Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO303.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 05:19:25
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #303
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 303

Today's Topics:
                 20 kHz Power Supplies "blowing up"!
                      A few observations on anon
                            a shining wit
     Clementine and the Moon (was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
         Clementine resolution (was Re: Lunar Ice Transport)
                            Deahead space
                            Fallen Angels
                         Joe Shea - NASA SSF
       Lawsonomy (was Re: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission)
               Moons rotation period question (2 msgs)
                        NASA and gold (5 msgs)
                      Rocket Propulsion (3 msgs)
                       The courage of anonymity

    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, 11 Mar 1993 15:56:56 GMT
From: "J. D. McDonald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 20 kHz Power Supplies "blowing up"!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:

>>Sorry, quoting some rag of documentation doesn't impress me.
>The 'rag' of documentation I quoted from is the Program
>Definition and Requirements Document, referred to as the
>PDRD or SSP 30000. For anyone working on SSF, this document
>*IS* the Holy Bible.
>
>You obviously don't understand how NASA operates.


Yes, we do.


We understand that it operates in such a manner that all that matters
is the "Holy Bible". That is, the paperwork.


Whether the **hardware** works does not matter to NASA or the contractors.

We here on the usenet use a different system: we examine whether the
hardware works or not. We don't care whether the paperwork
was doen correctly .. for example, the paperwork for the (last)
challanger launch was in perfect shape: it was OK to launch in cold weather.
This was official, agreed to by management. That it was not the
opinion of the people who knew did not matter.

Except that people died.





The paperwork said that the Hubble Space Telescope mirror was the most
perfect ever made.

Despite the fact that the manufacturer has tests that clearly said it
was defective. Despite the fact that the defective test they used to say it
was perfect was based on a kludged device that clearly was not
assembled according to specs.

Despite the fact that the mirror was indeed wrong.


The point is that NASA often simply defines their political position
to be correct, despite the fact that it is wrong. Because of this
undeniable record (just **try** to deny it and see how far you get ..
we have the death certificates and the measured performance of the HST
to prove you wrong) we **must** assume that anything NASA says is likely
a political lie and the "unsupported rumors" should be examined very
carefully, to see if we can predict an upcoming fiasco in advance.


Doug McDonald

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 15:20:41 GMT
From: Craig Presson <[e-mail]>
Subject: A few observations on anon
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
   [e-mail] (Rich Kulawiec) says, in part:


   This is ludicrous.  If you do not have the courage of your own convictions,
   and are not willing to back those convictions up by using your own name,
   why should anyone pay the slightest attention to you?  (I certainly won't)
   Either you have the guts to back up what you say, or you don't; and if you
   don't, then you should probably just be quiet.

   =======

   [an8785's response deleted]

1. There is a long tradition of _pseudonymous_ writing on matters such
as politics -- "Publius" being the best-known in the USA -- and there
is nothing wrong with non-fraudulent uses of pseudonyms (see Common
Law).

2. In all but the most idle chatter on the net, people have
reputations to uphold. Pseudonymous posters are starting with no
reputation and thus risking nothing. The response of the maskless
participants is understandable; it is as if a stranger asked to sit in
on your poker game on credit.

3. Ideally, ano-/pseudo-nymous posters will develop their own
net.identities (right, Phiber Optik?). Better authentication would
make the Net more comfortable with artificial persons. Right now, the
Jester's (paraphrased) argument that "your name on your message is as
artificial as mine on mine" holds more weight than it should.

4. Inflammatory hit-and-run is as obnoxious over the signature of
"Doyle P. Beauregard" as of "an6969".

5. Get famous enough under a pseudonym and you will likely be
outed (right, Knight Lightning?).

--  ******************************************************
    ** Craig Presson              [e-mail]     **
    ** Intergraph Corporation             MS GD3005     **
    ** Huntsville, AL 35894-0001     [phone]     **
    ******************************************************

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 16:32:35 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: a shining wit
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:


>[e-mail] (Rich Kulawiec) says, in part:


>This is ludicrous.  If you do not have the courage of your own convictions,
>and are not willing to back those convictions up by using your own name,
>why should anyone pay the slightest attention to you?  (I certainly won't)
>Either you have the guts to back up what you say, or you don't; and if you
>don't, then you should probably just be quiet.

>=======

>Right.  So -- Anne Frank should have kept her kvetching trap shut, right,
>right, Mr. Kulawiec?

Thank you for demonstrating once more that, at least in this
newsgroup, the sole aim of the 'anonymous poster' seems to be to be
obnoxious.  So far I've heard lots of theoretically good reasons for
anonymous postings, but I haven't seen any postings in most groups
which fit any of those theoretical reasons.

