Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO188.TXT

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 05:02:14
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #188
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 16 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
                     "Late 'L5' Society (2 msgs)
                  A response from Anonymous (2 msgs)
                        FAQ nnn - hassle posts
                          Funny name for HST
                      Help the Future, Kill Fred
                        leading-edge anonymity
                        Mars observer arrival
                      Martian Bacteria (2 msgs)
                      Nobody cares about Fred?
Nobody cares about Fred? (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
                         Price for meteorites
             space station cut, goldin to stay on at NASA
                                 SSF
                        US-run space insurance

    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: 15 Feb 1993 11:26 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon Leech) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
>|> Coffman) writes:
>|> > The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US.
>|>
>|> Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The
>|> National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies
>|> Institute.  We're still kicking.
>
>    Sorry, Dale, but the L-5 Society is as dead as a doornail - if you
>consider the founding goals of the group important. Furthermore, L-5 merged
>with Von Braun's National Space Institute, NOT the Space Studies Institute.
>SSI continues doing privately funded research to support *real* space
>colonization, rather than lobbying Washington to fund aerospace subsidy
>projects like Fred.
>
>    Jon
>    __@/

Hey Jon in case you have not looked the sponsor of the National Space
Society's 1993 International Space Development Conference is the

HUNTSVILLE L-5 SOCIETY

Does this suggest to you that the L-5 is dead? Many of the L-5 chapters are
the strongest NSS chapters. Many many who are in the know, state that the

main problem with the NSS is that they do not pay any attention to their
chapters.

Now for your stupid comment about SSF. What is the reason for Clinton's
constructions jobs program? It is to shift funds from SSF (who in a vast
majority are educated and voted for Bush or Perot) to Construction workers
(Who have a generally lower education and who voted mostly for Clinton).

With this in mind what do you think the reason for the attempted change in
the budget was? I have not said much about this because we have been saying
things where it counts. It should not surprise you that Senator Howell Heflin
of Alabama was one of the main objectors to the rape of SSF.

SSF at the worst is an investment in the future. Saying that SSF will not
do anything good for mankind is akin to telling the Wright Brothers that
the aeroplane will not do any good for mankind. For the totally metaphorically
impaired this means that it is not what we know that station can do that
counts but what we do not know and will discover. Watch the PBS series
CONNECTIONS and try to get a grip on what the potential for station is.

I agree with all of the detractors that Space processing in the 80's was
largely a flop. Why? Because the ignorant scientist own experimental
designs and processes were flawed. Thanks to several years of experiments
on Sounding Rockets like CONSORT and new Shuttle Spacelab and SpaceHab and
non Shuttle missions like COMET we are GRADUALLY solving these problems. If
you think it is taking too long, take a look at a new terrestrial technology,
high temperature superconductors. They have been around since 1987 and still
there is almost no practical applications of the technology due to the
engineering problems relating to the new materials. It ain't easy and it
ain't quick but there will be payoffs. So get offa your lazy duffs and
support SSF and SSTO.

SSF will be the lab in the sky we need and SSTO will be the magic wand
that will greatly lower the costs of space transportation (on the light
end of the scale).

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 15 Feb 1993 17:46:40 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> the strongest NSS chapters. Many many who are in the know, state that the
|> main problem with the NSS is that they do not pay any attention to their
|> chapters.

    Well, yes. The NSS leadership concentrates on producing a glossy
publication with articles at the level of Sunday science supplements and on
lobbying Congress on behalf of aerospace companies.

|> Now for your stupid comment about SSF.
|>  [standard 30 line tirade about SSF elided]

    What I find most revealing about Fred is that the vast majority of its
supporters on this group seem to be employees either of NASA or one of the
SSF contractors.

    Note followups.

    Jon ([e-mail])
    __@/

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:08:49 GMT
From: Damon <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>No.  I think the fundamental issue here is control.
>
>Some Usenet contributors are afraid of losing
>control over others who disagree with them,
>especially disagree with them in way they don't
>understand, such as tasteless satire, seemingly
>off topic references and other drollery.  It
>doesn't seem "quite right" to them: it's the
>Hofstadter's cartoon character tweaking them
>from another frame.
>
>The controllers don't know what to do with it, so they
>become anxious, posting notes to this group on the
>'inherent evil' of anonymous postings.

WOA!

Before you go any further, who are these `controllers'?

I have no control (except at the site I run because I pay for every
byte I ship to it---that money *could* be in my paycheque).

