Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO318.TXT

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

Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 05:30:17
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #318
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 16 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 318

Today's Topics:
                             1-800-NASA?
                            a shining wit
                 cancel wars accountability (3 msgs)
                   Cancel wars and academic freedom
     Columbus FF (was Re: Solar Array vs. Power Tether SSF Drag)
                                 DC-X
                              Grand Plan
                      plans, and absence thereof
                            Pluto / Charon
                  Response to various attacks on SSF
                          Retraining at NASA
                        Space Digest V16 #313
                         Stellar Death Watch
                       The courage of anonymity
    Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue
                       Without a Plan (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: 15 Mar 93 20:31:15 GMT
From: Al Globus <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1-800-NASA?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The Clinton administration has a new program to find ways to improve
the government.  Each part of the government has an 800 number to call
to note problems and suggest solutions.  Gore is running this.

Does anyone know the number for NASA?

Thanx.

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

Date: 15 Mar 93 00:46:37 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: a shining wit
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.


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

She did Mr. uhhhh... Oh, that's right. You're Anonymous so we can't call
you anything. Love that anonymity...

Read your history. Anne Frank died. Her diary was made public AFTER she
died.

--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 - or - [e-mail]     | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 16:42:08 GMT
From: Chip Salzenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: cancel wars accountability
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy

According to [e-mail]:
>NO! Reveal his identity now and many knee jerks will forever condemn him/her.

So what's your point?

(`Knee jerks?')
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"

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

Date: 15 Mar 1993 19:02:44 GMT
From: Dan Swartzendruber <[e-mail]>
Subject: cancel wars accountability
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy

In article <1nvbjo$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Pope) writes:
> [e-mail] (Tarl Neustaedter) writes in
> response to anon 8785:

[deleted]

> This is hyperbole.  "mail-bomb" implies that one individual
> is sending a large number of messages so as to congest the
> recipient.   anon 8785 did not request more than one complaint
> from each offended individual.  Therefore this is not a request
> for mail-bombing.

So if I try to incite hundreds, even thousands of people to call Company X's
customer support line and complain about something, what (if anything) is the
practical difference?  The net effect, IMO, is the same.  The recipient is
flooded with so much mail/phone calls/email that they can't respond to any
of it.

[deleted]

> Steve

--

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

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

Date: 15 Mar 93 20:46:52 GMT
From: Dave Hayes <[e-mail]>
Subject: cancel wars accountability
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy

[e-mail] (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>According to [e-mail]:
>>NO! Reveal his identity now and many knee jerks will forever condemn him/her.
>So what's your point?

That anonymous identities should not be revealed.

>(`Knee jerks?')

You know.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
[e-mail]       [e-mail]         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   Merely doing good to the evil may be just like doing evil to the good.

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

Date: 15 Mar 1993 19:08:34 GMT
From: David Toland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cancel wars and academic freedom
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin.policy

**Warning - strong opinions ahead **

The choice of anonymity or full disclosure of identity is a personal choice.
How you respond to an anonymous posting is also a personal choice.

However, cancelling someone else's postings, anonymous or otherwise,
smacks not only of censorship and violation of freedom of speech, but
also of mail tampering and fraud (since this is done by forging a cancel
message supposedly by the original poster).

There may not be any laws prohibiting this type of tampering, but there
should be.  If you do not like what someone posts, or how they say it,
ignore them or flame them.  If you feel they are deliberately being
disruptive, notify their administrator.  If an anon poster is apparently
being deliberately disruptive, make your case to the anon administrator,
but don't expect you will always have it your way (this also applies to
notifying the sysadmin of a non-anon nuisance - McElwaine is still around
after all).

I am disgusted at what some people will do in the name of moral outrage.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 15 Mar 93 06:45:53 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Columbus FF (was Re: Solar Array vs. Power Tether SSF Drag)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Pugh) writes:
>
> Any hope of getting a man-tended free flyer in an orbit that would allow it
> to be tended from Fred?

Given the present upheaval in the project, it's not impossible that
Fred will *become* a man-tended free-flyer.

(Or sometimes a woman-tended free-flyer; but as my philosophy prof Joe
Evans taught me, "man" embraces "woman.")

