Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO567.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 93 05:10:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #567
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 14 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 567

Today's Topics:
                         Boom!  Whoosh......
                      DC?/SSTO as OMV/space Tug
             Details of DC-X followon vehicle firming up.
                    Draft of SSTO report language
 Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
               HASC markup and misc stuff of interest.
                   Life on Earth (or elsewhere :-)
                            Life on Mars.
               Light Pollution (Space Ads) Information
                       looking for PLANET MAPS
       Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X)  (2 msgs)
                            McElwaine FAQ
      New invention: Tetrahedral, collapsible space frame/truss
        Saturn V Innovations (was:Re: Long term Human Missions
    U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment (2 msgs)
    Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)

    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, 13 May 1993 16:00:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Boom!  Whoosh......
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.aviation.misc

In sci.space, Simon E. Booth ([e-mail]) wrote:
: all this talk [about space advertising] reminds me of some rather
: unique forms of advertising I've seen around here over the past few
: years.  some examples:

: In May 1988 the Sea World of Texas park opened up here in San Antonio.
: So to celebrate, Southwest Airlines had at least one of its Boeing 737's
: (flying cattle trains according to people I know who have flown them!)
: painted in black and white markings to resemble a killer whale.

: Looks pretty funny when seen on the ground....

: The blimp operated by Sea World is also decorated in a similar fashion.
[...]

In February, I was coming back from school down I-45 past Houston Hobby
airport, where Southwest has a major hub.  I drove under the "Shamu"
killer whale Southwest Airlines B737 as it made its approach into
Hobby.  (ALL SW planes are 737's -- it simplifies a lot of things when
all the planes in the fleet are the same).

On Tuesday, while flying a Cessna 150, N5977G, out of Ellington Field
here in Clear Lake, I saw the Shamu blimp taking off ("unmasting" they
called it on the radio).  My flight instructor and I were coming in for
a landing on 35R as the blimp lifted off and headed north.  After
requesting permission, I flew within 300 feet of the thing, crossing
its path from behind, since, by FAA rules, airships always have the
right-of-way over fixed-wings.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
                           JULY 1969, A.D.
                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 17:59:46 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC?/SSTO as OMV/space Tug
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1sslu3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>As a DC-X derived craft (or other SSTO) will have no wings in orbit, and will be
>a light weight structure, how much will this remove the need for an orbital
>space tug?

A custom-designed tug will still be superior, as it *will* carry less extra
weight.  Whether that will make it worth developing one will depend on how
many customers there are for it.  We've already seen an example of this,
with TRW's OMV cancelled because there were only two missions for it and
the shuttle alone could do those adequately (maybe not optimally, but
adequately).  If it doesn't need to be done very often, refuelling an SSTO
will be a cheaper approach.

>Will they go to lunar orbit?  If so, will they need an atmosphere in which to
>do their flip manouvre, ie will they be able to land on the moon?

Our atmosphere greatly complicates the flip maneuver; it's the main reason
why the flip is hard.  In vacuum it's trivial.  In principle, a DC-like SSTO
could land on the Moon.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:07:41 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Details of DC-X followon vehicle firming up.
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

The basic approach for the DC-X followon seems to be firming up at SDIO.
The original plan was to make the DC-X1  a small very incremental test
vehicle. It would have taken 42 months to build and cost $600M. Funding
this would take $100M next year. Others wanted more aggressive designs
but Worden at SDIO wasn't going for it.

However, they now have settled on a version which is not only better, but
faster and cheaper as well. This will take 33 months and cost $420M. It
will be as close as possible to the DC-Y except smaller. It will hold
istelf to the same mass fraction, use the same materials as DC-Y, and
in every way simply be a smaller version of DC-Y. All that will be needed
then to build the DC-Y or DC-1 will be scaling up. Unfortunately, this
includes the engines since this vehicle will use the RL-10 and not the
RL-200. However, since both turbopumps for the RL-200 exist and are space
qualified today, this isn't as hard as it sounds.

In addition, the time and cost have been approved by OMB. Equally important,
this vehicle can be built within the Clinton Administration which will help
it gain administration support.