I have said nothing about inherent evil, just, in my case, pointed out
the fact that a very small minority of people were using getting on for
5% of the *entire* USENET bandwidth (think how many GB that is being
shipped between the 65,000 participating sites) for the purpose of
posting `dubious' pictures.  And I suggest that that's the 5% of USENET
which I suspect has the lowest value, information content and
legality.  My *opinion*.

Now, if I'm not one of these controllers, with a large stake in this
company and a sysadmin to boot (indeed, a few Suns to boot as well, but
that's an admin issue B^>), who is?

So, my reasoned answer to your assertion is b******.  Oh dear, couldn't
let myself say it...  B^>

Damon
--
Damon Hart-Davis   [e-mail]   London UK                                  [1.40]
Tel/Fax: [phone]======Two jobs:
(1) Parallelogram Editor, (2) Seller of public-access news/mail & cheap Suns.

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

Date: 15 Feb 1993 20:11:40 GMT
From: Steve Pope <[e-mail]>
Subject: A response from Anonymous
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

Damon Hart-Davis:

| I have said nothing about inherent evil, just, in my case, pointed out
| the fact that a very small minority of people were using getting on
| for 5% of the *entire* USENET bandwidth (think how many GB that is
| being shipped between the 65,000 participating sites) for the purpose
| of posting `dubious' pictures.  And I suggest that that's the 5% of
| USENET which I suspect has the lowest value, information content
| and legality.

I don't myself recall seeing anons at the top
of the lists of heaviest users in published statistics --
is this really the case?

Steve

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 19:55:13 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAQ nnn - hassle posts

>>>>My posting was not libelous, obscene, or otherwise criminal...

>>>If you don't have the principles to stand by what you post (as other
>>>than an anonymous loudmouth), hit 'the road'....

>>Though I never read the original posting, I have heard about it a LOT.
>>I'm going to have to stand by the poster...
>>...if you don't like it, hit N.

>... Sorry, if he doesn't like the flames...
>then he has the options of not acting like an idiot or of hitting 'N'
>himself.  Seems more than equitable to me.

It seems equitable to me, too.  But, this kind of thing, what to do with
posters that bug you, posters that post stuff with highly questionalble
reality-factors, and such, would all be good candidates for a FAQ of
their own.  I'd much rather have it all in the FAQ, then see the same
events repeated over and over, WRT offensive/truth-free/zealotous posts,
to the detriment of everyone's disk space.  We can make a deal with Mr.
McElaine...we'll put you in the FAQ if you stop repeating posts :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 21:27:49 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Funny name for HST

I just thought y'all might enjoy a little quip I got from my prof the
other day:

The class is 'Galaxies', and he was referring to the possibilities that
will exist with better resolution in IR.

He said "If they ever fix the Hobbled Space Telescope..." :-)

Right up there with 'fred' IMHO.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 17:40:27 GMT
From: Joe Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help the Future, Kill Fred
Newsgroups: sci.space

I apologize for the duplicate posting here and talk.politics.space,
but I did not think this was appropriate for sci.space. However,
several respondees suggested that some subscribing to sci.space might
want to hear once about these on-going discussions which would be
continued in talk.politics.space.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Bielski) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Joe Cain) says:
>>
>>     Many of us believe that the Space Station is getting in the
>>way of future habitation of the planets, not helping. We do not
>>believe that killing or deferring Fred will permanently kill the
>>manned space program, but instead put it on a better footing as it
>>decreases the need to continue the obsolete, inefficient,
>>inadequate, and dangerous Space Shuttle. The present program with
>>the budgetary constraints is squeezing out the good science
>>projects in space that are needed to pave the way to this goal.
>
>What's amusing about this argument is that these same scientists can't
>agree on any other program that the money could be spent on.  They will
>be the first to argue that planetary exploration money is wasted and could
>be better spent on their pet project at home.

     "Scientists" have agreed on a number of unmanned projects that
would help pave the way to the planets. Projects like Magellan
being cut short for the relatively little money saved keeps us from
understanding more about the evolution and structure of Venus. CRAF
(Comet Rendezvous and Flyby) being cancelled means we will know
less about the very important possibility of being able to use the
resources in asteroids to help create sustainable off planet
habitats. Many other projects like Galileo to Jupiter and Cassini
to Saturn have either become much more expensive or worst, taking
much longer, because of budgetary constraints.  NASA's past mania
that most heavy launches have to start on a Shuttle has not helped
either.
There is a new wave of ideas coming out on smaller projects that
can lead to better understanding of the planetary environments.
>
> Most of 'us' here in Houston realize that unless the
>Space Station program is completed successfully, it is unlikely that
>our government will support the even larger, more complex undertaking
>of sending humans to the Moon permanently or to Mars.
>
>Station is the only game in town, and we can't convince the country we can go
>to Mars if we can't spend more than 2 weeks outside our own atmosphere.

