home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Space & Astronomy
/
Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso
/
mac
/
TEXT
/
SPACEDIG
/
V16_4
/
V16NO412.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1993-07-13
|
30KB
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 93 12:19:22
From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Space Digest V16 #412
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk
Space Digest Sat, 3 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 412
Today's Topics:
Another Kuiper Object Found?
Artificial Gravity
Atlas rocket question
Elevator to the top floor
Flame Derby aka 20 KHz Power supply
Flame Derby Pool
General Question about He3
Info on Probe Computers
lie low netters! UFO's want you!
Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Mexican Space Program?
NORAD
ObservaDome for sale
Quaint US Archaisms
Sky-surfing
Space Digest V16 #401
Sr-71 in propoganda films?
SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93
Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 93 11:07:44 CST
From: Bob Kierski <bobo@thejester.cray.com>
Subject: Another Kuiper Object Found?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
In article <1APR199323501958@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> According to IAU Circular #5730, Luu and Jewitt, using the 2.2 meter
> telescope at the University of Hawaii, have discovered a faint object that
> may be another Kuiper object. The object is designated 1993 FW and is
> similar in motion and brightness to 1992 QB. Computations done by Brian
> Marsden indicates that 1993 FW is currently between 38 to 56 AU from the
> Earth.
Could someone please translate this and fill in more details? I'm not familiar with 1992 QB.
--
Have a day,
@ @
( ) bobo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 17:01:41 GMT
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Artificial Gravity
Newsgroups: sci.space
: I recall that the Apollo astronauts would rotate their capsule about the
: long axis for thermal control, they called it the "barbecue mode." Does
: anyone know what the artifical g force was when they were doing this?
Less than 1/100 G; probably more like 1/1000 G.
: A thuster on a Gemini capsule came on, by error, and spun up the capsule.
: It was said at the time that if the astronauts has not shut the thuster off
: they might have blacked out. This suggest rather high values of g are
: possible with relatively small spacecraft.
There are other factors than rotation rate involved. One G while in a
"heads-down" attitude, with the G-forces pooling blood in the head,
combined with a slight tumble, will make many humans black out. But
these guys were test pilots. It takes more than a little tumbling
around to get those guys queasy.
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368
"We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy,
but because it is fun."
-- John F. Kennedy, as [mis]quoted by
Scott Brigham, scotbri@rosemount.com,
in alt.folklore.urban
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:51:19 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Atlas rocket question
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <C4uBAt.71B@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Acceleration reduction isn't the major reason; that could be done by
>simply shutting down the two booster engines. They're jettisoned to
>save weight, getting much the same effect as a complete staging with
>less complexity and without having to light large engines at high
>altitude.
Is the entire engine jettisoned, or just the combustion chamber and
nozzle? What is the usual ratio of engine mass to total vehicle
dry mass for several representative vehicles? I was under the impression
that the chambers and nozzles just aren't that massive.
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: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 17:15:46 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Elevator to the top floor
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1pg8u8$6t5@access.usask.ca> choy@dvinci.USask.Ca (Henry Choy) writes:
>If we can build bridges and towers, we can surely build a structure
>that reaches to the heavens. Or are we afraid of babbling?
>It would be like building a mountain. If possible, a mountain on
>a mountain can be built.
>
>How about a wall-less elevator shaft? A spaceship can winch up an
>"elevator car" or space shuttle. This may save on fuel because
>the shuttle doesn't have to take jackrabbit starts. Rocket controls
>can be used to keep the shuttle on course.
While many people long for a Stairway to Heaven, strength of materials
rears it's ugly head for most artificial constructs. For cables, the
maximum length is that which can support itself without breaking. For
towers, it's the maximum height that can be supported without exceeding
compressive load limits. For mountains it's the slope of repose.
Mountains are the easiest. A two hundred mile high mountain would
only need a base 3300 miles across to be "stable". That much mass
would upset the tectonic balance though, and who's willing to donate
a continent for the site?
We don't know how to make materials with greater than about 200,000
PSI compressive strength. That sets a limit on how high we can build
a tower that's short of Heaven.
A tapered cable might just barely be possible with materials we
understand, but winching it up or down is out of the question.
Small cargos would have to ride the cable using traction wheels.
Such "beanstalks" have been discussed and studied. Hanging it is
the major problem.