> I seem to remember the ESA talking about something
> like that, but don't know if it died from lack of funds or because of safety
> concerns.

Columbus Free Flyer.  It died partly because ESA budgets were hurting
and partly because Hermes, which was to service it, also died.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      [e-mail]  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  [e-mail]  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine

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

Date: 15 Mar 93 15:07:29 GMT
From: Jim Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>Hating to sound cynical,  but note how different the Management
>structure and design philosophy of DC-X is from SSF.
>
>Everything is off the shelf engineering.  All connectors are standard.
>THey are leaving slack to modify without having a coronary.
>I suspect the management structure is very small.
>
>pat

Sounds great, doesn't it?  I hope that if they have any setbacks (there are
always some, aren't there?), that everyone understands.  Put the pieces back
together and try again.  Not this hypercritical "why didn't it work the first
time?" from the public or busybody congress-critters.  I hate that things had
to be put under "black projects" to cover from people not understanding the
nature of development programs.

Anyway, maybe another thing would be if you could give us sources to write
for more info.  Articles are few around here, but NASA often makes available
or sells photos (or plans with external dimensions for us modelers) if we know
what to ask for and where to ask.  (I'm sure AW&ST has some articles, though it
will take a trip to a non-local library for me.  Any other places?)

By the way, it was also interesting to hear Pete Conrad was still with the
space program.

Good luck!
Jim
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. James Cook                                           Epoch Systems, Inc.
508-836-4711x385                                        8 Technology Drive
[e-mail]                                         Westboro, MA 01581
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 17:31:21 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Grand Plan

>>Astronaut should be used if/when necessary,
>>but should not be considered the central goal of the space program.
>>Short term goals should remain scientific, with an eye on the
>>long-term goals (eg prospecting).

>I agree with you and there is nothing in the Grand Plan that contradicts
>this.

What about cancellation of CRAF?  Delay of Galileo?

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

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

Date: 15 Mar 93 18:02:27 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: plans, and absence thereof
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

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

>[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:

>>You make two statements here that seem to contradict each other.  You
>>say manned landings are utterly stupid, but then say settlements should
>>be one of our long term goals.

>The contradiction vanishes if we consider the extensive industrial
>requirements for sustainable, self-funding space settlement, as
>opposed to the tin-can, expensive and temporary "manned bases"
>currently envisioned by those in power at Houston
>and Huntsville.  Space settlement is a long-term vision; short-term
>NASA pork & glory with astronauts has practically nothing to do
>with it, except for the _prima facia_ presence of "man in space".

In other words, for Nick the phrase 'long term' means something like
"several hundred years after I'm dead, maybe -- and then only if all
the planetary stuff I'm interested in gets done first".  Over the
years, there have been several times when Nick's diatribes have damned
near moved me to take his attitude and start writing to Congress and
the President and encouraging them to cancel the UNmanned part of the
space program; that would seem to be the balance for Nick's views.

>>First, what is the difference between pure science and
>>gathering knowledge?  How can you do one without doing the other?

>It makes a difference in target, funding, DSN scheduling, etc.
>priorities.  Currently these are officially supposed to be determine
>solely by "scientific value".  Adding prospecting as a second goal would
>favor targets close and promising as a source of ores or important bulk
>materials get higher priority when prospecting is taken into account.  This
>means moon, Apollo-Amors, Jupiter-family comets, and Mars get the
>nod more often over the gas giants, Pluto, long-period comets,
>etc.  It means funding a study to look for signs of
>gold ores from the MO minerological data, or to look at the
>platinum concentrations in meteors, etc. I'm not talking
>about exclusion here; just giving the nod to prospecting targets
>a little more often even if the pure science is less interesting,
>and doing more prospecting-related studies.  In hand with that,
>working with industrial equipment design teams & developing a new
>vision and plan of space industrialization, to replace the
>archaic, early-20th century science fiction cliches that now
>dominate the rest of NASA.  This gives JPL its own unique path
>into the future, a chance to search a knowledge space that up
>until now has almost entirely been ignored by scientists & engineers
>concentrating on the pure science aspect, or the bizarrely misplaced
>astronaut "visions" emanating out of Huntsville and Houston.