     The popular support for pushing into space is broad within
this and other "civilized" countries. NASA is misleading the public
into thinking that the Space Station project is helping to achieve
that goal when in fact squandering resources in this direction for
little purpose is setting back putting bases on the Moon and Mars
by another generation. It is wrong to go the present way as it
would be to completely abandon manned space projects in favor of
mostly small unmanned missions. The overemphasis on purely
engineering developments at the expense of basic scientific
progress will leave us with nice hardware to orbit this planet, but
inadequate knowledge about the other planets and the interplanetary
environment needed to safely and efficiently proceed.

     If you want to do something to keep engineers employed, go for
the Moon again, but this time to stay longer and do useful work to
build a habitat under its low gravity and unprotected by the
Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere.

     Also, don't forget this planet. The Space Station is virtually
useless for most Earth observations due to its low-inclination,
low-altitude orbit. A lot more needs to be learned about Earth's
complex interactions with the Sun, its climate, atmospheric
chemistry, and biology as it is being modified by overpopulation.
Overemphasis on the Space Station is also helping squeeze out many
Earth Observing projects that are vital to the future of life here and
unfortunately is managed by the same congressional committee and
budget that supports NSF. Although one cannot argue that money saved
in one area will necessarily go to more intelligent use, the Space
Station is now stressing the system significantly, and once up will be an
albatross for decades.


Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain
[phone]        FAX [phone] or -0098

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 17:32:54 GMT
From: Steve Gardner <[e-mail]>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Gardner) writes:
>Do we? Can you cite any reports or investigations that say exactly that?
>Or is that your intuitive gut knowledge of "the facts"?
    I guess you didn't hear about the Feynmann commission's report.
    Go back and read it.  We'll talk after you are ready.

>What a crock. You oughtta get down on your knees and thank whatever God
>you believe in for the "space kick".
    This may be a problem.  My god is the null god. ;-)  He
    doesn't require that sort of silly behavior from his followers. ;-)

>It's responsible for more technological advances than you can imagine.
    And more waste than I care to imagine. ;-)

>The chances are very good that you never go through a day in your miserable
>existance without using SOMETHING that results directly or indirectly from
>the space program and all the research and developement programs it spawned.
    Perhaps.  But what I want to know is how you think you know whether
    my existence is miserable or not.  Have you been talking with my
    broker again? ;-)

>BTW, here's a free clue.... people who believe in and support the space
>program aren't necessarily "trekkies". But then you knew that, you were
>just trying to be cute weren't you.
    Yup.  You're right.  Now here is a free clue for you.  Get a life.


>That's all. You may have a cookie now.
    Gee, thanks mom.  Now calm down.  Going ballastic over the space
    program is not good for your heart. ;-)


                            smg

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 16:58:15 -0500
From: Andrew Todd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars observer arrival
Newsgroups: sci.space

I calculated when the Mars Observer will get to Mars, I did
42,000,000 km from Mars divided by 18,000 km/hour and then divided that
by 24 hours to get the number of days, and it came out to be 97 days
from Mars.  Is this a valid calculation or does the speed of the
observer change periodically?

So that means the Mars Observer will be at Mars in only a little over 3
months.

Also, when it gets there does anybody know if it will be taking better
pictures of the enigmatic Cydonia region of Mars than the previous
viking explorer in the mid 70's?? I am sure if it is that with the
higher resolution, it will be definite whether the mysterious objects at
the Cydonia region of Mars are artificially formed or naturally formed,
don't you think??

If the formations at Cydonia are shown to be artificially formed then it
could be the biggest discovery ever in all of history, and I guess this
will be found out in only 3 months from now.  I think 1993 will be a
very interesting year.

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

Date: 15 Feb 93 16:51:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Martian Bacteria
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Louise Rowder
writes:

> Hello All,
>
>      My question is out of pure curiosity.  I'm not writing
> a paper or doing an assignment on it.
>
>      Last month I saw a program on PBS (I think it was Nova)
> that said that they were exploring the possibility that
> Bacteria was trapped inside of ice below the surface of
> Mars.  It showed a group of scientists in Greenland coring
> ice samples (now that I think about it, it may have been
> Siberia) and then finding viable bacteria very, very old.
>
>     My question is:  Is this a realistic scenario? Finding
> viable subsurface bacteria locked in ice.  Could Martian
> bacteria pose any threats to a possible future colony or
> station on Mars?