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: Fri, 02 Apr 93 16:48:09 EST
From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu>
Subject: Flame Derby aka 20 KHz Power supply
Fred sez; (In the midst of a flame derby w/ Pat)
>>|And solid state is always more reliable than anything involving moving
>>|parts, as well as easier to repair/replace. The equipment I used to
Pat responds;
>>Not neccesarily. Depends on the quality of the Electronics,
>>and the mechanicals.
Fred replies
>Ceteris paribus, you stupid git. Of course if the solid state stuff
>is made out of Cheetos and string it probably won't be as reliable as
>a moving part! Basic rule #1 of engineering: If it has to work for a
>long time with minimal maintence, minimize the number of moving parts.
Fred, I know how much you have a problem with people commenting on your
manners, despite your constantly insulting them and others, but I just had
to commend you for the remark about Cheetos and thread. This is very
encouraging. If you must get your emotional gratification by insulting
people, at least if it's funny you will not only have it read more often,
which must have some meaning for you, since you don't keep it in private,
where it belongs, but it will also be more gratifying for the people
trying to find actual points hidden among the personal stuff.
Oh, just to keep on the thread; If Pat was stupid for suggesting the
(presumably obvious) fact that some solid state is less reliable than
mechanicals, then aren't you stupid for incorrectly stating that solid
state is ALWAYS better?
No, I'm not talking about those famous Cheeto/thread IC's that used to
come out of some of the near-asian countries :-) I'm thinking more along
the lines of what I know, computer electronics, where bumps (rare on a
micro-grav space station) cause infrequent mechanical problems despite
clumsy techs and normal wear and tear here on Earth, but very little
static (prevelant in plasma environments, like space) can trash IC's
easier than you can insult people for talking back to you.
Also, presumably for a power plant on a space station, despite the scaling
back of the (design for) Fred, we're talking heavy voltages and/or
currents, and I know for a fact that solid state's reliability has an
inverse relationship with power. Ever fix a TV or stero? Know what's
bad 80% of the time? Output transitors on the steros and the high-
frequency SS components (horizontal and power) on the TV. These are
the components that see the highest power and temeratures. (I'm ignoring
the problems caused by lightning, since they are ususally caused by
ungrouded antennae and lightning doesn't occur (much?) in space)
The case is certainly the same for high power/temp. mechanicals, but
I think blanket statements about which is better are a bit premature,
expecially for a design that isn't even being prototyped yet.
-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 93 17:59:22 EST
From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu>
Subject: Flame Derby Pool
[Bill asking George about the Flame Derby contestants]
[Tom offers his opinion, putting Fred above Stienn]
>>Fred Responds;
>>>But I don't remember you being asked, Tommy (unless you changed your
>>>name to George when nobody was looking). Given what I've seen from
>>>you over the years, I think you're more a candidate than a voter.
>>Oh my God! I'm really sorry. I know how frowned upon it is to offer an
>>opinion on someone elses thread, especially one so serious as, uh, let
>>me look here, oh yeah, "Flame Derby". Please, Fred and everyone, accept
>>my humble apology for being so blatantly out of line.
>Well, son, if you want to jump into the middle of things you can
>hardly complain about being hit, now can you?
I apologized, I was obsequious, I even asked you to please stop, but you
just couldn't let it go.
Oh, and you hit me so hard, too, Fred. You really showed me how sensitive
you are to being called a flamer, as well as your opinion that the
"flame derby" really is serious, since you let that comment slip right
by, as well as your continuing belief that these arguments belong on
the net in the first place. Oh, and with a normal helping of condescending
language, huh, 'pops'. How old are you, anyway?
>>Happy now Fred? I hope so, since I'd like to help you keep your contentless,
>>>personal, unfunny posts to a minimum, and apparently, I'm responsible for
>>this one. You got me, I overstepped bounds, but let's not rub my face in it,
>>>OK? I've got my pride, too, so please let me off easy this time.
>>You're still laboring under this silly "Tommy as the Centre of the
>>Universe" idea that anyone needs your help, not to mention how you
>>fool yourself about having these 'higher motives' when you decide to
>>get into it. I think you need to examine your own motives on this
>>one.
Fred, you always take issue with people trying to read your motives from
your actions, yet continue to do so yourself. What gift have you got?