But since there are no plans to go there any time in the near future,
the general feeling becomes one of "don't bother, since there will be
plenty of time to do that".  We need to agressively PUT and KEEP
people in space, including a permanent manned lunar base.  By all
means, do the surveying, but don't be doing it at the expense of
putting people out there or in search of some 'long term' goal.  If
you do, it simply won't happen.  Planetary science seems to prosper
best WHEN PEOPLE ARE GOING THERE AND WE NEED THE DATA.

>BTW, there are many space scientists involved in developing this
>new vision including John Lewis (Arizona State U.), Eleanor Helin
>(Caltech?), Steve Ostro (JPL), etc.  There are also some brilliant
>engineers, like Bob Zubrin at Martin Marietta and Tony Zuppero at DOE.
>It would be quite something to see JPL get these folks together with
>some Space Studies Institute people (eg Freeman Dyson) for a
>conference.  SSI develops long-term space industrialization/settelment
>scenarios quite independently of short-term NASA politics, it has a
>plethora of good ideas to bring to the table.

Lots of space scientists have their own areas of concern and their own
agendas.  That a 'space scientist' favors a program can often be taken
simply to mean that he figures his interests will get more funding
than they currently are or than they will under alternatives.

--
"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: Mon, 15 Mar 93 17:14:10 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto / Charon

>From: [e-mail] (Arthur Chandler)

>There is no agreement among astronomers as to the formal definition of a
>planet. In particular Pluto is called a minor planet by some astronomers
>and a major planet by others.

>If Pluto is a binary satellite it would be the only known example in the
>solar system.

I thought that, due to the ambiguities of the definitions invovled,
Earth-moon could be called a binary planet/satellite, as well.

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 18:39:34 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Response to various attacks on SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:

Would you please define the following terms used in your discussion of SSF
management? I can't find them in my dictionary.

"flowed down", or "flowdown"

"baselined"

--
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 Mar 1993 18:35:10 GMT
From: Brian Donnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Retraining at NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat)
wrote:
>
> [various criticisms of NASA PR]
>

Well...I wish NASA had a few folks devoted full-time to responding to
things like this. There is some element of response at every center, e.g.,
the Space Station Media Handbook out of JSC, Ron Baalke at JPL, etc.
However, how many engineers in industry do you know that have time to
sit down and brief their customers on the internal working details of
the product?  Since NASA is a public agency, all the design documents
(including options, criticisms and so forth) are a matter of public
record. Contact your local Government Printing Office and be prepared
to read a lot.

> Lack ov vision of every president since johnson, you mean.
> It has been republican presidents who have not gone to task to

Give me a break. The President has only so much power.
Congress has superior legislative power over the President -
one person cannot be held accountable.  The fact of the matter
is that the most of the legislative branch is interested only
in money and social issues forced upon them.  I consider it
a tragedy that so few of the folks on Capitol Hill have any
hopes or dreams for humanity's destiny. Now you may call
this "pie in the sky" thinking - but I think it is the single
most important reason for having a Space Program.

But btw - it was a Republican president in conjunction with the
Republican Congress which prevented a Democratic
Congress from effectively killing the Space Program outright
several times over the past few years. (And no - I am not a
Republican.)

> The fact is the president has not wanted to spend the energy to
> do so.  Nor has any president had a strategic vision for NASA.
>

What do you call Bush's SEI?  While I disliked Bush in almost all
other respects, his and Quayle's support of the Space Program was nothing
short of enthusiastic.  Clinton and Gore also seem positive - but
their motives (except Gore's interest in Mission to Planet Earth)
I think are misplaced. Clinton sees aerospace as a useful economic
tool for lost defense jobs. While I partially agree with this, I
don't think either Clinton or Gore have any real interest in what
the Space Program means for our future.

> Of course it's hard to have a strategic vision when 50% of all effort is
> devoted to maintaining a center and it's contractor community.
>

If you don't have an infrastructure to support day-to-day business,
how do you suggest things get done?  I guess it depends on exactly
what you mean by "maintain".

> Sorta " there is never enough 'TIME/MONEY' to do things right,
>     but there is always 'TIME/MONEY' to do things over"
>
> It is a aspect of honest engineering to say that something
> cannot be achieved with the resources.
>

Here I agree. There are many times when I wish NASA administrators
had said to Congress that funding was simply inadequate for the task.
But surely you recall how many times in NASA's history that Congress
has allocated a set level of funds for a project only to slice it
later.  How can NASA possibly hope to do anything but patchwork when
the funding is constantly fluctuating?

