Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_3/V15NO337.TXT

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

Date: Sat, 24 Oct 92 05:05:17
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #337
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 24 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 337

Today's Topics:
         "Bringing Life to the Stars" synopsis of a new book
                       Ariane v.54 / Galaxy VII
                     Dan Quayle on Mars (3 msgs)
                         DCX Status? (2 msgs)
         Federal Spending (was: Space for white people only?)
      Ground facilities for DC-* (was Re: DCX Status?) (3 msgs)
            NASA Presents Low Trophy to IBM and Honeywell
                       Perot & Freedom (2 msgs)
                          Perot and Freedom
              Recognizing a Dyson sphere if you saw one

    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: Thu, 22 Oct 92 18:11:43 PDT
From: Jim Bowery <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Bringing Life to the Stars" synopsis of a new book
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci

A new book is going to press titled "Bringing Life to the Stars"
by cognitive scientitst, David Duemler.  It is initially being
sold to the academic community for various curricula, but popular
sales efforts might be undertaken if sufficient interest exists.

Initial academic orders can be sent to:

Helen Hudson
University Press of America
4720 Boston Way
Lanham, MD 20706

            Bulk rate (22% discount from retail)
Paperback   $13.65
Clothbound  $33.15

I believe individual copies can be ordered at retail.


A synopsis for "Bringing Life to the Stars" by David Duemler:

     One of the worst tragedies of the 20th century occured in Nazi
Germany when millions of people were put to death in concentration
camps.  It is also tragic when a young child is run over by a
truck.  But if we are to state which of these two outcomes is
worse, it is clear that the death of one child, as horrible as it
may be, pales into insignificance when compared to the suffering
and death of millions.  Similarly, one would prefer the most
joyous experiences of one's entire life to an experience which
is merely pleansant.  Simply put, amount matters.  This simple
insight has enormous consequences when we consider the possibility
of bringing life to the stars, thereby increasing the amount of
life countless times.  "Bringing Life to the Stars" is an attempt
to address the question, "Should we bring life to the rest of
the solar system, or, if possible, to the rest of the galaxy?"


Chapter 1:  An Ethical Foundation
     The first chapter, which provides an ethical foundation for
the rest of the book, begins by discussing three factors
which may limit attempts to think about ethics; 1) amount
matters, but there is a tendency for many people to overlook
amounts, 2) our immediate intuition is faulty, especially when
we are faced with questions for which our background has not
prepared us well, 3) we are likely to be biased toward
ourselves, our species, and our planet.
     Moving on to an examination of ethics itself, three criteria
are provided which may help us to judge proposed ethical
foundations:

     1) In suggesting that X exists and/or has value are we taking
huge inferential leaps beyond the available data?
     2) Is it biologically plausible to suggest that X exists and/or
has a biological function?
     3) If X exists is it of inherent value?

     Any proposed foundation which does not pass all three criteria
is not given further consideration.

     Proposed foundations for an ethical system include; pleasure and
pain, life itself, natural rights, integrity, diversity, the soul,
and intelligence.  Each of these proposals is examined.  Rights-
based ethical systems fail all three criteria.  The proposal of a
soul fails criterion 1 as huge inferential leaps are required for
such a system.  All other proposed foundations, with the exception
of pleasure and pain, fail to look at the underlying conditions
which ultimately determine value and thus fail criterion 3.
Pleasure and pain, broadly defined to include all types of suffering
and fulillment, is a foundation which succeeds on all three criteria
and thus serves as the basis for the rest of the book.
     A hedonistic, aggregate, act-utilitarian system is proposed and
defended against common criticisms.  This system is then used to
derive the following two axioms (which are further explained and
qualified in the book):

     1) Life which exists in a fulfilling environment tends to be of
positive value.
     2) In such an environment two lives are on average of twice the
value of one life.

     It is noted that if life were to spread throughout either the
solar system or the galaxy the amount of life could increase
countless times, and suggested that if these new worlds are
fulfilling the amount of value would increase countless times.
This would make all other problems and possibilities in our world,
except in that they may affect the probability of achieving this
vision, trivial in comparison.