No, actually, I don't think I'm the center of the Universe. I think
you are, Fred. I took my complaints with your baiting and insulting
flames to private E-mail, where it belongs, yet you brought it back
to the Net, even though you don't do 'ego-games'. Here it will stay,
until someone who is (understandably) tired of seeing it all the time
says something to us about it. Also, I decided that you were right
about Nick: People who insult and flame deserve the same treatment,
so I'll be the biggest PITA to you I can, which is really pretty easy,
considering your sensitivity to it. My motives are actually the same
as yours, Fred; to fill the Net with the most inappropriate, unintersting
personal garbge that I can, now that I have found someone who is oh-so-
cooperative about it, and self-righteous about his 'innocence' to boot.
That alone provides a recursive basis for complaints that may prove to
be unlimited. Look, I've got a good 80 lines or so in just one post!
And all we've done is flame about flames! Isn't powerful, advanced
communication technology great? Like MTV. I'm sure I can count on you
for at least 40+ lines in response, not including attributions. Don't
be shy.
Please, respond soon, and call me some more names or something, or someone
might post some silly thing about, oh, I don't know, the space station,
or NASA, or launch technology or something equally un-Fred-McCall-and-all-
the-people-who-are-assholes-the-he-only-responds-to-in-kind oriented.
C'mon, Pat and Nick, claim you didn't start it, and the four of us will be
as famous as MacElwaine for wasting time and bandwidth! Just remember to
keep responding in kind to each other, just like Fred does. He's always
right, even-tempered, and has the best perspective on all issues, so
he must be right when he says it's OK! Wouldn't you agree, Fred?
Yes, Fred, this is an ego-game now. Prove to me that you'd like to end it.
Stop posting about it. You got all the insults and condescending comments
on me. Give me the last word. It won't mean I'm right, it will mean that
we're both right, since we can both recognize the waste of time it represents.
This is our chance for redemption: Through a co-operative effort, Tom
suggests that we end it, and Fred generously agrees, letting it die a
painless death, to the joyous applause of everyone that wants to read and
discuss issues dealing with space.
-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 17:01:10 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <dietz@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: General Question about He3
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Apr2.160330.24391@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> proctor_david@semail.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> How many pounds or kilos of lunar regolith would it take to produce 1 cuft
> or 1 liter of He3? What would be the absolute minimum volume that
> researchers would need to adequately do reasoanble He3 fusion research and
> show results?
I believe the average 3He concentration in regolith is around 5 ppm by
mass. If 3He at STP has a density of .1 g/l, then roughly 10,000
liters of regolith make 1 liter of 3He at STP. The concentration
of 3He is higher in the ilmenite fraction of the regolith.
There is sufficient 3He on earth (from decay of manmade tritium)
to do fusion research. Understand that tokamaks aren't likely to
be able to burn D/3He very well.
Paul F. Dietz
dietz@cs.rochester.edu
"If we had some eggs we could make ham and eggs, if we had
some ham."
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1993 12:48:16 -0500
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.com>
Subject: Info on Probe Computers
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.folklore.computers
Actually this shouldn't be that difficult.
What ytouare describing is a machine simulator. I've done it for
Hardware developement projects, and given the small size of
probe computers, it should be fairly straight forward.
THe hardest part will be developing useful simulations of probe
sensor data streams. FOr these you need a small
universe that's work. IT depends if you just want to test
command sequences or fully model the bird.
pat
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1993 12:56:03 -0500
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.com>
Subject: lie low netters! UFO's want you!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
In article <1APR199315164174@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>Maybe pat is an agent? :-)
I am exposed.
Fred and I were maintaining a smokescreen:-) to cover up the
disapearrance of Dave, Henry and alan.
pat
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1993 12:39:43 -0500
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.com>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
In article <C4tv82.DJJ@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax (David Ward) writes:
|>
|
|$70 million seems awfully high to keep any mission going. Where
|do your numbers come from and is there something I'm missing in
|the translation between planetary spacecraft and Earth orbiters?
|
|David W.
I am sure Ron could elucidate this better, but my understanding
is that the Magellan costs a lot to operate because it needs a lot
of hand holding. Also some of the operational problems ate up
engineering dollars in testing and analysis.
MAgellan also returns lots of data, this requires lots of DSN time
(Billable), Lots of NASA comms time (Billable) Lots of computer
massaging (Billable), and an imaging analysis team (Billable).
PArt of the reason they can continue on through aero braking is
that gravity data is cheaper to get then Radar data.
Ron, care to elaborate?
pat
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1993 13:01:59 -0500
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.com>
Subject: Mexican Space Program?
