Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO416.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Sun,  4 Apr 93 05:00:03
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #416
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun,  4 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 416

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss: breathing fluids
             Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
                        Atlas rocket question
                       Commercial point of view
                       Coral and Dyson Sphere..
                   DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test
                     How do they ignite the SSME?
                       Info on Probe Computers
                          Luddites in space
                  New DC-1 reentry question (2 msgs)
                        Plans, absence therof
                     Quaint US Archaisms (2 msgs)
                        Quaint US Archaisms ~
                    Shaking your brain!!!!!!!!!!!!
           UFO: was it meteor or Secret U.S. AURORA craft?
              Waaaaaaaaaaah!  Nick's criticizing again!

    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, 1 Apr 93 23:37:00 GMT
From: Ross Borden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Just out of curiosity, would this liquid (sorry, forgot the exact spelling)
>work as a liquid oxidizer in rocket engines?
>
>I was just think how neat it would be to have a non-cryogenic, easy to
>handle oxidizer for rocket use.
>
>Simon
>
    Not quite.  The current versions can't even carry enough O2 to
    support human life, let alone combustion at rates required in
    rocket motors.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  I shot a man just to watch him die;    |     Ross Borden                   |
|  I'm going to Disneyland!               |     [e-mail]            |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 1 Apr 93 17:40:38 GMT
From: "Jeffrey M. Matthews <[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Campbell) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>According to my Rubber Bible, 63rd ed., Aluminum was first isolated in
>>1827 by Wohler. "Aluminium" is available in Elizabethan (II) times, and
>>perhaps "alumnium", whatever that is, was available in "elizabethan"
>>times, but aluminum was not available in Elizabethan times any more than
>>Macintoshes were.
>
>Ahem .... "Aluminum" is the name used by people in the US, "Aluminium" is
>the proper chemical name and the name used (and pronounced) by everyone
>else in the world. Aluminum is just one of those quaint things about the US
>(like inches and writing the date backwards).
>
>    Paul

To paraphrase from Isaac Asimov's article "The Mispronounced Metal" in *Of
Matters Great and Small*--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potassium Aluminum Sulfate was known by the Romans as "Alumen", a word which
seems to be related to the Greek for "bitter".

In 1746 Johann Heinrich Pott obtained a "simple earth" (compounds which did
not dissolve in water, melt in fire, or burn in air) from alumen.  Following
the practice of the day, he called it "alumina".

By 1790 Lavoisier had established the present system of chemical nomencalture,
which was becoming internationally accepted.  In that system, metals had names
ending in -um.  Hence platinum, molybdenum, and tantalum.

When Humphrey Davey believed he had isolated a metal from alumina, he called
it "aluminum".  However, due to the chance vagaries of language, many metals
were prepared from compounds ending in "i", and became therefore ----ium.
The momentum of the times carried aluminum with it.

Until 1880 no element had an English name with more than four syllables, ex-
cept aluminum in Britain.  Even now, those that do are not common.

Therefore, it is *aluminum*, NOT *aluminium*.

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

In the article, Asimov brushes off the French and German appelations (alumini-
um) with the statement that they didn't speak standard English.  Additionally,
while not saying so, he implies, at least with the first reading, that Davey
discovered aluminum.

Those criticisms aside, Dr. Asimov makes a good case for "aluminum", one which
we colonials find useful.

As for the date, considering the expansiveness of the colonies and the diffi-
culty of travel, could it be that the month was far more certain than the day,
and was given precedence?

Jeff Matthews
Standard Disclaimers and Implied Smileys Apply

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

Date: 1 Apr 1993 20:28:02 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlas rocket question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I believe one of GD's improved-Atlas designs now in the works finally
>gets around to deleting them.  The precision issue is unimportant now


AW had an article that mentioned the improvements in the launcher
families,  and cited the Atlas 2AS???  as an example of what can happen
with incremental improvement of existing launchers.

MY question is what sort of gains are we getting out of these?

pat

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 09:33:41 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial point of view
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:


>I was objecting to a SINGLE industry, not
>all of them as your editing implies...
>I never argued that it was a case of one vs. the other.

