, it would make economic sense to move practically every radio
>and TV broadcast tower to Clarke orbit, for example.

Excuse me?  Where did _this_ come from?

>>SSF to construction only runs $30 billion. A second set for a lunar base
>>would run far far less.

>It is ridiculous to count only construction costs.  We must also include
>launch and life-cycle costs.  That brings us to $150 billion.
>Furthermore, we need to develop Apollo-style launch hardware, but larger
>and from scratch, so we add on the $120 billion Apollo costs, bringing
>us to $270 billion.

Nick, these are some of the least useful numbers I've seen since Bush's campaign
ads.  They don't mean _anything_.  How long a life-cycle are you assuming?  What
launch cost did you use?  What level of experience did you assume?

>>It looks like there is no point analyzing Nick's post...

>True, there is no point in analyzing my posts if you are not willing
>to be open minded to the facts, instead of wishes like
>"one or two orders of magnitude drop on launch costs" which
>magically benefit your pet project and nobody else's.

1) Expressing one's opinions and quoting statistics should not be concluded with
adversarial remarks about avoiding "the facts."

2) Drops in launch costs will not benefit everyone equally.  I don't know off
hand which of you gets the biggest benefit, but please don't assume out of
hand that he's wrong.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
     The views expresed above do not necessarily reflect those of
ISDS, UIUC, NSS, IBM FSC, NCSA, NMSU, AIAA or the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Acronymphomaniacs

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

Date: 9 Oct 92 09:12:14 +1300
From: Stephen Anderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

Nick Haines writes:
>
> In the same way that the sun's gravity pulls the Earth towards the
> sun? Wrongo. Whatever we launch from Earth starts off in solar orbit
> (because the Earth is in solar orbit), and has to dump all of its
> orbital velocity (i.e. 30 km/sec) in order to fall into the sun. This
> is much more expensive than launching to solar escape velocity and
> leaving the solar system. Do the sums.
>
OK.  Perhaps I am the ignoramus that you seem to assume that everyone who
doesn't share your view is.  So enlighten me.  Isn't the thing that stops the
Earth plunging into the Sun its orbital velocity.  uh-huh.  And if we placed a
satellite in an identical orbit as the earth, but at a slower orbital velocity
(by firing it off in an opposite direction to that way which the earth is
going) what will happen.  Will its orbit decay until it falls into the sun, or
will its orbit merely change to a different one.  Either way we have an
advantage.  If it falls into the Sun (or indeed hit Venus, Mercury or some
other body) the problem is gone forever.  And if it settles into a different
orbit then it is out of sight, out of mind, and we can recover it later.

> This is only one problem. The real reasons why we shouldn't `dispose'
> of nuclear waste by sending it into space are:
>
> (1) it's far too expensive to do (even if we just want to leave it in
>     a parking orbit somewhere, the launch costs are absurd),
> (2) we may well want the waste again in the future, and it's cheaper
>     to get to if it's on Earth,
> (3) crazy politicians will scream blue murder because they think it'll
>     fall on their heads. It's not worth the trouble.
Finally, some decent reasons.  Especially that first one.  But roll on fusion
so we don't have to worry about what to do with waste.


Stephen..

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 20:47:59 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>... if we placed a satellite
>in an identical orbit as the earth, but at a slower orbital velocity
>(by firing it off in an opposite direction to that way which the earth is
>going) what will happen.  Will its orbit decay until it falls into the sun, or
>will its orbit merely change to a different one...

Orbits don't decay without a good reason (e.g. part of the orbit is within
an atmosphere).  If you fire an object off "rearward" from Earth, the big
question is *how fast?*.  Earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/s.  If
your object, once it escapes from Earth's gravitational field, is only
going, say 1-2 km/s slower than Earth, it will end up in an elliptical
orbit with the low end somewhat inside Earth's orbit and the high end
touching Earth's orbit.  This is not a good place for dangerous cargo,
because sooner or later, when the object is at the high point of its
orbit, Earth will be nearby again and there is some chance of a collision.
Not very much for an individual object, but if you're launching lots of
these things, the odds of having one of them come back unexpectedly do
start to climb...