As far as I know, no analysis of the ice in the Martian polar caps has been
done (excluding, of course, spectrographic analysis of reflected sunlight) so
the question of whether there are Martian bacteria has yet to be answered.

Aaron Christopher
Ball State Univ.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 17:15:23 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Martian Bacteria
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Louise Rowder) writes:
>     Last month I saw a program on PBS (I think it was Nova)
>that said that they were exploring the possibility that
>Bacteria was trapped inside of ice below the surface of
>Mars.  It showed a group of scientists in Greenland coring
>ice samples (now that I think about it, it may have been
>Siberia) and then finding viable bacteria very, very old.

>    My question is:  Is this a realistic scenario? Finding
>viable subsurface bacteria locked in ice.

It might not be totally impossible, but it's very unlikely. While
there might have been bacteria on Mars as recently as two and a half
billion years ago, and some might have been traped under polar ice,
I doubt it would still be viable. The Greenland bacteria are almost
certainly much younger than two and a half billion years. Also
_finding_ such samples would take alot of work: They would be
deep in the water-ice polar cap (i.e. under the carbon dioxide cap)
and would only be found be very deep coring. No one is going to
be digging polar cores on Mars for (probably) a century: At the
moment, there are _no_ plans or considerations of surface polar
exploration (manned or unmanned), let alone deep coring there
(which involves a fair amount of heavy equipment.) Simply
getting something to Mars is currently difficult enough. Adding
the difficulties of polar exploration on top isn't currently
considered a good idea... (Especially since the common and large
scale condensation of cardon dioxide would make things like hoar
frost and hidden cravases much more common than on Earth...)

>...Could Martian
>bacteria pose any threats to a possible future colony or
>station on Mars?

I doubt it: Even if such bacteria were found, and it were viable,
(a very unlikely set of circumstances) it wouldn't have evolved
around humans. It wouldn't be any more dangerous than, say, the
hoof and mouth disease in cattle, or any other disease that isn't
evolved to infect humans.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:58:38 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kieran A.
Carroll) writes:
>
> Regarding my "off the mark" contention, I wonder if you understand
> the systems engineering approach that is being used to design
> SSF (and whish was also used on Apollo, and most NASA programs
> since then). In that approach, design is carried out  by a
> hierarchy of organizations/departments, organized in a tree
> structure---one group at the top (NASA Level II), and many
> groups at the bottom (i.e. at the "leaf nodes" of the tree).
>
> ... Intersting, but long explanation deleted.
>
> Now, this is not to say that SSF has been the >best< systems design
> project in history. It probably hasn't been the >worst<; I imagine that there
> are many DoD projects vying for that distinction. It had a poor set of
> original high-level requirements, and has been additionally hampered by
> arbitrary funding cuts and stretch-outs at the customer's (i.e. Congress')
> whim, resulting in very significant changes in the top-level requirements
> (which, in this sort of process, leads to the system having to be
> re-designed practically from scratch), resulting in poor schedule
> performance. I would even dare to say that some of the contractors
> didn't put their best people on the project, probably because the best
> ones were already busy on other projects that had a greater potential
> for making a profit (companies rarely profit much from working for NASA).
> Nonetheless, the process has worked more or less the way it should,
> and the resulting design meets virtually all of its current requirements.
>
Thank you for the explantation.

I can only say AMAZING!!!
There is no one in charge!!
No one at the top seems to have the knowledge/information to
make better than order of magnitude guess's as to what things
are going to cost.

The people at top have to deal with political realities such as
that they can get X $billion from US Congress to build Fred.

They then specify (on what basis?) that they want Y cubic meters
of experiment space, Z kilowatts of power, etc.

They then invoke systems engineering and after everything
goes down the tree and back up after an expenditure of probably
X/2 $billion for detailed design, they discover that Fred with
Y and Z capabilities will cost $4X >> X.

So they revise Y and Z downward and invoke systems engineering
all over again.  At what cost?  Will the revision be enough?

AMAZING!!!  No wonder NASA has problems.  Someone at the top
has to be smart enough to juggle the realities of X $ versus the
engineering constraints on Y and Z before spending $X/2 billions.

Is Goldin that man?
--
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: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 19:19:02 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred? (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:

>If this claim is based on recent discussions here regarding
>the change-over from the rectangular assemble-in-space truss
>to the hexagonal pre-integrated truss, then I think that you're
>way off the mark.