[Followups redirected to the appropriate group.]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 11 Mar 93 10:14:55 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine and the Moon (was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>>...  Henry's emphasis is more towards the Moon.  My preference
>>>is more towards the balance across the entire solar system.
>>
>>No missions to the Moon of any kind for two decades is "balance"?!?
>>(Especially when there are still no plans for any...)
>
> We are overdue for another lunar mission.
> JPL has proposed Lunar Observer.  It wasn't funded.  SEI proposed
> two other lunar missions.  They weren't funded.  The intent is there,
> but not the funding.

Yes, Virginia, there *is* a Moon mission in the pipeline.

News flash: the new NASA brochure describing the Clementine mission
should be off the presses next week.  Sorry, don't have title
or serial number.

Clementine, which is bending metal *now* and aims for a January 1994
launch, is a 140-kg spacecraft which will orbit the Moon for two
months, then depart to fly by the asteroid 1620 Geographos in August
1994.  Some contributors to sci.space are involved in this project.

The major purpose of Clementine is to test SDI sensors in space. As
long as they need to fly a couple of UV-visible and IR cameras, and a
laser altimeter/LIDAR, they decided to do some lunar and asteroid
science with them.  They would like to map the Moon in twelve bands
and get as much altimetry as they can.

This is jointly managed by the Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization and NASA.  Spacecraft is being built by the Naval
Research Laboratory and sensors are from Livermore.  I detect no JPL
involvement (sorry, Ron).

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

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

Date: 11 Mar 93 10:33:12 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine resolution (was Re: Lunar Ice Transport)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ross  Borden) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>The lunar map situation is, roughly speaking, incredibly poor.  We have
>>much better maps of Mars than of the Moon.  The situation should improve
>>substantially with the Clementine 1 mission next year.
>
>   Any idea what the resolution will be?

The elliptical orbit (400 x 8300 km) guarantees that this will vary a
lot, and my information isn't entirely clear, but it looks like a 125
meters at the best coverage, and possibly no worse than 1 km globally.
Some instruments will be able to image selected small patches at
resolutions 20 m or less.

Bill Higgins                           | "I shop at the Bob and Ray
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | Giant Overstocked Surplus
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | Warehouse in one convenient
Internet:       [e-mail]  | location and save money besides
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | being open every evening until 9."

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 16:23:23 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deahead space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:


>>>>Are you postulating that the typical Shuttle launch will be going to
>>>>the station with over 20% deadhead carge space?  Sounds like time to
>>>>build another vehicle and switch to it, to me, if that's the case then it
>>>>is time to switch to another launch vehicle

>>>Hey Fred if you look at the Expendables, most of them go up with anwhere from
>>>5 to 25% deadhead.

>>No doubt.  And the smaller the payload the larger that percentage
>>probably is.  After all, if you're launching on a booster that can
>>loft 40k and you're only using 25k of that, why not use a cheaper
>>booster that can lift less in the first place?

>Yes, it would be much less of a waste to use a cheaper launcher.  But
>how many different launchers are we talking about?  One for every
>possible payload size would be required to avoid any wasted space
>whatsoever.  Maybe a SRB with 6-inch disk-shaped modules that you can
>stack for each 10kg :-)

Well, gee, would you find a plus or minus 20% that unreasonable, Tom?
I think 25k lbs is a hell of a lot of 'slop', don't you?

>Also, if Pegasus is a good model, aren't smaller launchers more
>expensive, per unit weight, than larger?  Maybe a good solution would
>be to put the original paylod into a larger, more expensive launcher,
>increasing the extra space to 50%, allowing a second payload, and
>decreasing the cost/weight.

Well, that *is* what we were talking about, Tom, which is why several
of us are questioning this idea of replacing the whole thruster on SSF
instead of using refueling technology that would allow us to either
boost more fuel per load or else have room for other stuff in addition
to the fuel.  That 12k lbs or so dry weight on lifting thruster units
would hold a lot of 'second payload'.  That has been the *point* of
all this discussion.

>On the bright side, extra payload capacity is also extra manuvering
>capability, which is nice.

Within limits, and only if you need it.  Otherwise, it's just wasted
space and weight that would have been better used for other things.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 15:39:40 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fallen Angels
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Jones) writes:

>Daniel Myers ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>
>> I am VERY interested in this topic.  How does one on internet reach
>> anyone on BIX?
>>

>Since last month, its just been a matter of e-mailing "[e-mail]".

>Don't expect immediate receipt of your mail on BIX.  Its
>a dial-up service and some busy souls may only jump in once a week
>(hopefully not much more: mail is expired after 15 days).

