Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO510.TXT

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

Date: Sun,  2 May 93 05:45:19
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #510
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun,  2 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 510

Today's Topics:
                        Abyss-breathing fluids
           Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)
                        HST Servicing Mission
         HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days (2 msgs)
                       Long term Human Missions
               moon image in weather sat image (2 msgs)
                         NASA contributions?
           SARSAT for tracking payload deployed by tether.
                   Satellite around Pluto Mission?
          Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)
                      Space spinn offs (2 msgs)
              Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
                    Vandalizing the sky. (3 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: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 16:56:03 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss-breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>"The Forever War", one of my favorite SciFi books, had a passage devoted to
>breathing fluids. The idea was to protect people from the high accelerations
>required for interstellar travel by emersing the passengers in dry-cleaning
>fluid saturated with oxygen. Plenty of very imaginative ideas is this book.
>I would certainly recommend it (won the Hugo and the Nebula awards).

And most definitely read it in conjunction with Heinlein's _Starship
Trooper_.  The two books are radically different viewpoints of the
same basic premises.  I've even heard tell of English classes built
around this.

--
"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: 29 Apr 93  21:41:44
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail]  writes:
Re; Response from CoB of Boeing on SSTO ...
>"As far as single stage to orbit technology, we think that we have
>a better answer in a two stage approach, and we are talking to some
>of our customers about that.  As far as commercialization, that is
>a long ways off.  ...
> Anybody know anything further? Is this really news? Does this
>threaten further work on DC-? ?

   Boeing has been looking at several TSTO vehicles and has carried
out extensive conceptual studies of advanced launch systems for some
time.  A good reference on this might be: "Comparison of Propulsion
Options for Advanced Earth-To-Orbit (ETO) Applications (IAF-92-
0639)." by V.A. Weldon and L.E. Fink from Boeing.   The paper
describes a propane-fueled TSTO launch system claimed to achieve
aircraft-like operational efficiencies without the problems
associated with liquid hydrogen fuel.  Basically, it's a high-speed
airplane launching a Hermes-type spaceplane
   The design (the concept is also called "Beta") as laid out in the
paper can launch at least 10,000 pounds into polar orbit, or 20,000
pounds to space station orbit including a crew of eight persons and
life support.  System design reliability is .9995.
   Beta is a 360-foot-long first stage powered by two large ramjets
and 12 high- speed civil transport (HSCT) turbofans.  A 108-foot-
long reusable orbiter is trapeze-mounted in the belly of the first-
stage aircraft, which also could accommodate a longer and heavy
payload on an expendable second stage.
   To launch the orbital vehicle, the first stage takes off like a
normal HSCT and accelerates to Mach 3.  At that point the turbofans,
modified to burn catalyzed JP-7, would shut off and the ramjets,
would take over.  At Mach 5.5 the orbiter or the ELV would swing
out, ignite and proceed to orbit. Both vehicles would land like
aircraft at the conclusion of their respective missions.
   Estimated total weight of the combined configuration at takeoff
is about 1.5 M lbs, roughly equivalanet to a fully loaded An-225.
The orbiter stages weighs about 400,Klbs including 335 Klbs
of LOX and subcooled propane to power two 250 Klbs vacuum thrust
rocket engines. Propellants would be stored at 91 degrees Kelvin,
with the propane in a spherical tank mounted forward of the 15-by-
25-foot cargo bay and the two-seat orbiter crew station. LOX would
be stored aft.  Weldon and Fink claim the key to this design's
success is the structurally efficient airframe and the compact
tankage allowed by the high-density supercooled hydrocarbon fuel.
     The paper compares TSTO design to SSTO design.  They conclude
while a SSTO has a slightly lower recurring cost, a TSTO is easier,
cheaper, and less risky to develop, simpler to build, has greater
safety and mission versatility and doesn't carry the hard-to-handle
and bulky hydrogen fuel. The conlcude "In conjunction with its major
use of airplane type engines and fuel, as well as its inherent self-
ferry capability, it is probably the system most likely to provide
as close to airline-like operations as possible with a practical
configuration, until a single stage airbreather/rocket concept can
be shown to be operationally viable."