Your support is still needed. Grassroots activism on this has been and will
continue to be a key part of the strategy to make this happen.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 17:55:47 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft of SSTO report language
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Below is the draft language of the report language to support SSRT. I just
got permission to publish it so here it is. I also have a couple of new
tidbits which I will post shortly.

  Allen


Draft Report Language
-- For Inclusion in the
FY '94 DoD Authorization Bill

Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) Program

Of all the dual-use spacelift technologies currently targeted
for operation within a decade, reusable, Single Stage to Orbit
(SSTO) rockets offer the highest potential for radically
reduced costs and increased safety, reliability, and
operability. According to recent studies performed for the Air
Force and NASA, SSTO's have the potential of reducing the
operational cost of delivering payloads to low Earth orbit by
an order of magnitude, restoring U.S. competitiveness.

The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) is
carrying out a well-planned Advanced Technology Demonstration
(ATD) program to demonstrate the availability and cost
effectiveness of Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT).  The
SSRT program is structured to rapidly prototype and fly
experimental vehicles of increasing size and performance to
demonstrate the feasibility of single stage reusable rockets
one step at a time, within budget, and in a short time.

The SSRT program is important because it will provide the DoD
with a demonstrated SSTO technology option for consideration as
a next generation spacelift system.

The first ATD vehicle, the DC-X1, is on schedule and within
budget, and positive conclusive results are expected by the end
of fiscal year 1993.  The second ATD vehicle, the DC-X2,is
scheduled to begin development in fiscal year 1994.  Successful
flight testing of the DC-X1 and DC-X2 will provide the
confidence necessary to proceed into initial development of a
full-scale operational SSTO system.

The Committee is concerned that the SSRT program is only
budgeted at $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1994, and questions the
level of funding support available within SDIO for completion
of the DC-X2 ATD.  Based on the expected positive results from
the DC-X1 flight tests, and because of the significant
potential that single stage rockets promise for reduced costs
and increased reliability and operability, the SDIO is directed
to begin development of the DC-X2 in fiscal year 1994.  The
Committee also directs SDIO to evaluate the feasibility of
transitioning the SSRT program in fiscal year 1995 to
appropriate new management commensurate with its dual-use
nature, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) or
the Technical Executive Officer (TEO) structure within the Air
Force, and to provide its recommendations to the Committee by
August,1993.

The Committee directs that $100,000,000 be authorized in fiscal
year 1994 for SDIO to proceed aggressively with the SSRT
program, including development and flight testing of the DC-X2
ATD.


--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 17:55:05 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>Allen, could you please drop this goofy fantasy?  The engineering
>needs of a space tug and a lunar transit vehicle are very different
>from those of an SSTO rocket...

Indeed they are, but the question is, are they *too* different for one
design to meet both?  The one thing that seems to me like a potential
problem is adequate view for the landing (which is what ultimately
killed the Earth Orbit Rendezvous mission mode in Apollo -- being able
to custom-build the lander for a good view looked better and better
the more it was studied).

>... you *might* be able to gas up an empty DC-1 in orbit and
>fly it to the Moon.  It sure ain't the way to build a cost-effective,
>lightweight Moon bus or GEO-tug!

True, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done that way.  There is a
general pattern in technology:  general-purpose solutions eventually
drive out special-purpose ones (or drive them into specialized niches).
If the general-purpose solution is good enough, nobody wants to bother
developing a special-purpose one, even if it would be somewhat better.

Once there were specialized keyboard-encoder chips to scan keyboard
keys and encode them into a binary code.  Now everybody just uses
suitably-programmed one-chip microcomputers -- an entire general-purpose
CPU doing nothing but scanning keys in your keyboard!  The micros are
easier to develop, easier to customize, and relatively cheap.  It's not
worthwhile to develop optimized solutions any more.

Is DC-1 good enough to reach the point of driving out specialized craft?
That's less clear.  But the idea is not ridiculous.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:29:11 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: HASC markup and misc stuff of interest.
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

A few things of interest:

1. It just came over the wire that SDIO is getting a new name. It will
   now be BMDO (Balistic Missle Defense Organization). Looks like Clinton
   is going to keep his promise to get rid of SDIO by changing the name.