From the context, it looked like I was discussing native materials
and the various markets they make possible, and you claimed we should
focus our resources on SSTO instead, because it will come first.  That
sounded quite us vs. them to me.    I'm glad to hear that's not what
you meant & I apologize for the misunderstanding.

>    First of all, once again you drag NASA in only to kick them
>down.  I don't believe *I* ever mentioned NASA.

I was explaining why most "space resources" studies to date have
had such a narrow focus.  That's an important part of my point;
this whole thread is about the difference between commercial
planning and government central planning, and related differences
in attitude and vision. I'm not doing it to "kick NASA down", and
I don't believe that NASA is an "evil empire".  Isn't it possible
to making factual statements or reasonable observations about something
anymore without being guilty of "bashing"?  Furthermore, I never
claimed you mentioned NASA.  I mentioned NASA because it was important
to my point.  That's putting words in my mouth #1.

>>Think tech constraints, not timeframes. ..
>>
>    Hmm, I see.  Let's see, I want to invest $100,000 in Szabo
>Enterprises because I think I might see some good come out of it.

That's putting words in my mouth #2.  I have not solicited
private investment funds for any of my proposals.  I consider
_exploratory_ business planning to be crucial for long-range
planning for NASA.  I have worked out explicit numbers for returns
based on meeting tech constraints and various conservative trend
assumptions (eg launch costs dropping by a factor of 2).  The
important aspect of such planning, like I said, is tech constraints
not absolute schedule times ("Manned Mars Landing: 1980" -- from
NASA plan c. 1970).

In fact, I explicitly said that I would not consider large scale
private investment likely until these tech constraints have been
satisfactorily met.  There's a role for NASA exploration and R&D
if NASA is truly interested in space development and economic
competitiveness.

>Hell, if you said 10-50 years, I'd be happy.

Most of my scenarios pay off IRR 20-40% over a 10-20 year period,
assuming probable tech, discovery, and cost drop conditions are met (an
inherently unpredictable proposition in the absolute timeframe, central
planning pretensions notwithstanding).  See my original post
on this thread for more details.  NASA has to give up pretensions
of predicting the future and learn to live with the uncertainty
just like everybody else in the R&D world.  Ditto for space fans.

>    Once again you use my question as a place to get on your
>high horse about centralized beaurcracy.  I never mentioned it, and
>I don't support it.

Glad to hear it.  I mention it because centralized bureaucracy
dominates today's space program and the thinking of most people
involved in it.  It's quite relevant to the discussion, and I
never claimed you support it.  Words in my mouth #3.

>>Fixed plans CAN be silly.  But setting goals
>>is not.

Setting goals implies choosing some end points at the expense
of others -- eliminating goals before they have been demonstrated
to be unworthy.  I explore scenarios, a wide variety of scenarios
and try to find those which payoff the most soonest.  A diverse
set of goals can then be based on the most promising scenarios.

>    Ah, I see, respected climatologists say it's ok so
>I should believe them.  Sorry, I'd still like to see more data.

So get on your library's computer and do a lit search for
"ethane && ozone && Science" already.  I never said you
should believe them just based on what I said.  I was just
pointing out another potential large market for space development,
which readers can explore further if they wish.  Words in my mouth #4.

>    So, when does your venture capital company start up?

Again, you totally misconstrue the reason for using business
style planning here.  Whoever has the talent to implement when
the tech constraints are met, that's who you invest in.
Meanwhile, the business scenarios are for exploring which
are the most productive future prospects for commercial
space development for the lowest amount of NASA exploration
and R&D (the tech constraints to be met).

Finally, please stop accusing me of misediting and putting
words in your mouth.  That is a very common occurence on
this kind of forum, quite difficult to avoid, especially
given this subject matter.   You've screwed up badly at least
four times yourself, claiming I said things that I
never came close to saying, but that you arrived at by
hasty interpretation.  I suggest you read my posts more
deeply for meaning, and I will endeavor to do the same.
As usual, those interested in the exact words can go back and
look at the complete text of the previous posts, they have
commands in newsreaders for that.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Apr 93 15:50:29 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Coral and Dyson Sphere..
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> I once had an idea on how to create a dyson (sp, or dysean?) Sphere, using a
> genetically engineered animal similar to a coral.. Namely using a selection of
> coral and other contructs to construct the sphere (the growth of the coral
> would have to be speeded up thou), one group to collect and convert the base
> materials, the others group to build it.. Now to figure out how it would be
> able to hanbdle space and it might work sometime in the future..
>
> A sphere or a Ringworld base structure is more like it, not sure how to do the
> rest.. But Im sure someone can figure this out..
>
> How to get the coral to build the "reef" in the shape wanted??