Partly. There is also the recent cost overruns in WP2 and the fact that
they had been going on for quite some time. Worse, the only reason NASA
is taking serious corrective action today (if one can consider Aaron's
slap on the wrist corrective action) is because the story leaked out.
Had the story NOT leaked out, is would still be buisness as usual.

As to the changeover to the pre-integrated truss, that is another example.
That change turned the truss from something which couldn't be build to
something which one might be able to build. Yet this change was mandated
by Congress and not NASA who wanted the truss which didn't work (but kept
Shuttle crews busy). Yet this change from an unbuildable truss to a
buildable one is decried as micromanagement by Congress.

This still ignores the total lack of integration testing and huge unknowns
about our ability to assemble things in space. Think: some astronaut is
going to try and stick tab A made by contractor X into slot B made by
Contractor Y in orbit. Yet the contractors are thousands of miles
apart and didn't talk to each other much because they need to go up
and down 5 layers of management to do it. If tab A doesn't fit into
slot B, it should come as no suprise to anybody. Even if the parts
fit together we don't know if the astronaut is physically capable
of joining them since we do so little EVA to practice.

Those of you who think ending Fred will be an end to manned space, think
about this. What happens if Fred simply can't be built because of the
lack of integration testing and poor EVA practice our astronauts receive?

>Regarding my "off the mark" contention, I wonder if you understand
>the systems engineering approach that is being used to design
>SSF

I have several years experience working aerospace projects. I think
I have a very good handle on it. My experience is that it only works
when the requirements are well understood and there is a single project
manager (like von Braun for Apollo) who keeps track of the whole thing.
None of these conditions hold for Freedom.

I also note some important differences. Sure Apollo testing was all up
but Saturn components where not as inter-related as station components
are. Saturn received lots of integration testing and each component
received realistic tests working with the other modules of the system.
None of this applies to Freedom.

>In this process, the group at the top sets high-level requirements
>(e.g. "the SSF will have a lab module, of such-and-such a volume;
>it will provide so many kW of power at MTC, and so many at PMC").

Freedom never had a clear cut set of requirements (unless you consider
'be everything for everybody' clear cut). This also assumes that the
component parts are far more modularized then Freedom is. The interfaces
between work packages is far more complex than it needs to be or is
practical to design to.

>To characterize this as "covering up" seems absurd; >every< engineering design
>has many intermediate design problems and issues (including Apollo, and the
>design of whatever car that you drive); as long as the problems are
>dealt with (even if it takes some time to do so, due to the complexity
>of the system being designed), then why should anyone outside of the design
>organization want to know about these issues?

If that where the case, I would have no problems. The problem is that we
only seem to see corrective action taken when outside agencies mandate it.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------120 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 17:24:42 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Price for meteorites
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Dellinger) writes:
>|> What is the normal price for meteorites?

>        Well, when I was at Meteor Crater, Arizona, several years ago you
>could buy a fragment from it for about a dollar. This would make sense since
>they said there were small bits of it lying all about the landscape thereabouts.(Did I get taken?) Meteor Crater is a very short side trip off Interstate 40.

It depends on what sort of meteor you want. The meteor fragments that
are believed to be of Martian origin sell for something over $200/gram.

                                                          Frank Crary
                                                          CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 17:20:17 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: space station cut, goldin to stay on at NASA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey David Hagen) writes:
>Who says the truss structure is contoversial?

Becuase it isn't necessary, unless the radiator and solar pannels are
designed purely for maximum effecience (i.e. if you trade system
efficiency off against ease of construction or cost, less efficient
but simpler, truss-less designs start looking very good), or if
there are plans for substantial future expansion.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 21:22:36 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF

>LET ME REPEAT MYSELF.....WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT THERE WILL NOT BE A SPACE
>STATION FREEDOM!!!!  Instead of negative discussion on what it should have
>been or problems....how about focusing on helping those with the burden of
>trying to design and build it????

As a taxpayer, I am helping to design it.  (I won't say I'm helping
build it, since it isn't being built :)  Since I think it's going
to be, if it isn't already, a big waste of time and money, anyone
that cares to can 'help those who are designing it' by writing to
your favorite representative and supporting it's cacellation, saving
me and several others vast amounts of hard-earned cash.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 21:31:21 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: US-run space insurance

>>Maybe the US can start their own
>>Lloyds for space related projects..
>>Use the money left over in the "Insurance"
>>fund for the next year..

Since the gov. runs the space program, as well as the hypothetical
insurance company, would this be any different than setting money
aside for accidents, and not having any insurance?

BTW, a look at banking insurance (S&L fiasco) and Social Security will
give you an idea how well gov. insurance works:  No insurance.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 188
------------------------------