Chapter 2:  Creating New Worlds
     The basic conditions for the creation of space habitats are
examined; material resources, energy resources, meteoroids and
cosmic rays, the possibility of isolation and/or confinement,
the creation of ecosystems, and conditions for non-human animals.
     A conclusion is reached that worlds in free space, if they could
be fulfilling, would be preferable to worlds on the surfaces of
moons or planets, as moons and planets are relatively inefficient
(e.g., there are thousands of miles of material beneath your feet
not being directly used, whereas in a space habitat there need only
be a couple meters).  Independent estimates that our solar system
could hold billions of times as much life as Earth are presented.
In addition to the presence of abundant material resources in
space it is shown that the Sun as a source of energy can be used
much more readily when it is not blocked out by Earth's atmosphere
or shadow (i.e., night).
     A second conclusion is that a tremendous diversity of life would
be possible in these worlds.  There could be countless such worlds
in a variety of shapes and sizes and containing a variety of
ecosystems.  Each world would contain a few tens or hundreds of
square miles of land area.  Travel to nearby worlds would be
accomplished in minutes or hours with no concern about potholes or
a necessity toplow through an atmosphere and with virtually no
use of energy whatever.
     Drawing upon work in environmental psychology, human environmental
preferences are examined with an emphasis on application to design
of worlds in space.  Examples of possible worlds are briefly
described.
     The limits of present and some conceivable near term launch
vehicles and "intelligent" machines are briefly examined.
     Finally it is noted that as machine intelligence advances in
worlds without immediate material concerns a "point of freedom"
would be approached.  At such a point machines would perform
whatever work our descendants do not wish to and thereby would
make available material goods without requiring serious human
effort.  As such a point is approached life would change considerably
and the direction of such change can best be predicted when one
takes into account the limits of consciousness and the limits of
society (i.e., the following two chapters).

Chapter 3:  Limits of Consciousness
     The extent to which new worlds would be fulfilling may be limited
by the human capacity for rationality.  Information about
cognition in non-human animals is presented to provide a foundation
for understanding human cognition.  Moving to humans, it is
suggested that we could closely approach ideal decisions if we had
unlimited access to information, if we were in concious control of
our decisions, and if we had a special capacity for logic.  It is
argued however that we fall short of these ideals in a number of
ways:

     1)  Consciousness is multifaceted, with different parts of the
brain being involved in different aspects of conscious awareness.
There is no single center in the brain which is in control of
our behavior.
     2)  Consciousness plays a circumscribed role in cognition.
Conscious attention is used primarily early in the learning
process, before things become automatized, and in general when
we are facing unusual situations.  Much of our decision making
relies on unconsicous processes.
     3)  We have not evolved a special capacity for logic.  An a priori
argument involving natural selection is presented and examples
of human difficulties with reasoning are presented.
     4)  We have not evolved a special capacity for ethical thought.

     It is argued that in the future in space we can reduce the
damage caused by these limitations:

     1)  To some extent knowledge is cumulative and thre are reasons
to suspect that the extent of human knowledge will increase
tremendously in the coming centuries.
     2)  We are capable of learning about our limitations, and will
be more so in the future given the cumulative nature of knowledge.
With such understanding we are capable of behaving in ways that
account for these limitations.  Moreover, as we approach the
"point of freedom," motivations underlying many rationalizations
or "motivated errors," may be reduced or eliminated.
     3)  As life moves beyond the possibility of nuclear destruction
and continues to become more advanced almost any errors which are
made eventually be corrected.  This will not apply as clearly to
minor day to day errors, but reducing the number and cost of major
errors can make a huge difference in how fulfilling the worlds are.

Chapter 4:  The Limits of Society
     "Immdiate return societies" are basically a subgroup of hunters
and gatherers including the !Kung, the Mbuti, the Hadza and
others who live (lived) without anything approaching formal legal
or economic systems.  Thus some aspects of their lifestyle may be
similar to what we would expect in space habitats once the point
of freedom is approached.  These societies share a number of
characteristics including a profound egalitarianism, relatively
free access to resources and freedom to move, a short work week,
secure identity, a stress on cooperation rather than competition,
and physical closeness.
     A brief look at the history of Western Civilization indicates
that modern industrial societies provide a stark contrast
with respect to each of these characteristics.  We wold thus
expect tremendous change on the societal scale as humans move
beyond Earth.  Modern industrial societies also have advantages
due to relatively advanced technology.  our descendants in space
would have even more advanced technology and thus a greater
variety of options.
     It is argued that when life in space approaches the point of
freedom it will indeed share the noted characteristics of
immediate return societies, with the possible exceptions of
secure identity and physical closeness.  Though our descendants
would be able to choose secure identity and physical closeness,
may choose otherwise due to a greater availability of options.
The social worlds which develop in space would in some respects
differ from anything found in our history on Earth due to
the relatively advanced state of knowledge and capacity for
rationality.
     Other issues relevant to present and future social systems
including aggression and reconciliation, altruism and
reciporcity, and behavioral genetics, are discussed.