>... If it falls into the Sun (or indeed hit Venus, Mercury or some
>other body) the problem is gone forever...

The odds of any noticeable fraction of the objects hitting one of the
planets are negligible.  The planets are very small and the solar system,
even the inner solar system, is very large.  (The only reason for concern
about them hitting the Earth is that we care about even *one* doing so.)

To get it into the Sun's atmosphere, so the orbit will decay into the
Sun in a reasonable time, you will have to kill *most* of that 30 km/s.
This is hard.  Launching entirely out of the solar system is easier;
for that we only have to add about 12 km/s.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:33:25 GMT
From: Dave Dodson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>To get it into the Sun's atmosphere, so the orbit will decay into the
>Sun in a reasonable time, you will have to kill *most* of that 30 km/s.
>This is hard.  Launching entirely out of the solar system is easier;
>for that we only have to add about 12 km/s.

Since the earth's escape velocity from near the surface is 11 km/s, a
payload on a direct solar impact trajectory would have to be moving at
about sqrt(11^2 + 30^2) = 32 km/s at thrust termination.  However,
a payload on a solar escape trajectory would need a speed of only about
sqrt(11^2 + 12^2) = 16 km/s.  Since energy is proportional to v^2, the
direct solar impact trajectory takes about 4 times the launch energy as
the solar escape trajectory.  This is a HUGE difference.

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

Dave Dodson                                     [e-mail]
Convex Computer Corporation      Richardson, Texas      [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:09:04 +0000
From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Laser Space Mirror
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>The secret to opening the space frontier is to be found in plastic
>mounted bits of old satellites; pet moon rocks; committing ashes to
>the deep; asteroid desk sets (Ceres, Vesta, Pallas... Collect em!
>Trade em with your friends!); garbage disposal... and so forth.
>

How err... very um.. well...  American! :-)

Why not laser raster scan the clouds with MacDonalds adverts?   >cringe<

You'd need all sorts of permissions to scan from the ground, 'cos of
aircraft etc. but from above?  an idea, but the beam intensity would have
to be *colossal*!

Andy.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates     | Email: [e-mail]         |
| Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex |        [e-mail] |
| CM9 8UH England.  0621-88756     | Also:  081-800 1708  081-802 4502    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 20:34:17 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>of course what i was wondering, is given the cheesy condition of the
>radar,  why not continue the stereo mapping of venus before they
>move onto gravity measurements.

Probably because the gravity work is an important secondary objective, more
important than 100% stereo coverage, and they want to do the gravity-mapping
cycle before the money runs out.  It already got postponed slightly, I
think, to get the main radar-mapping mission done while the transmitters
were still in good shape.

>what i saw at WSC,  they have 98% appx of venus's surface mapped
>at two angles,  but only stereo views of appx 30% of venus.

Do remember that they don't *need* stereo views to get a full 3D model of
Venus.  That's what the radar altimeter (which has been working away at
the same time as the mapping, although with little publicity) is for.
It provides the large-scale absolute topography as background and as
calibration (so to speak) for the small-scale radar images.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 23:42:09 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Probably because the gravity work is an important secondary objective, more
>important than 100% stereo coverage, and they want to do the gravity-mapping
>cycle before the money runs out.  It already got postponed slightly, I
>think, to get the main radar-mapping mission done while the transmitters
>were still in good shape.
>

A good gravity map can answer the question whether there is active tectonics
on Venus.  The images are unclear whether the current features were created
recently or long ago (although crater counts help).  The gravity image should
match the geoid (aphrioid? :-) + topographic image in quiesent regions and
diverge in active regions.

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 20:26:38 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: orbital lifetimes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
>|How many of these moons have stable orbits?  In this case, I define stable
>|to mean that they will stay in orbit for 100+ years...
>
>Anything above 1000 km will stay up for 100+ years...