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Apr1.210115.19221@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
|
|Nick's right about this, perhaps in ways he doesn't realize. The
|US government's job is to protect the interests of US nationals,
|as well as the US national interest. Thus US government purchases are
|preferentially made from US companies operating in the US using
|US labor. The US government is not in the business of exporting
|US jobs with taxpayer funds, nor is it in the business of exporting
|the technological industrial base on which it's security depends.
|All the cries to "Buy Russian", or "Move Boeing to Tijuana" neglect
|these issues.
Of course, Gary you know the Buy America Act does not apply to
products made in mexico, Japan or Canada. Nor has the US government
proven averse to buying critical weapons systems from foreign providers.
Judging from the policies of the last three administrations
We are in the business of exporting jobs with US government funds.
pat
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1993 13:13:14 -0500
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.com>
Subject: NORAD
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
If you are interested in something you tracked. If you have
coordinates, date and time, ALL launches are reported to
some UN agency. THey have complete epoch data, although
the US data is roundly out of touch.
Plus, NORAD does publish an objects catalog. You can get it via
FOIA, although being an Irishman, they may charge you for it.
The Lt forgets, we are taxpayers, and do get some services from the
military.
pat
------------------------------
From: Randy Kirchhof <rkk@cfi.org>
Subject: ObservaDome for sale
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.optics
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 17:08:40 GMT
Lines: 34
Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
[ posted for rick@posms.aus.tx.us ]
For sale:
This is in the current issue of _The Starry Messenger_ and will be run
again at a reduced price. You may inquire by phone, E-mail or snail
mail. The new price will be $2495. The ad we ran is below:
ObservaDome 2-meter all aluminum, welded-seam rotating dome on
ObservaDome Lab's matching base cylinder. Split side-to-side shutter,
24" clear wedge, clear zenith. Internal clear swing radius is 39".
Internal height is approx. 90". Locking steel door, wired 110v outlets.
Excellent Condition. Lists over $6400, asking $2995 plus shipping.
Austin Astronomical Society P.O. Box 12831, Austin TX 78711. Tom
Robichaux at (512) 459-5137, no collect calls.
==
Tom is this year's president, I am the VP. We are willing to discuss
delivery up to 100 miles from Austin. It can be moved on a low flat bed
type of trailer.
Please write or phone Tom, but you may E-mail me and I will forward the
message.
rick
(rick@posms.aus.tx.us)
--
======================================================================
rkk@cfi.org | Randy Kirchhof | CAD Framework Initiative, Inc.
Desk: 512/338-3343 | Systems/Site | 4030 West Braker Lane #550
FAX: 512/338-3853 | Administrator | Austin, Texas 78759
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 17:01:57 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Apr2.111954@estwm0.wm.estec.esa.nl> hevans@wm.estec.esa.nl writes:
>In article <1993Apr1.213934.19572@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>|>
>|>Not to be seen as defending a decicentric measuring system, but in
>
>Deci-cent-ric, wouldn't that really be milliric?
>
>Just my two centidollars worth.
The metric system is based on powers of ten. The Imperial system is
based on integer fractions. The only reason we like the metric system
is because we have eight fingers and two thumbs which we learned to
use as counters. In the natural world, very few things are found
grouped in patterns of 10. Instead almost everything has a geometric
basis best pictured as groupings of integer fractions arrayed in an
exponential scale. The Imperial system is vastly better suited to
dealing with nature than a system based on the artifact of our
having eight fingers and two thumbs.
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: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:51:17 GMT
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Sky-surfing
Newsgroups: sci.space
John Charles (john@jbc.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: Has anyone calculated the g-load due to atmospheric surfboard deceleration
: which would be experienced by the Sky-Surfer?
: John B. Charles, Ph.D., SD5, NASA Johnson Space Center
(For those not familiar with JSC Mail Codes, SD5 is our "Space
Biomedical Research Institute," with similar space-related functions to
the Russian "Institute of Biomedical Problems.")
No, but you could make them as low as 3 G if you followed the same
flight profile and lift/drag characteristics which the Shuttle uses. A
human can stand in 3 G, but balance is difficult because your muscles
are attuned to 1 G. I have navigated (in the Vomit Comet) for short
periods at 2 G, and it is very different from walking at 1 G. I
hypothesize that surfing at 3 G may require faster reactions than is
humanly possible. (I would love to be proved wrong.)
It may be better to sit, kneel or lay down during entry. A "space
boogie board" instead of surfing. Every human space traveller so far
has been "sitting" (well, reclining a bit) during this flight phase for
a variety of reasons. We could do some Shuttle-based Detailed
Supplementary Objective (DSO) medical experiments to determine the
physiological effects of standing (erect) during entry. In fact, if we
haven't done it already in support of ACRV and emergency evacuation
training, we should try some entries lying down (supine), too.