Chapter 5:  A Cosmic Perspective
     It is shown that a cosmic perspective, a concern about the
universe as a whole, has been found among those with
environmental concerns since nineteenth century, including
Emerson, Thoreau, and Muir.  It is suggested that it would
be inconsistent to be concerned about the maintenance of some
ecosystems and not about the creation of others.
     The following common questions and criticisms are addressed:
1) "How could artificial worlds in free space compare with
Yosemite?,"  2) "Maybe it would be nice for some people
but I wouldn't like it.,"  3) "Aren't people who dream
of bringing life to the stars simply being irresponsible?,"
4)  "Why should someone believe that another 'technological
 fix' will solve our problems?,"  5) "Why should people give
up on Earth?  Shouldn't we solve the problems of Earth
first?,"  6) "Why don't we at least wait until it can be
done more efficiently?  Or until the push can be better
directed?"
     It is suggested that some of these comments and criticisms
are of great value in that they may help to better direct
our efforts.  However, some are self-centered, assuming
that our present day problems, our planet, and near term
considerations in general are what is of most importance.

Chapter 6:  The Limits of the Possible
     When we move to the longest term considerations we are
concerning ourselves with the limits of the possible.  A
brief look is taken at:  possible worlds, possible life
forms, the possibility of traveling to other stars, the
possibility of alien civilizations within the Milky Way,
the possibility that the universe will end, and finally
the possibility that the universe is a cyclical phenomenon.

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 92 01:23:07 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ariane v.54 / Galaxy VII
Newsgroups: rec.video.satellite,sci.space

ARIANESPACE FLIGHT 54  *rescheduled*

The 54th Ariane launch will place the Hughes Communications HS-601 GALAXY VII
satellite into a geostationary transfer orbit adapted for the PVA (Perigee
Velocity Augmentation) procedure, using an Ariane 42P launch vehicle equipped
with 2 solid strap-on boosters (PAP).  This will be the 3rd flight of an
Ariane 4 in the 42P configuration.  It will be launched from the Ariane
launch complex ELA 2, in Kourou -- French Guiana.

Due to a payload-related problem, the original launch date was postponed.
The v.54 launch is now scheduled for October 27th, at 7:17 pm (EST).
Satellite coverage begins at launch minus 30 minutes.  Galaxy VI is
about the most likely location for the feed...

-{ DA }-

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

Date: 22 Oct 1992 20:13:55 GMT
From: Jeffrey Alan Foust <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dan Quayle on Mars
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick W. Grady) writes:
>    I don't know of that one, but in the December iissue of Issac simov's
>Science Fiction Magazine, there is an article on Dan going to Mars tat
>is worth reading.
>
    The story is titled "Danny Goes to Mars", by Pamela Sargent.  It's in
the October 1992 issue of IASFM.  I highly recommend it - the story is
absolutely hilarious.  Sargent does make one now-dubious assumption in the
story, though: Bush and Quayle being reelected in 1992. :)

--
Jeff Foust                        Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
[e-mail]                       [e-mail]
        Tom Seaver: "Hey, Yogi, what time is it?"
        Yogi Berra: "You mean now?"

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

Date: 22 Oct 92 16:45:07 GMT
From: "Adam R. Brody " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dan Quayle on Mars
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Craig Lake) writes:


>    Does anyone know the famous Dan Quayle life on Mars quote from a
>couple of years ago, or at least where I could look this up?
>                    Thanks
>                    Craig Lake

Something to the effect of "Since there are canals on Mars, there
was water.  If there is water, there is oxygen, and if there is
oxygen, we can breathe!"

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

Date: 22 Oct 92 17:20:21 GMT
From: "Patrick W. Grady" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dan Quayle on Mars
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Craig Lake) writes:


>    Does anyone know the famous Dan Quayle life on Mars quote from a
>couple of years ago, or at least where I could look this up?
>                    Thanks
>                    Craig Lake

    I don't know of that one, but in the December iissue of Issac simov's
Science Fiction Magazine, there is an article on Dan going to Mars tat
is worth reading.