As I understand it, a Dyson Sphere is not a sphere at all.  It is a "cloud" of
objects in orbit about the star.  This cloud is so dense that no radiant energy
escapes to interstellar space.  In Dyson's words, a civilization capable of
constructing such a system to harness all the energy output by their sun would
be called a "Phase II" civilization.

I hope that this helps.  The idea of "growing" such a system is fascinating.

Charles J. Ramses

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 15:41:53 GMT
From: Paul Johnson <[e-mail]-mrc>
Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris W. Johnson) writes:

[Excerpt from Aviation Leak]

>* Avionics by McDonnell Aircraft. This "includes a Honeywell
>    computer, an F-15 inertial navigation system, a Navstar [GPS]
>    receiver and rate sensors and accelerometers from the F/A-18
>    program."

This bit interests me.  How much automatic control is there?  Is it
purely autonomous or is there some degree of ground control?  How is
the transition from aerodynamic flight (if thats what it is) to hover
accomplished?  This is the really new part of this program, and so far
the least documented on the Net.

Paul.
--
Paul Johnson ([e-mail]).        | Tel: [phone] ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 12:38:50 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do they ignite the SSME?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier) writes:

>Roger Wilfong writes: (about SSME ignition method)

>> They use a pyrotechnic ignitor mounted on the pad that produces a lot of
>> sparks for about 10 seconds.  This type of ignitor is basically the same
>> type of pyrotechnic sparklers that were developed for the A4/V2.

> I've heard the sparkers were intended to ignite *stray* hydrogen before it
> builds up and explodes. What's the call here... Do they actually ignite the
> SSME's or are they merely a safety device? Can someone at NASA shed some
> light on this?

A number of people have given the dope on this already, but let me add
that the idea you could light a liquid bipropellant rocket engine by,
in essence, holding a match under the nozzle, is just *nuts*.  One
thing you absolutely must do in such an engine is to guarantee that
the propellants ignite as soon as they mix, within milliseconds.  To
do otherwise is to fill your engine with a high explosive mixture
which, when it finally does ignite, blows everything to hell.

    Paul

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 08:10:28 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on Probe Computers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Mills) writes:
>>I'm after _detailed_ technical information on the on-board computers used in
>>early probes (Ranger, Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager) ...
>
>While Voyager has on-board computers, early spacecraft didn't.
>What they had was "sequencers" - handfuls of relays and timers...

Indeed, some of them didn't even have that:  they basically just did
what they were told, when they were told, and that was all.  Nor was
this restricted to the dawn of spaceflight; Pioneers 10 and 11, still
in flight and in communication, work that way.  (Ames would have liked
to give them some autonomy, especially given the long speed-of-light
lags in the outer solar system, but time, money, and mass did not permit.)
Mind you, even such simpleminded probes typically do have one or two
decisions made on-board, e.g. the decision to switch command receivers
when nothing has been heard from Earth for a while.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Apr 1993 12:38:53 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>While a hunk of sheepskin certainly is no guarantee of competence, the
>lack of one in a complex field is potentially an indicator of some
>holes in the requisite underlying knowledge.
>

I'd say the only thing a sheepskin indicates is that you are
willing to stay at one task for N Years, in pursuit of a goal.
A worthwhile trait for business.

Considering that only 15% of what you learn in Eng school is ever
applied to what you do as a professional, I'd bet any well motivated
individual could learn a great deal of requisite knowledge,
sufficient to work at an expected level of competency.

This focus on a piece of Animal flesh indicates a cetain narrowness
of vision.