>If you want to trawl for more IDs, buy Byte or Windows magazines, or join us
>on BIX!

However, if you elect to join it rather than mail to it, you should be
aware that at least some of the top management (assuming it hasn't
changed radically since I was there) is relatively intolerant of
criticism and requires the maintenance of a certain amount of
'politically correct' tone (this last may only really be enforced on
people who are also critical of BIX management).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 14:37:36 GMT
From: "Matthew R. Feulner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Joe Shea - NASA SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

I meant to followup to the article which mentioned him, but I lost it.

Anyway, he has been a prof here at MIT for a few years coming here
from Raytheon, I believe.  He had a big part in the increased
reliability of the Patriot missle (reliability, as in it fires
when you want, not as in it hits when you want).  He tought a
spacecraft design course which a few of my friends took, and said
was decent.  I saw him give a number of talks, and he sounded
like a fellow with a great deal of common sense.  I believe
NASA did themselves a world of good by getting him.

Matt

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

Date: 11 Mar 93 10:39:39 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lawsonomy (was Re: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James H. Kiley) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
> |> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> |> writes:
> |> >                      ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
> |> sheesh.  if there's anything worse than crackpot posts, it's gotta be
> |> *recycled* crackpot posts.
>
>     Lots of McElwane (sp?)'s stuff comes out of Larsonomy,

Lawsonomy.  I didn't realize this.

> whose precepts
> I recently saw printed out in stacks of huge, yellowed, ancient newsprint
> all over our campus.  I wasn't sure what to think of it but most of it was dated
> around WWII.  Somebody'd had it in their basement or something, and was
> distributing it.  Weird, weird stuff. I think the guy needs to see a physician
> of some kind.

You can read about this cult in Martin Gardner's classic *Fads and
Fallacies in the Name of Science*.  Also, there is a recent biography
of Lawson that looks good, but I haven't read it;   I think it may be
called *Zig-Zag and Swirl*.  People who drive Interstate 94 between
Chicago and Milwaukee will notice the University of Lawsonomy sign
somewhere in Wisconsin.

"Read my lips, Hal:         Bill Higgins
Open the Pod Bay doors!"    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                            Bitnet:     [e-mail]
                            SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
                            Internet:  [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Mar 93 14:25:41 GMT
From: "Matthew R. Feulner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moons rotation period question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|> >Why does the Moon's rotation period exactly match its
|> >revolution period such that it always presents the
|> >same face to the Earth?
|>
|> Tidal drag.  Moving tidal bulges around takes energy; it has to come
|> from somewhere.
|>
|> >Is this common for moons around the solar system?
|>
|> Yes.
|> --
|> C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
|> effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry


It also takes a non-symmetric moon, and of course in the real universe, nothing is
symmetric.

Matt

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 16:08:21 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moons rotation period question
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>I have a question.
>Why does the Moon's rotation period exactly match its
>revolution period such that it always presents the
>same face to the Earth? (...and we end up with a
>darkside.)  What is the physical mechanism that
>has caused this?

This is called 'tidal locking' and is caused by the tidal forces on
the satellite.

>Is this common for moons around the solar system?

I couldn't say for certain, but I would certainly expect to find most
small bodies orbiting appreciably larger bodies to be tidally locked
(within a certain limit for 'small' -- if it is too small to have real
tidal forces across its diameter, I would suspect that tidal locking
wouldn't take place).  We used to think that Mercury was tidally
locked to the Sun, but it turns out that it is not.

It is also worth noting that the tidal forces of the smaller body upon
the larger also slow the rate of revolution of the larger body.  For
example, the Earth used to have a faster rotation than it does now.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 13:59:18 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the

>>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper? ...

>Uses gold in the satellites for *what*?  There is more than one application
>for gold in such things; it would help to know which one you're curious about.
>Please be more specific.

Gold is not only a noble metal, but its colour means it is very useful
for thermal surface coatings. It is also used as a thermal condutor, and
gold solder does not degrade. (Yes I know one does not actually solder with
gold, but it has a similar funtion).

--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 14:41:14 GMT
From: "forrest.e.gehrke" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <stephens.731858358@ngis> [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
>>>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper? ...
>
>>Uses gold in the satellites for *what*?  There is more than one application
>>for gold in such things; it would help to know which one you're curious about.
>>Please be more specific.
>
>Gold is not only a noble metal, but its colour means it is very useful
>for thermal surface coatings. It is also used as a thermal condutor, and
>gold solder does not degrade. (Yes I know one does not actually solder with
>gold, but it has a similar funtion).
>

Also, because its diffusion rate is extremely slow, fine gold
wires are used for the bonded connections to the silicon wafers
of IC's and transistors.  This has nothing to do with satellites.