>Is this really news? Does this threaten further work on DC-?
   Weldon and others at Boeing have been working on TSTO designs for
some time.  I expect this, or a similar concept (perhaps the HTHL
SSTO they proposed for the SDIO SSTO first phase) is being re-
examined as a basis for a bid on the first phase of SpaceLifter.
   Does it threaten DC-???.  Possibly -- There is a set of on-going
studies trying straighten out the government's future space
transportation strategy.  MDC and Boeing (as well as other firms)
are providing data to a joint study team back in DC.  There are
various factions and options vying for attention -- including
shuttle upgrades, shuttle replacement (what was called the "4-2-3"
architecture), SpaceLifter, ELV upgrades, and various advanced
vehicles (ALES, Beta, DC-??, NASP, FSTS, SSTOs of several types,
etc.)  NASA/DOD/DOT are trying to put together a coherent strategy
for future US gov't space transportation systems, and trying to
juggle near-term launch needs (like for DoD and NASA) against
medium-term needs (including commercial considerations), and against
the investment and risk of going to "leap frog" new technologies
like SDIO/SSTO and NASP and Beta.
   It's a heck of a problem.  The worst part of the problem isn't
that there aren't promising ideas and concepts -- there are dozens
of them -- but how they balance cost and risk versus real needs in
the near term.  They should have a draft report in mid-June, with a
final report coming by the end of the fiscal year.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor


--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 18:18:04 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST Servicing Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <1rrhlo$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
> After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
> orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
> they would like  220.

Where did that idea come from?  It's news to me.

Ben

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

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 19:54:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <1rrhlo$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <1rq3os$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
> |> |
..
>
> After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's
> orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up,
> they would like  220.  I don't know the exact orbit numbers.

As Ben says - this re-boost idea is all news to us here.  Do you know
something we don't?  Please supply a source - it would be nice for
the schedulers of observations to know where the thing is going to
be.  These altitude numbers are also way off.

My best source has:
"Minimum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    573 Kilometers"
"Maximum ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:    603 Kilometers"
"Delta   ST ALTITUDE in the PMDB is:      3 Kilometers"

(PMDB is Proposal Management Data Base - used to schedule observations.)
..

> In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines
> will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy
> thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel
> needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster
> carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly
> less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle,
> for a given orbital change.
>

Could you supply some calculations?  You might check some recent
postings that explained that 'a small booster' as suggested does
not now exist, so comparing the mass of something that doesn't
exist to the mass of the OMS fuel seems impossible.  The contamination
threat also remains.

..
>
> or the HST could even get placed into  some sort of medium orbit.
> The reason they want a high orbit, is less antenna pointing,
> and longer drag life.
>
  Longer drag life I can understand, but could you explain the
antenna pointing?

> Whatever it is,  the problem in the tilt array is a big constraint
> on HST ops.

Tell me about it.  Although the arrays can be (and are) moved perfectly
well utilizing the second electronics box.  Getting them both working
is much desireable so as to reclaim redundancy.

>
> pat
>

I don't mean to jump on you - helpful suggestions are always welcome
and we all know the more ideas the better, but I do want the true
situation to be described clearly and correctly, lest some get
confused.

Regards,
Wm. Hathaway

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

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 20:06:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Derry) writes:
> Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS)
> : and Orbiter Duration.
>
..
>
> I haven't seen any specifics on the HST repair mission, but I can't see why
> the mass margins are tight.  What are they carrying up?  Replacement components
> (WFPC II, COSTAR, gyros, solar panels, and probably a few others), all sorts of
> tools, EVA equipment, and as much OMS fuel and consumables as they can.  This
> should be lighter than the original HST deployment mission, which achieved the
> highest altitude for a shuttle mission to date.  And HST is now in a lower
> orbit.
>
> Seems like the limiting factors would be crew fatigue and mission complexity.
>
> --
> Steve Derry
> <[e-mail]>


One thing to recall.  Putting a satellite as high as possible is one thing.
Coming back to not only that altitude, but matching the position of it in
its orbit on a subsequent mission is another thing.  Any misalignment of the
plane of the orbit during launch or being ahead or behind the target will
require more fuel to adjust.  This was considered in the original deployment.

I agree though that the demands on the crew and complexity are stupendous.
One has to admire how much they are trying to do.

Wm. Hathaway
Baltimore MD

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

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 17:17:30 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long term Human Missions
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In <jgladu-290493130832@128.249.27.63> [e-mail] (grungy) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Ward Paul) wrote:
>> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
>> and of itself.

>I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that
>are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove*
>its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued
>existence of the space program relies upon that money.

I have to agree with Ward.  The problem with your approach is they add
up what you can reasonably claim as 'spin-offs', add up what's been
spent on space, and then come back with something like, "You spent $X
billion for that?  Wouldn't it be better just to spend the money on
direct research and forget all this space stuff?  We could have got
all that stuff a *lot* cheaper that way.  Space is wasteful and
inefficient."

Then they cancel your funding and spend it studying mating rituals of
New Guinea tribesmen or something.

--
"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: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 17:36:25 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: moon image in weather sat image
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.geo.geology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Wm Turner) writes:
>
>
>an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
>it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth.
>the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named
>CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively.
>
>pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image
>details on the moon are viewable.

Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean.
Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move
across the clouds.

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

Date: 30 Apr 1993 19:51:19 GMT
From: Rob Unverzagt <[e-mail]>
Subject: moon image in weather sat image
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.geo.geology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Ottolini) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Wm Turner) writes:
> >
> >an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth.
> >it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth.
> >the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named
> >CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively.
> >
> >pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image
> >details on the moon are viewable.
>
> Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean.
> Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move
> across the clouds.

Speaking of which, a paper was out a few years ago about a
weather sat imaging a lunar eclipse -- are those images
uploaded anywhere?  I could dig out the reference if there's interest.

Shag

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
       Rob Unverzagt        |
  [e-mail]   |       Tuesday is soylent green day.
[e-mail] |

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

Date: 29 Apr 93  17:02:12
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA contributions?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Teflon? A contribution from the space program? Since the French were using
Teflon on household items in the early 1950's, it is unlikely that it was
invented by NASA. As for pacemakers and calculators, again those are
anecdotally connected with NASA.

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

From: Michael Daniel Fennell <[e-mail]>
Subject: SARSAT for tracking payload deployed by tether.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Summary: Can SARSAT beacons be used for nonemergency purposes?
Keywords: tether, SARSAT, navigation
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: well.sf.ca.us
Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 16:56:57 GMT
Lines: 38
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]



We are interested in constructing a reentry vehicle to be deployed from a
tether attached to an orbiting platform.  This will be a follow on to our
succesful deployment of a 20 kilometer tether on the March 29 flight of
SEDS (Small Expendable Deployment System), which released an instrumented
payload that reentered the earth's atmosphere and burned up over the west
coast of Mexico.  This time we want to make a payload that can be recovered.
We want to build it from "off the shelf" technology so as to do this as
quickly and inexpensively as possible.  We want to be able to track the
payload after it has deployed its parachute.  An idea we have is to put the
same kind of radio beacon on it that is used with SARSATs (Search and Rescue
Satellites).  It would turn on with the opening of the parachute and aid in
tracking.  These beacons are known in the marine industry as EPIRBs
(Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon).  They are rugged (they have to
be to survive a ship wreck!) and cheap.  We have several questions:

1.  What is the world authority regulating the use of SARSAT beacons.  Are
there multiple authorites, i.e. military and civilian?

2.  What are the regulations regarding the use of SARSAT signals.  Can they
be used for one of a kind situations with a long lead time of warning the
relevant authorities, or are they strictly reserved for life threatening
emergencies?

3.  What is the coverage of SARSATS?  Are they in LEO with only intermittant
coverage of a fixed position on the earth, or are they in geosynchronous
orbit?

4.  Is there an industry organization governing the use and manufacture of
these transponders?

Please post replies here or send E-mail to me at:
    [e-mail]
Thanak you very much for any assistance you can provide.

            -mike fennell

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

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 17:20:34 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite around Pluto Mission?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Being wierd again, so be warned:

>Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to
>keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.

>How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things
>around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not??
>It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system,
>objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy
>without having much of the solar system to worry about..

Doing this in anything like reasonable time would require more
propulsion capability than we can manage.  You would have to boost to
Pluto and then slow back down.  You could do something like a Hohman
orbit, but I think that would take ridiculous amounts of time (my
Rubber Bible is at home).

--
"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: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 20:02:56 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given
>the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking
>has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits,
>no extra MMU's.

Has someone actually verified that mass is the predominant constraint on this
mission?  You seem to be assuming it without giving supporting evidence.

>WHy not do this?

>    Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.

>Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using
>clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.

Pat, this would be slower, more expensive and worse.

Slower:  The shuttle mission is scheduled to go up in December.  That's less
than eight months away.  There is no way you could build new hardware, retrain
and reschedule the EVA's in that time.

More Expensive:  Your proposal still requires the shuttle to do everything it
was going to do execpt fire the OMS.  In addition, you've added significant
extra cost for a new piece of complex hardware.


According to a GAO report on the OMV I have before me, there are
only two currently planned missions that could use such a vehicle -- HST and
AXAF.  Since AXAF has since been scaled back and HST can rely on the shuttle,
there doesn't seem to be any need for your vehicle.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
            "Find a way or make one."
                 -attributed to Hannibal

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

Date: 30 Apr 1993 19:27:24 GMT
From: William F Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space spinn offs
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

I just wanted to point out, that Teflon wasn't from the space program.
It was from the WWII nuclear weapons development program.  Pipes in the
system for fractioning and enriching uranium had to be lined with it.

Uranium Hexafloride was the chemical they turned the pitchblend into for
enrichment.  It is massively corrosive.  Even to Stainless steels. Hence
the need for a very inert substaance to line the pipes with.  Teflon has
all its molecular sockets bound up already, so it is very unreactive.