>>  I think you'd be amazed (particularly in software) at the number of
>>truly competent people who've never bothered with degrees, because they
>>were too busy doing real work :-)
>
>Well, no, I don't think I would.  I got a degree in that, too, and I
>frankly find the number of not so competenet people with credentials a
>lot more surprising than I do competence in people without them.  Kind
>of leaves me wondering what some schools are teaching these days.
>However, unless they spent a lot of time learning a lot of things
>people without that academic background are going to be missing some
>of the underpinnings, no matter how good they might be at developing
>specific applications.  Sort of the difference between being able to
>build a house and being able to design one and being able to use those
>same skills to design a ship.
>

You know fred,  Some people spend a lot of time learning the underpinnings
without benefit of a formal education.  OFtentimes the drive to teach oneself
means not being blinded by Dogma to areas of new possibility.  Given the
evolutionary nature of CS,  that may actuallyt be a benefit.  Given the
fact no-one really understnads  human economic behavior that may also be
a benefit.

I've spent a lot of time studying economic theory, and I feel comfortable
in any discussion of it with any PhD.  I don't need a piece of paper to
satisfy my own ego.

And I'd bet the differnce is a fair bit greater between architect
and Naval architect then you think.
>Of course, there are also folks to whom reasonable software
>engineering practices come 'natural' as the result of the application
>of good sense and experience.  However, at the bottom line, economics
>ain't programming.  Good sense, experience, and how they 'think' it
>works just don't correspond real well to how things actually work.
>

As i see it, the problem with most economists is that they don't understnad
real life.  THey can talk about M1, and M3  all day and not
undersatand beans about the motivating forces of a shopkeeper
or a assembly plant worker.  Good sense, experience and a knowledge
of how things work are woefully lacking in econ majors.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 19:42:55 GMT
From: Loren Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: New DC-1 reentry question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I understand that the plans are for DC-1 to reenter nose
>first as opposed to apollo-style base first.  It seems
>to me that an advantage to going base first is that the
>occupants are on their back taking the g's the easiest
>way possible (on their back with knees elevated).
>Doesn't going nose first mean the occupants will be face
>down?  Is that going to cause problems?
>

No, because they won't be face down.  The phrase "nose first" is a bit
misleading.  In fact, it's more like "side first".  The craft develops
(according to the wind tunnel, I suppose) a surprising amount of lift
for what appears to be a rather featureless tapered cylinder.  If you
draw the lift & drag vectors for a high-angle-of-attack reentry,
the resultant (what the crew feels) is up through their "floor",
assuming they are seated with their backs to the engines.  I don't
have enough information here to tell if "down" would be tilted forward
or backward.

    Loren Carpenter
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 19:46:33 GMT
From: Loren Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: New DC-1 reentry question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I understand that the plans are for DC-1 to reenter nose
>first as opposed to apollo-style base first.  It seems
>to me that an advantage to going base first is that the
>occupants are on their back taking the g's the easiest
>way possible (on their back with knees elevated).
>Doesn't going nose first mean the occupants will be face
>down?  Is that going to cause problems?
>

No, because they won't be face down.  The phrase "nose first" is a bit
misleading.  In fact, it's more like "side first".  The craft develops
(according to the wind tunnel, I suppose) a surprising amount of lift
for what appears to be a rather featureless tapered cylinder.  If you
draw the lift & drag vectors for a high-angle-of-attack reentry,
the resultant (what the crew feels) is up through their "floor",
assuming they are seated with their backs to the engines.  I don't
have enough information here to tell if "down" would be tilted forward
or backward.  Also, as the G load is somewhere around 1, it might
feel a lot like just sitting in a chair.

        Loren Carpenter
        [e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Apr 1993 20:35:52 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plans, absence therof
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Charles Divine, _you_ are proof of his statement.  You've used your
>>position and resources at NASA for at least the last two years to
>>lobby for SSF et. al. via "NSS alerts". A clear conflict of interest,
>>but you are far too deeply buried in a corrupt system to even recognize
>>it.
>
>One assumes that Nick also considers it a conflict of interest when
>politicians use the resources of their positions to 'lobby' citizens
>and groups?  Or perhaps he considers it a conflict of interest that
>folks from JPL keep us updated on what is going on there, since
>everyone knows that one of the best ways of 'lobbying' for funds is to
>point out all the neat things that are currently going on?
>
>I'm afraid my opinion of Nick continues to be confirmed.