At lower altitudes there's a nice set of rules of thumb...

At 100km your orbit lasts about an hour.
At 150km your orbit lasts about a day.
At 200km your orbit lasts about a week.
At 250km your orbit lasts about a month.
At 300km your orbit lasts about a quarter.
At 350km your orbit lasts a bit under a year.

Don't plan missions on this basis. :-)  Furthermore, don't try to extrapolate
it further:  the more-or-less semilog relationship you would infer from it
is visibly failing on both ends.  It's actually more like log-log, and the
constants vary a lot with how dense your satellite is.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Oct 92 06:45:06 GMT
From: Thomas Enblom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pioneer Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've just read Ron Baalkes message about the Pioneer Venus probe is still alive.
Could someone give me some details about this object.
For example, how old it is, its mission and so on. I don't know a thing about it.


================================================================================
Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden

Thomas Enblom, just another employee.

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 17:54:35 GMT
From: Michael Rivero <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI positive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Colley) writes:
|>
|> I suppose I'd be more worried if somebody a 100 light-years from
|> Earth WAS currently watching our TV broadcasts!
|>

  Especially the very first high powered public broadcast, made during the 1936
Olympics, featuring a speech by Der Feuhrer himself, ol' Adolf!

 No WONDER the aliens never returned the phone call!





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero [e-mail]  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  "The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall                 |
|  victims to a big lie than to a small one."                            |
|                                          --Adolph Hitler               |
|                                                                        |
|   "All men are potential rapists, and that's _all_ they are!"          |
|                                 -- Susan Brownmiller                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 17:56:50 GMT
From: Michael Rivero <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI positive?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
|>
|> Dan>    I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that
|> Dan> our lackwit bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a
|> Dan> potential hit on a SETI search and a multi-telescope confimation
|> Dan> is planned Oct 12-???
|>
|> Dan>    Any information?
|>
|> Yes.  The message was "Send more Chuck Berry!"


  I heard it was,"Got your message. Hold on, help on the way!"



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero [e-mail]  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Date: 9 Oct 92 00:06:05 GMT
From: Declan Hughes <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI positive?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

 [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock) writes

>   I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that our lackwit
>bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a potential hit on a SETI
>search and a multi-telescope confimation is planned Oct 12-???
>  Any information?

  Sure, It is God on the way for the October 28th second coming,
 apparently even It cannot travel faster than the speed of light !

Declan
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:53:21 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Newsgroups: sci.space

>You better believe what he has to say. After all he is a writer
>for the National Enquirer!!!!    :) :) :)

Nooooo!!! (Really? Dr. Carl Sagan???)

---------------------
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 20:06:22 EDT
From: william grimm <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Newsgroups: sci.space

> >          Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were
> >          found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the
> >          U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger
> >          somewhere.  The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on
> >          Earth, and some of it even had ALIEN SYMBOLS written on it.
> ...
> >                                   Robert E. McElwaine
> >                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
>
>

Well, Mr. McElwaine, what happened was- and watch who you repeat this to-
Carl Sagan was brainwashed at Wright Patterson's infamous hangar 13, and
convinced by certain govt. agencies to keep quiet regarding the inhuman
alien monsters that frequently visit our planet <G>.  The aliens, you see,
are working hand-in-hand with the feds- they supply the technology, we
supply the bovine and human body parts for their genetic research :}.

 This is from
     [e-mail]
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet

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


From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:20:50 GMT
Organization: ucsd
Lines: 11
Distribution: na
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

>>   Has Carl Sagan actually got a doctorate in anything ???  Last I heard
>> (long time ago , true) he was just plain ol' C. Sagan

>A glance at American Men and Women of Science shows Carl Sagan with:
>AB - 1954, BS - 1955, MS - 1956, PhD - 1960 (Astron,Astrophys)
>all granted by the University of Chicago.

Doesn't he also have a medical degree from Stanford?

Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 301
------------------------------