Forrest Gehrke [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 11:54:12 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Hello,
>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.
>Thank you.
>Joyce
>[e-mail]

Gold is highly resistant to oxygem corrosion. As you should know, payloads
spend long periods of time on the ground waiting for launch, therefore
resistance to corrosion is important. You may not know that even in orbit
there is energetic monoatomic oxygen present that can pose corrosion
problems. Gold also has excellent mechanical and thermal properties that
make it well suited to the extreme environments a space payload will
face during construction, launch, and deployment.

Besides, if NASA didn't goldplate it's projects, it's critics on the
net wouldn't have anything to post. :-)

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 11 Mar 1993 16:27:51 GMT
From: David Toland <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
> third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.

It does not corrode, and is extremely malleable and ductile, and is therefore
more easily manipulated and less fragile in thin films or fine wires.
Also, at high frequencies almost all conduction takes place along the surface
of the conductor, so the freedom from corrosion actually may make gold
a better conductor at high frequencies (corrosion tends to make the surface
topology more "fractal").

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
[e-mail]   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 15:45:32 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA and gold
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Hello,
>Does anyone know why NASA uses gold in the satellites when it has the
>third lowest resistivity next to silver and copper?  Any help appreciated.

I suspect that you are thinking of it in an electronic application,
since you mention resistivity.  I suspect that they are using it for
the same reason we use it here on Earth as a coating for finger
contacts on circuit boards and such.  It is highly ductile, deposits
easily, and does not tarnish or corrode (so you always get good
contacts).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 11:57:41 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Rocket Propulsion
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Gary Coffman):
>
>> Ahem, Goddard didn't invent rocket propulsion, some Chinese guy about
>> 2,000 years ago did.
>
>Ahem yourself. :- Look at the lowly squid and you see a biological
>rocket. Mother Nature beat man to the rocket by mega (if not giga)
>years.

Squids aren't rocket propelled; they're pulse jets. A rocket carries
all it's working fluid with it, a jet imports it's working fluid from
the surrounding environment.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 16:27:33 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rocket Propulsion
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Ahem yourself. :- Look at the lowly squid and you see a biological
>>rocket...
>
>Squids aren't rocket propelled; they're pulse jets...

You can find biological rockets if you look hard, actually, although the
squid isn't one.  (The bombardier beetle uses a hydrogen-peroxide rocket
engine as a defensive weapon, for example.)

However, this is rather silly and pedantic.  Nobody cares whether there
was some obscure biological precedent that was never noticed.  It doesn't
detract from Goddard's accomplishment in the least.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 16:19:05 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rocket Propulsion
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gibson Lam) writes:

>    I am a student doing a research project on Goddard, the man who first
>invented rocket propulsion.  Of all the eventual uses that rocket
>propulsion made possible, such as war missiles or the space shuttle, does
>anyone think that Goddard should be responsible for the eventual uses of
>his invention?  I would also appretiate any information that you could
>give me on Goddard or rocket propulsion.

Goddard didn't 'invent' the rocket.  The Chinese were using war
rockets a thousand years, give or take, prior to Goddard.  As for
responsibility for the subsequent uses of his work, no, I don't think
so.  By this same reasoning one would have to hold Benjamin Franklin
or Volta or <enter favorite name> responsible for the electric chair.
The person 'responsible' is the person who elects to make use of it in
such a way; note that even in the case of weapons-specific work, it
may not be reasonable to hold the researcher responsible.  The
'responsible' person is the person who determines what gets funded.

Would you 'blame' the person who discovered the knife for the deaths
of all the people killed with edged weapons?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 11 Mar 1993 16:20:35 GMT
From: David Toland <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

A lot of traffic has been devoted to this lately, relating to the essential
worth or lack thereof of anonymous postings.

My newsreader shows me a message number, the subject line, the line count,
and the author of articles to choose to read or not.  With very few
exceptions I decide what to read or not based on the subject, not the
author.  I make an exception for Robert McElwaine and a very few others,
as they have clearly shown the presence of hard cranial vacuum.

If someone feels a need to post anonymously, I have no real problem
with that per se.  I may take that fact into account when reading
some types of subject matter, but I do not make an a priori judgement
based on it.

Some people will automatically discount an anon posting.  Let them.
Others of us don't care who wrote it (usually), as long as it is
intelligently presented, or witty, or even amusingly unusual.

Why is this such a holy cause?  Why the overwhelming urge to police
the net (a vain pursuit IMO)?  Why silence a voice just because the
speaker is afraid to show himself, whether or not you agree with his
or her reasons for hiding?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
[e-mail]   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 303
------------------------------