2. The HASC R&T Subcommittee markup has been delayed for one month. This
   means you all have more time to write and call to support the language
   for SSRT. It also means that the Appropriations Committee will finish
   before HASC so we need to start a strategy there (more on that later).

3. It looks like some NLS types may be hurting chances for SSTO within
   Spacelifter. They have skewed the analysis being done against SSTO's
   to make expendables look better (more on this later).

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 93 13:28:20 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Earth (or elsewhere :-)

>>>>>The sky was never intended to be a billboard (if it
>>>>>was intended at all!) and hopefully it never shall be.

>>>>  How do you know ??? Do you have a direct line to God ???
>>>>Perhaps the sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve a species
>>>>who can paint pictures in the sky ...

>>>No, the sum purpose of life on Earth is to ensure that there continues
>>>to be life on Earth.

>>Sorry.  The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where
>>life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well.  And we're it.

>Who says ???

I did :-)

>Are you the definitive sourse of information on what we shall and shall not do
>with our planets resources.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying hold on
>development, but what gives Tommy Mac the right to say what we shall and shall
>not do.

>Adam

I'm not saying what we 'shall and shall not do'.  I'm saying what the
history of life and our species suggests is most likely.  The fact that
well-informed people make extra effort to keep from infecting other planets
with life, via our probes, suggests that what I said above is very likely,
maybe inevitable.

The whole point of space exploration and exploitation is to do exactly
what you think I am saying we should do.  We belong to the Earth as
much as it belongs to us, so our efforts to get into space may well be
(I think, in some sense, it is) the Earth's efforts to spread life
throughout the solar system.  Maybe my not expounding on this idea is
why you think I am trying to allocate "our planet's" resources.

Also, the whole thread had a tone of definitive answers to the meaning
of life, so relax, we're just talking.  The fact that you (from what I
can tell) disagree must mean that I'm not the definitive source.  I say
that 'we're it' because only our species has shown the capacity (so far)
to leave the Earth, a necessity for spreading life beyond Earth.

...later...

>>Sorry.  The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where
>>life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well.  And we're it.

James D. Nicholl sez;
>        Evolution isn't  a directed process and doesn't proceed towards
>a specific goal.

It's not directed, but it's products are predictable:  greater
diversity of life-forms and environments, and the general spreading of
life, among others.  Both of these effects would be the result of our
movement into space on a large scale.  Besides, we already are evolved
to the point where we can leave the Earth.  If life gets a foothold in

space, "Life on Earth" will mean as much to "Life in the solar system"
as "Life in my backyard" means to "Life on Earth" right now.

If you asked my dandelions what their purpose is, they would very likely
tell you "To get into all your neighbor's lawns", judging from the way they
act.

The purpose of life is to spread and live.  Our efforts in space will do
exactly that, or probably be judged a waste of time and effort.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:42:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space

     "Is there life on Mars?  Maybe not now.  But there will be."
        -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, 24 August 1992

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:45:36 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Light Pollution (Space Ads) Information
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment

        Dave Crawford ([e-mail]), Executive Director of the
    International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), sent me information on where
    you can write in regards to the proposed "Billboards in the Sky" and
    asked me to post it:

        Karen Brown
        Center for the Study of Commercialism
        1875 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300
        Washington, D.C. 20009-5728
        U.S.A.

        Telephone:  [phone]
        Fax:        [phone]

        Please note that I have no involvement whatsoever with the CSC.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:21:02 GMT
From: Tim Spock Larson <[e-mail]>
Subject: looking for PLANET MAPS
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Thanks for all the help and information.  You guys are great!

Tim
[e-mail]
(looking forward to having a cool map soon)

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:02:35 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>Allen, you seem to feel that "man-rating" is somehow different from what
>I've just outlined.  More to the point, you seem to feel that the current
>process for man-rating is a waste of time and money.  What have I missed?

The absence of any evidence that the man-rating process actually improves
launcher reliability and crew safety.