My 2 sense worth.

Bill

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

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 19:56:48 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space spinn offs
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <1rruis$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William F Brown) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (William F Brown)
>Subject: Re: Space spinn offs
>Date: 30 Apr 1993 19:27:24 GMT
>I just wanted to point out, that Teflon wasn't from the space program.
>It was from the WWII nuclear weapons development program.  Pipes in the
>system for fractioning and enriching uranium had to be lined with it.
>
>Uranium Hexafloride was the chemical they turned the pitchblend into for
>enrichment.  It is massively corrosive.  Even to Stainless steels. Hence
>the need for a very inert substaance to line the pipes with.  Teflon has
>all its molecular sockets bound up already, so it is very unreactive.
>
>My 2 sense worth.
>
>Bill
>

The artifical pacemaker was invented in 1958 by Wilson Greatbatch an
American biomedical engineer. The bill authorizing NASA was signed
in October of 1958 so it is clear that NASA had nothing to do with
the invention of the pacemaker.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 09:24:44 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Redesign, JSC Alternative #4
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>[e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:
>
>...text of options "A" and "B" deleted...
>
>>Option C - Single Core Launch Station.
>>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter
>>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on
>>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a
>>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket
>>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are:
>>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout
>>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels
>>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against
>>    micrometeroid & orbital debris)
>>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end)
>>  - 7 berthing ports
>>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet
>>    (twice the volume of skylab).
>>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors
>>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power
>
>Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in
>a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing
>that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and
>a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision
>of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the
>complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of
>it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).

I certainly like this "Option C"...  It's much more like the original
Phase B studies from the early 1970's.  Good stuff!

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 17:00:49 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George F. Krumins) writes:

>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the
>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.

Right?  What right?  And don't you mean something more like: It so
typical that the wants of the minority can obstruct the wants of the
majority, no matter how ridiculous those minority wants might be or
what benefits those majority wants might have?

[My sole connection with the project is that I spent a lot of time in
classes at the University of Colorado.]

--
"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: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 17:07:18 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George F. Krumins) writes:

>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.

And from whence does this right stem, that it overrides the 'rights'
of the rest of us?

>Let me give you an example.  When you watch TV, they have commercials to pay
>for the programming.  You accept that as part of watching.  If you don't like
>it, you can turn it off.  If you want to view the night sky, and there is a
>floating billboard out there, you can't turn it off.  It's the same
>reasoning that limits billboards in scenic areas.

And if you want to view that television station, you have to watch the
commercials.  You can't turn them off and still be viewing the
television station.  In other words, if you don't like what you see,
don't look.  There is no 'right' I can think of that you have to force
other people to conform to your idea of aesthetic behaviour.  What's
next, laws regulating how people must dress and look so as to appeal
to your fashion sense, since you have this 'right' of an aesthetic
view?

> Pat writes:
>George.

>    It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry.
>If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include
>a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government
>here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental
>civil rights.

>I say:
>    Any reasonably in-depth perusal of American history will show
>    you that many WASPs have continued the practices of prejudice,
>    discrimination, and violence against others of different
>    races, religions, and beliefs, despite the law.

Which has what to do with the topic of discussion?

>Pat says:
>If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation
>to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected
>in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you
>know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia,
>they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent
>you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums.
>In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.

>I say:
>What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
>would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
>at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
>would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.

Oh, I see.  You don't want any legislation that might impinge on you;
you just want everyone else on the planet to do what you want.

--
"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: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 21:08:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George F. Krumins) writes:
>
>>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers
>>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.
>
> And from whence does this right stem, that it overrides the 'rights'
> of the rest of us?
>
 Let me get this right - sorry, try again.  Let me get this straight -
well maybe that too is a poor choice of words - someone might think
I'm pushing a gay agenda.  How about:  let me try to understand this
by re-phrasing it as an extreme.  I, as a minority of one, have no right
to a beautiful world.  You, on the other hand have the right to make an
ugly one because you presume to speak for all the rest.  And I cannot
complain.  Curious.

..

>>I say:
>>What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
>>would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
>>at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
>>would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.
>
> Oh, I see.  You don't want any legislation that might impinge on you;
> you just want everyone else on the planet to do what you want.
>

And do you want everyone to do as you wish (insist on putting something
up that will impact everyone for selfish reasons) _without_ any legislation?
And no one else can even object?  Somehow I think this whole shoving
contest has gotten way off the track.  I'm ready to let this thread
die a quick and merciful death.

> --
> "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.


Wm. Hathaway
Baltimore MD

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 510
------------------------------