Dr. Dava Newman, a Ph.D. from MIT, now a professor of Aerospace
Engineering at the University of Houston, has done some water tank
simulation of human locomotion at various gravities. Specifically,
she's looked at the physiology of walking at lunar and Martian
gravities. She's pretty new in the new UH Aero department, so she may
not have an account on Jetson yet. I'll get her phone number to Dr.
Charles.
There's no technical reason we couldn't implement sky surfing, in some
form. It's really the same technology as Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and
Shuttle, only in a different package. But it will cost dollars and
lives and many, many political hassles.
Let's do it.
-- Ken "Hang 10" Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368
"Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into
practice with courageous impatience." -- Admiral Hyman G. Rickover
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 93 17:40:12 EST
From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu>
Subject: Space Digest V16 #401
>Nick sez;
>>>>I'm not very impressed by the old so-called "prospecting" work from
>>>>LPI, it has almost all been geared towards industrially silly processes on
>>>>the moon as an excuse to put astronauts there. [...]
>Fred replies;
>>>Translation: It doesn't support the Nick Szabo Vision of the Future
>>>to Which You MUST Subscribe. It wants to do silly things like put
>>>*people* in space, and on the moon yet, of all places. And most
>>>importantly to Nick, it seems, it doesn't give work to JPL.
Tom sez;
>>Fred, we're all supporting what each of us thinks should be done, to some
>>degree. If you have a problem with what Nick thinks should be done,
>>address it, instead of just complaining about his doing so.
Fred again;
>You really don't get what the 'complaints' are about, do you?
...
Maybe I'd get it if you said what the complaints are about, rather than
doing the same things that you mean to complain about. When you trash
people, how am I supposed to read that as 'trashing people is bad'?
>>Not only
>>do you do the same thing on the net (honestly reporting your ideas
>>on matters of policy and projects in space), but your response was just
>>baiting, not even part of a debate.
>I have yet to see Nick enter into anything remotely resembling "a
>debate". I see him flame anyone or anything who disagrees with The
>One True Szabo Plan; I see him attacking people, calling them "lazy
>bastard" because they had the temerity to disagree with the Almight
>Nick; I see him questioning peoples ethics, again because they had the
>temerity to disagree with Lord God Szabo. But debate? BWAAaaahhhaaaa.
I'm glad you can laugh, since your ratio of debate/insult is about the same.
>>I'm not convinced that people are necessary in all parts of every space-
>>based process, and your response doesn't tell me a thing about the
>>reasons why you think they should be, except to impune the motives of
>>the person with a divergent opinion.
>Who said I think they should be, Tommy? Show me a note where I said
>that and I'll eat this terminal.
Fred, I cocluded that you did, since you took issue with it. The fact
that my conclusion was incorrect, i.e. that you were taking issue with
something different, is evidence that your communication style is
confusing.
>>If you have a problem with Nick's delivery, address that. The way you
>>bait, you're perpetuating the lack of discourse that you complain of.
>No, Tommy, the 'bait' is that which elicits the response. *NICK*
>'baits'; I just flame him for being an obnoxious fool.
I don't really care who started it. I read this list to get information
and other's views on the issues to which it was dedicated, not to be
your Mom (He started it! No, he did!) or to hear about why Nick is a very
bad guy. If you think flaming is bad, stop flaming, or at least get to
the point in the first post, instead of explaining yourself all the time.
-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \\ As the radius of vision increases,
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1993 13:05:28 -0500
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.com>
Subject: Sr-71 in propoganda films?
Newsgroups: sci.space
THe SR-71 stopped being a real secret by the mid 70's.
I had a friend in high school who had a poster with it's picture.
Now operational parameters are even now still classified, and I don't
expect to ever see specs on it's ECM suite.
pat
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1993 13:03:21 -0500
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.com>
Subject: SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93
Newsgroups: sci.space
Where are the meetings?
pat
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1993 12:45:28 -0500
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.com>
Subject: Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
Newsgroups: sci.space
Gee henry, you should get a PhD in Developemental Economics.
You seem to have hit on the key problems in Economic assistance.
IF a countries national industries are below global productivity standards
then any assistance extra-nationally must be targeted at gaining these
improvements or opening foreign markets. Anything else is just welfare.
pat
------------------------------
End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 412
------------------------------