> >is there.  The bureaucracy of government procurement
> >forced on NASA is another stumbling block.  If Congress
>
> No more difficult then that of other agencies.  SDI has to cope with
> this.  DOE has to cope,  DOD has to cope.  NIH has to cope.
>

True enough. But I would argue that these agencies don't have any
better track record than NASA. The main point here was a comparison
to efforts in private industry.

Brian Donnell
NASA/JSC

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 17:07:57 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Digest V16 #313

From: [e-mail]
>yes, the nasa culture is sick.
>but not as sick as the entire aerospace industry!

Can you make such a distinction?  How much of the aerospace industry
exists soley because of NASA?  How many of it's problems can be traced
to their biggest customer, NASA?  Seems like a lot of it.

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 19:24:04 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stellar Death Watch
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

I was reminded of recent discussions of how emininent the demise
or Rigel and Betelgeuse were when I saw the following itenm in
the March 15 Commerce Business Daily.

ADDRESS: NASA/GSFC, Code 286, Greenbelt, MD 20771

 TITLE: A -- IUE RESEARCH - ''THE DEATH WATCH: MONITORING THE MOST
          MASSIVIE STARS IN THE LMC AND THE GALAXY''
 DUE:

 SOL RFP5-27413/203 POC
 Michael J. Talley, Contract Specialist, [phone]; Cynthia L. Tart,
 Contracting Officer, [phone]. This is a notice of intent to issue a
 Request for Proposal (RFP)5-27413/203 on a sole source basis to Computer
 Sciences Corporation to perform the research study entitled ''The Death Watch:
 Monitoring the Most Massive Stars in the LMC and the Galaxy.'' This study was
 submitted as an unsolicited proposal under the International Ultraviolet
 Explorer (IUE) Satellite Observing Program, and chosen after a peer panel
 evaluation. The proposed procurement requires that the Contractor perform the
 study as proposed, within the constraints of the IUE satellite observing
 shifts allotted to this research. As the proposer of this research, the
 Contractor is uniquely qualified to perform the specific science required, and
 is the only responsible source to perform this effort. The statutory authority
 for Other Than Full and Open Competition is U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), Only One
 Responsible Source. Any other source desiring consideration is requested to
 fully identify its capability to provide this research or submit a proposal
 within fifteen (15) days of publication of this synopsis to the Goddard Space
 Flight Center office and the individuals listed above. See Note(s): 22. (0070)


--
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: 15 Mar 93 00:42:12 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>
> It's been six weeks now since I posted the original
> "Challenger" article to sci.space and sci.astro as a
> contribution to the on-going thread reminiscing on the
> tragedy.  I am still surprised at the intensity of negative
> reaction that several posters had to the article and
> by association to the concept of anonymous posting.

That, in itself, says a lot about your character.

[ a lot of babble deleted ]

> Sci.space and sci.astro need many more blunt posts centered
> on the human theme, even if strong medicine to many readers.

Does that go for rec.pets.cats and rec.pets.dogs as well? There have
been some blunt posts there recently. Do you feel the need for "strong
medicine" extends to those groups as well?

> As far as anonymous postings in general, the threats of
> personal violence that the Challenger post unearthed, for me,
> more than confirmed my decision to use it.

Good Ghod. What did you expect? You spouted previously debunked tabloid
facts all over the net, undoubtedly getting your jollies at the same
time, and wonder at the reaction it drew?  Here's a dollar. Go buy a
clue.

[ additional important sounding tripe with made-up words (surplusage?)
  deleted ]

> I think it takes far more courage to post anonymously than to
> hide behind your affiliations.

Nobody "hides behind their affiliations". It takes more courage to stand
up behind your own name and take the praise or put-downs for your words.
You show none of this courage and your attempts to justify your reasons
for posting anonymously are laughable.

> For me, a poster who,
> although anonymously, slowly built a strong argument through
> a series of well-written anonymous posts and

A legend in your own mind, eh? Don't break your arm patting yourself on
the back.