Patrick

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 00:36:53 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX Status?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The DCX (Delta Clipper, right??) wouldn't neet government launch facilities,
so what would the launch pads and servicing facilities for the DCX be like??
And would it be limited to overwater launching as are done with existing
facilities??  I would assume that ith verticle landing an RTLS could be
done without the long trajectory away from the launch site, as is
the emergency plan for shuttle flights.   I would also think that the
a DCX flight path could safety be over land since there aren't any boosters
or fuel tanks being jetisoned.  Sprry this posting is a bit choppy but I've got
a line noise problem.  With the simplification of launch facilities, perhaps
the "spaceports" of sci-fi stories might become a reality.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 01:56:41 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX Status?
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Fri, 23 Oct 1992 00:36:53 GMT, [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) said:

S> The DCX (Delta Clipper, right??) wouldn't neet government launch facilities,
S> so what would the launch pads and servicing facilities for the DCX be like??

DC-X, which is _not_ Delta Clipper, will be launched and recovered at
White Sands, which is as government as you can get.

DC-X was originally conceived as a demonstrator for the DC-Y, which
would have been the Delta Clipper.  DC-X is an unmanned sub-scale
model.  DC-Y is unlikely to ever happen, having been cancelled, but
DC-X is cheap enough and far enough along that they're going ahead
with it.

S> And would it be limited to overwater launching as are done with existing
S> facilities??

Not at White Sands--there's no water there to launch over.

S> I would assume that ith verticle landing an RTLS could be
S> done without the long trajectory away from the launch site, as is
S> the emergency plan for shuttle flights.

DC-X isn't going to do a RTLS.  DC-X will just be blown up by Range
Safety if something goes wrong.

S> I would also think that the
S> a DCX flight path could safety be over land since there aren't any boosters
S> or fuel tanks being jetisoned.

See above.

S> With the simplification of launch facilities, perhaps
S> the "spaceports" of sci-fi stories might become a reality.

DC-X isn't going to go into space.  30,000 ft isn't space or everyone
who has ever ridden on a 747 would be wearing astronaut wings.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous

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

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 22:32:14 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Federal Spending (was: Space for white people only?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
"UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov writes:
>  Relating spending to entertainment is especially
> pertinent, since the anti-science-spending argument is usually based on
> the notion that such spending is frivolous and expendable.  It is much
> more difficult for someone to continue this line once they realize how
> much they spend on true frivolity.
>

If I recall correctly, (from statistics of the department of commerce)  the
average household spends more on cigarettes than they do on _all_ government
sponsored science.  Very similar comparisons can be made for peanut butter,
pastries, and other consumer items.  If there is enough interest I could post a
list which I developed last year.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| [e-mail]   |---------------------------------|
| [e-mail]     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 02:27:03 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ground facilities for DC-* (was Re: DCX Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> One thing that didn't end up being mentioned in my
> technical-aspects paper is that SSTO would *not* need to use government
> launch ranges, after initial testing.  It needs no particularly elaborate
> ground facilities.

Proximity to fancy clean rooms, etc. for preparing payloads?

(I know, when the Revolution Comes, launch costs will be so low that
we can afford to slap together payloads in some undergraduate lab in
the University of Toronto's Zoology Building, and launch 'em from the
parking lot.)

Bill Higgins                           | Sign in window of
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Alice's bookstore:
Bitnet:      [e-mail]       | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS?
Internet:  [e-mail]       |     YOU SHOULD!"
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | Gee, I hope it doesn't become
                                       |   *compulsory*.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 01:43:53 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ground facilities for DC-* (was Re: DCX Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>> One thing that didn't end up being mentioned in my
>> technical-aspects paper is that SSTO would *not* need to use government
>> launch ranges, after initial testing.  It needs no particularly elaborate
>> ground facilities.

>Proximity to fancy clean rooms, etc. for preparing payloads?

Actually, maybe not even that. Delta Clipper payloads come in a standard
pallet with standard interfaces. It might be possible to prepare the
payload in your favorite clean roon, put it in a sealed pallet, and
ship to the launch site.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------185 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 23 Oct 92 03:07:55 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ground facilities for DC-* (was Re: DCX Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Actually, maybe not even that. Delta Clipper payloads come in a standard
                              ^- how about WILL

Allen, I know you are a strong proponent about this project, but at least
be honest.  Delta Clupper payloads don't come on ANY pallets at this point.

In the future, they MAY, but until then it's still a future tense.