Oh God.   Here I am.  Sticking up for szabo again.  Not that I agree
with a lot of his stuff,  but you are grossly over-simplifying his
position.

NASA employees, like other federal workers are prohibited under the Hatch
act from engaging in Political campaigns on any level.  They are also
prohibited from taking remuneration from outside sources,  although a recent
appellate court ruling has confused things.  I would say that being
paid by an organization that lobbies for Space would be questionable.

Now congress-critters are different matters.  They are subject to the cruelest
standard of all.  the voter.  We can vote them out and do  often for
highly ir-rational reasons.  Federal workers like judges hold great tenure
and thus are bound by different standards.

Now as for engaging in PRish activities or responding to requests for infor
mation is part of their charter to educate the public.  I am sure
Mary or one of the other NASA employees, Ron, Peter, can cite the exact
agency guidelines on what is and isn't acceptable use of Government time
or Equipment.

I have always welcomed a free-form debate from NASA employees and their
contractors,  provided it remains within the constraints elucidated
above.

 While Nick may be off-base on his statements about Devine in particular,
he does have a general point, which you seem not to recognize fred.

pat

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 93 21:07:59 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms

From: Mark Robert Thorson <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Quaint US Archaisms
> Newsgroups: sci.space
>
> If we go after the sizes halfway between 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, we get
> 3/8 and 3/16.  Going after the sizes halfway in between those,
> we get 7/16, 5/16, 7/32, and 5/32.  Amazingly enough, the values
> you have cited fall out of this simple technique of extending
> the exponential scale to a finer grain!  Such is the awesome
> power and ease-of use of the American system of measures!

Yes, it does indeed make sense, IFF your conceptual
limit is dividing things in half !

But literacy is the order of the day, and so too
its all-too-neglected partner numeracy, which I
humbly submit has been thoroughy decimalized -
a deeper concept than dividing things in half,
but many people can manage.

[ Speaking of which, my suggested solar system map
  was a bit too big for the average table, mea culpa ..]


--
* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* [e-mail]       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 10:07:04 -0500
From: Bob Montante <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) :
|
|>Not to be seen as defending a decicentric measuring system, but in


[e-mail] <[e-mail]> :
|
| Deci-cent-ric, wouldn't that really be milliric?
|
| Just my two centidollars worth.


And Columbus wanted to sail west to the Orient because he thought
"Geo-cent-ric" meant it was only a hundredth as far around the world
that way.

--
Stop making cents! :-)

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

Date: 3 Apr 1993 11:15:16 GMT
From: "Peter T." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms ~
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) says:
>
>May I humbly point out that the English system has standard sizes in
>an exponential distribution (1/2", 1/4", 1/8", etc.) while metric
>sizes tend to be anything.  An old American car can be serviced with
>about 5 wrenches.  A proper metric wrench set has lots of sizes,
>typically 3 to 25 millimeters in increments of 1 mm.

Having 1mm increments does not mean you have to use them.
For instance my car which has metric sizes, requires the following
wrenches to tweak every bolt/nut it has:
8, 10, 12, 14, 17, and 19mm if you whish to count the hub nuts.

It takes thousands of nuts to put a car together, but only one
to scatter it all over the road!

Just my 2cents.
Peter T.

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

Date: 3 Apr 1993 12:45:57 GMT
From: Jauh-Hauh Chuang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shaking your brain!!!!!!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi, everyone

One of my questions here is:

I resume a fly is in a running train.  The tran is running about 200 km/hour,
and the fly is flying forward only - (please note, one direction only).

After a limited time, does the fly stay where it wais or the fly will be at the orginal spot behind?