> The concept of anonymous posting is the next great step in
> washing away the detritus that impedes our search for truths.

Horse hockey.

> Yes, it has a great capacity to annoy and anger, but it has
> an even greater capacity to engage the truth for those with
> courage enough to learn to use it universally and well.

Which you haven't.

Give it up. Just keep thinking you won and go away.

--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 - or - [e-mail]     | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 19:20:24 GMT
From: Francisco X DeJesus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
[...]
It should be attributed to [e-mail], [e-mail]
(Richard E. Depew).
[...]
>>>     I am testing a shell script to carry out "Automated Retroactive
>>>Minimal Moderation" in response to Julf's (and your) suggestion that
>>>the only way to control anonymous posting to groups that don't want it
>>>is through moderation.  It cancels articles posted from anon.penet.fi.
>>>I've tested it on recycled postings with a "local" distribution and
>>>it works nicely.  I propose to arm "ARMM" with an unrestricted
>>>distribution for the "sci" hierarchy this weekend if Julf doesn't
>>>accept the proposed compromise or a reasonable alternative by then.
>
>How very nice of you.
>
>Have you considered that your actions may cause many news admins to cancel
>all control messages coming from your site?

In my case, it prompts me to ask exactly how to do this. I do not wish
to disregard all control/cancel messages period... that would be a bad
idea. There have been many times when I ask a question, get a response
in less than an hour, so then proceed to cancel my posting. I'm sure
lots of people (news admins and regular readers alike) who have done this
and count on this feature.

However, this ARMM script is another bad idea. If there is a way to
simply "ignore" control messages (cancels, at least) from the specific
site where this bass-ackwards non-service to the net is originating
from, please let me (and every other news admin who's not an expert
but wants to do something about this) know...

BTW... thanks to Ray Lapman ([e-mail]) for posting about
this in "general" and bringing it to my attention. I had grown quite
tired about this whole anonymity thread, and had modified my KILL file
so it wouldn't bother me with these messages. I suggest people like
Mr Depew learn to use KILL files to filter things that annoy them, instead
of annoying everyone else with their censorship crap. As it stands, I
haven't had a problem with postings from anon.penet.fi, but if I ever do,
I'll just put that (or the specific authors) into my KILL file too. Funny
how the obvious solution is often too simple for some people to grasp...
--
      Francisco X DeJesus  ----- S A I C -----  [e-mail]
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  * disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine. Typos and errors are yours *
 "Duck Season!" "Rabbit Season!" "...rabbit season." "It's Duck Season! SHOOT!"

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

Date: 15 Mar 93 17:49:28 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Without a Plan
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

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

>[e-mail] writes:

>>In my opinion the space program has a fundamental problem that cannot be
>>solved by Allen and I reaching for the jugular. The American space program
>>today has no central, unifying sense of purpose.

>Would that it were true.  The fact is that the obsolete, bizarrely
>expensive religious sacraments of shuttle, space station and future
>plans for "manned bases" still dominate the thinking and funding
>of our civilian program, while producing practically no advance
>towards anything useful, such as a sustainable human presence
>in space or serving the needs of people on earth.

I prefer sending people to sending toasters.  So do most taxpayers,
given that alternative.  Why can't you justify what you want by
justifying what you want rather than character assassination on those
who disagree with you and negative attacks on what they want?

>Until we _lose_ the delusional, cultish cant of Wingo's, that our
>vision must be one (his) and must never change, regardless of
>changes in technology, politics, etc., NASA and space fans will
>continue beating our heads against a brick wall.

Until we _lose_ the delusional, cultish cant of Szabo's, that our
vision must be one (his) and must never change, regardless of
changes in technology, politics, etc., NASA and space fans will
continue beating our heads against a brick wall.

--
"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: 15 Mar 1993 20:15:19 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Without a Plan
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>Until we _lose_ the delusional, cultish cant of Wingo's, that our
>vision must be one (his) and must never change, regardless of
>changes in technology, politics, etc., NASA and space fans will
>continue beating our heads against a brick wall.

Spoken like a true zealot with his hand on the bible of Native Materials.

However, Dennis's One True Way is based upon bending metal and hands-on work.
You've just got your hand out for money for a lot of politically unrealistic
projects.



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 318
------------------------------