>pallet with standard interfaces. It might be possible to prepare the
>payload in your favorite clean roon, put it in a sealed pallet, and
>ship to the launch site.
>
>  Allen
>--
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
>|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
>+----------------------185 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 02:12:33 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Presents Low Trophy to IBM and Honeywell
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
> NASA PRESENTS LOW TROPHY TO IBM AND HONEYWELL
>
>      IBM Federal Systems Co., Houston, and Honeywell, Inc., Space and
> Strategic Systems Operation, Clearwater, Fla., have been named recipients of
> the 1992 George M. Low Trophy - NASA's Quality and Excellence Award.

Ah, it's that time of year again, the presentation of the Low Quality
Award.

Recently I visited a Western Electric lab and was dismayed to find
that, according to a display in the lobby, they have a quality award
named for somebody named Bonnie Small.

It's only a matter of time before somebody names a quality award after
Arizona's talented astronomical artist, Kim Poor.

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

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

Date: 22 Oct 92 15:02:19 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Perot & Freedom
Newsgroups: sci.space

Someone asked recently about federal outlays, probably not in
this thread.  These figures are from the Financial Management Service,
Treasury Dept., General Accounting Office:

1992 US Budget Receipts & Outlays
Total receipts    1,073.6 (billions)
Total expenses  1,407.1
Deficit           333.5
Interest on       294.5
  deficit
DOD               298.2
Social Security   281.1
Health & Human    263.1
  services
Education          29.1
Food stamps        22.4

This leaves 218.8 billion to divide among other activities.
Currently NASA gets about 14 billion (6%).  As Ross points out
the deficit interest fluctuates according to market rates.
Much has been financed short-term because the rates are low.
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

Date: 22 Oct 92 17:11:02 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Perot & Freedom
Newsgroups: sci.space

CORRECTION:
>Someone asked recently about federal outlays, probably not in
>this thread.  These figures are from the Financial Management Service,
>Treasury Dept., General Accounting Office:
>
>1992 US Budget Receipts & Outlays
>Total receipts    1,073.6 (billions)
>Total expenses  1,407.1
>Deficit           333.5
>Interest on       294.5
>  ***debt***                     <<<<<<<<<
>DOD               298.2
>Social Security   281.1
>Health & Human    263.1
>  services
>Education          29.1
>Food stamps        22.4
>
>This leaves 218.8 billion to divide among other activities.
>Currently NASA gets about 14 billion (6%).  As Ross points out
>the deficit interest fluctuates according to market rates.
>Much has been financed short-term because the rates are low.
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

Date: 22 Oct 92 17:45:24 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Perot and Freedom
Newsgroups: sci.space

TYPO CORRECTION:
>Someone asked recently about federal outlays, probably not in
>this thread.  These figures are from the Financial Management Service,
>Treasury Dept., General Accounting Office:
>
>1992 US Budget Receipts & Outlays
>Total receipts    1,073.6 (billions)
>Total expenses  1,407.1
>Deficit           333.5
>Interest on       294.5
>  *** DEBT ***       <<<<<<< !!
>DOD               298.2
>Social Security   281.1
>Health & Human    263.1
>  services
>Education          29.1
>Food stamps        22.4
>
>This leaves 218.8 billion to divide among other activities.
>Currently NASA gets about 14 billion (6%).  As Ross points out
>the debt interest fluctuates according to market rates.
>Much has been financed short-term because the rates are presently low.
--
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

Date: 21 Oct 92 19:19:34 GMT
From: Paul Campbell <taniwha!paul>
Subject: Recognizing a Dyson sphere if you saw one
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>So, how can one recognize a Dyson sphere, among astronomical objects?

Good question, certainly you wouldn't be able to SEE it from outside as
you could on the STNG episode that started this thread, it probably wouldn't
have the curvature the one shown did either (think of the Enterprise next to
a vertical flat wall .....)

    Paul

--
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P

           "Since I've been Gov. of Texas the Berlin Wall has fallen ..."
                             Anne Richards

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


Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!apple!mumbo.apple.com!gallant.apple.com!laws-ken.apple.com!batman
From: Ken Laws <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on Mars
Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 21:13:37 GMT
X-Xxdate: Thu, 22 Oct 92 22:10:03 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Timeline
Lines: 20
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Craig Lake,
[e-mail] writes:
>    Does anyone know the famous Dan Quayle life on Mars quote from a
>couple of years ago, or at least where I could look this up?
>                    Thanks
>                    Craig Lake

Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same
distance
from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there
are
canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is
oxygen.
If oxygen, that means we can breathe.
        -- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/11/89
                   (reported in Esquire, 8/92)

Presented by the Quayle for Political Footnote Committee.

-Ken Laws

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 337
------------------------------