Hope you can give me good solution of above!

orginal spot behind?
--
********************************************************************************
 Computer Science Department               |  [e-mail]
 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology   |  [e-mail]
********************************************************************************

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 18:46:47 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: UFO: was it meteor or Secret U.S. AURORA craft?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

We need some help to clear up a UFO problem.
As I reported recently, two mag -1 (+/-1) orange lights were seen travelling
parallel to one another across Ireland on Wed. March 31 0:10UT leaving trail
behind for 3 to 4 minutes. Newspapers made it front page next day as 'UFOs...'.
Seriously, we think it was man made space debris re-entering. Leo Enright
(BBC Ireland correspondent) seems convinced it was soemthing like the AURORA
secret military craft, probably in trouble, crossing the country. It all
hinges on a few facts we need about re-entering debris:

The object was travelling slower than a normal meteor but faster than a man
made satellite, consistent with it being a satellite much closer to the
observer as it was in the uuper atmosphere buring up.
1) A meteoroid the size of a pea would give a mag -1 meteor, wouldn't it?
So what size of object in low earth orbit would produce the observed mag -1
object?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
           Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
   (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better?)
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).
Newslines (48p/36p per min): 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire).

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 10:42:41 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Waaaaaaaaaaah!  Nick's criticizing again!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>(i.e., [Nick] doesn't
>simply justify why things like an asteroid survey would be good, he
>blames and flames about space stations and lunar bases, instead.


Never make any criticisms that might shine a negative light
on anything, _never_ criticize.  Only sell, sell.  What a load
of crap.  This goes back to the accountability issue, BTW.  Nobody
is responsible for anything, because it's against this truly bizarre
but convenient form of etiquette to criticize anything no matter how
bad it is.  If NASA squanders $50 billion to build a Shuttle that costs
over an order of magnitude more per kg than originally promised, I
dare not criticize it.   If SSF goes from promised $8 billion to
projected $100 billion or more, and back to the design board again,
I dare not criticize it.  Hell, I dare not even point out the facts of
the matter, in which harsh critique is inherent.  And never, ever
try to compare these projects against alternative strategies for
space development.  Gosh, that might be embarassing, and we don't
want to hurt anybody's feelings, do we?  It might make somebody
think, change somebody's mind, *shudder*!

What's quite interesting is that about 3/4 of my own original
posts are quite positive: recent examples include "The Commercial
View", "Nanotech & Space", "Microchemical Reactors...",  "Safety
of Flyby and Aerobraking of Large Payloads", "Ice Rockets",
"Rocket Clones", etc.  However, responses are vastly more likely
if I say something negative, even in passing in an otherwise quite
positive post, and that gets turned into protracted flame-fests like
this one.  Folks like Fred McCall thrive on flaming and putting down
other people's ideas, even (especially?) if they have little
understanding of them ("The One True Szabo Plan"); they don't know how to
handle something positive or original.  (When's the last time Fred's
posted an original idea? I've never seen a one -- just pathetic whining
every time he perceives some insult against some project he is enamoured
of).

>I see him flame anyone or anything who disagrees with The
>One True Szabo Plan;

This is a doozie.  I've outlined and promoted quite a wide variety
of scenarios, and explored some criteria for determining their
value.  I've explicitly rejected fixed timelines and universal
goals or "shared visions" that everybody is supposed to be forced
to follow.  For our eternal edification, I welcome Fred McCall to
explicitly outline for us 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;

Nope.  I stated this about a true bozo posting from NASA calling me &
Tom "misinformed" without supplying any information himself.  At NASA
you'd think he'd have a ton of info at his fingertips with which
to "inform" us.  Calling him lazy was just a factual observation;
sorry you don't like hearing the truth.

>I see him questioning peoples ethics, again because they had the
>temerity to disagree with Lord God Szabo.

What specific example do you have in mind?  The only recent one
I can think of is a clear case of corruption, and had nothing
to do with his disagreeing with any of my posts, in fact I
was responding to a thread I was previously uninvolved in.
If being ethical makes one "Lord God", we are in big trouble
indeed.

>blah blah blah obnoxious fool yack yack yack woof woof woof

It's too bad that giving negative feedback, pointing out
important but uncomfortable facts, and having a little fun in
the process makes one an "obnoxious fool".   It's too bad that
one can post a bevy of original, diverse ideas and have them
lumped together as a "One True Plan" -- without even one
intelligent comment about the specific suggestions.  I wonder if this
attitude is common, is it any wonder that so many space projects are
out of control?  How can we fix something if we can't even point
out where it's gone wrong?


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 416
------------------------------