My position on this isn't quite as extreme as Allen's, but it does appear
that much of the money spent on man-rating is basically wasted.  Sure,
you can add a few more 9s to the thing's reliability if you spend enough,
but is it worth the trouble?
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:52:55 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>The issue of "man-rating" a launcher deserves a little clarification...

>Allen, you seem to feel that "man-rating" is somehow different from what
>I've just outlined.  More to the point, you seem to feel that the current
>process for man-rating is a waste of time and money.  What have I missed?

Man rating can be broken up into two parts. One part modifies the launcher
so that humans can survive/function goint up on it. The second part deals
with extra instpection and features added to insure that the launcher is
'extra safe' for the human.

I assert that launchers which go through this extra inspection don't seem
to be any safer than the ones which don't. It is this second part I object
to as wasteful.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 17:39:48 GMT
From: "Marc Y. Wasserman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.arts.drwho

[e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Mary F. Shafer) writes:
>> On the other hand, he lost his Net privileges on 7 May, after
>> appealing to his school's review board, so the entire discussion
>> is moot at this time.
>
>
>    Yes, but the talk over in alt.fan.robert.mcelwaine is that he's
>already planning to file suit to get his privileges back.  Some say that
>if the ruling is in his favor we can expect THE IMMINENT DEATH OF THE NET.

Yes, but the ruling was that he did not end up getting his net priveleges
back.  USENET is controlled by the individual universities and if they
want to pull the plug on someone they can.
But he'll get his position back somehow.  I wouldn't expect the net to
suddenly collapse because he's gone.  :)

Marc
[e-mail]

Followups to alt.fan.mcelwaine.

--
"So you're choosing to run from your own people in a rackety old TARDIS?"
             D  O  C  T  O  R     W  H  O
                30 Years
           "Why not?  After all, that's how it all started!"

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

Date: 13 May 93 20:57:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New invention: Tetrahedral, collapsible space frame/truss
Newsgroups: sci.engr.civil,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
>
>
>     A NEW MODULAR, COLLAPSIBLE SPACE FRAME/TRUSS
>     --------------------------------------------
>
> We have recently developed a collapsible, modular
> truss/space frame, which to the best of our knowledge
> is original.  The truss may have applications in any
> situation which calls for space-saving, ease of
> transport, etc.  It can be folded into a very compact
> volume, yet be unfolded into a rigid, load-bearing,
> modular structure.  Possible applications: construction,
> aerospace, temporary structures, etc. etc. etc.
> We have a patent pending on this structure.
>
> Question: Where do we go from here?  We want to
>           commercialize our invention, but don't
>           really know how.  Whom should we contact?
>           If anyone has been in a similar situation
>           (civil engg/structural invention to be
>           marketed), could you give us any ideas?
>
> David J. Hayter.

Well, try to contact the Rock-N-Roll touring Lighting companies.
They have to hang lights in colleseums all over the country, and anything
smaller makes for a better truck pack.
L.S.D. Camilliro Calif.
Showlites  Torrance Calif.
Obies Lights Torrence Calif.
Varilight  Governors Row, Dallas Tx.
R.A. Roth Florida Somewhere.

But, hey, there are a zillion applications, you have to think of them.
(You thought up the truss, right?), and then you have to call people in
those industries, and see if they are interested.

        John.

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 14:28:17 GMT
From: "gary l. schroeder" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn V Innovations (was:Re: Long term Human Missions
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <1s3fe2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>I don't think NASA really developed much "new" technology,  but they
>did fund projects,  which pushed known technologies  into whole
>new scales of operation.

NASA as a government organization didn't develop much "new technology",
the various contractors that supplied the boosters and spacecraft to
the agency did.  Tell IBM, Boeing, Hamilton Standard, Aeronca, Grumman,
North American Aviation, Rocketdyne and a thousand other American
companies that new technology wasn't invented as a result of the
space program.  The phrase "Necessity is the mother of invention" was
never more true than it was to these companies in the 60's.

>THe saturn V  was remarkable,  not for technical innovation,
>but for size.  It was truly enormous,  and thus required
>solutions to problems not seen at that scale.

I diagree.  Ithink the Saturn V _was_ remarkable for its technical
inovation _because_ of the problems that had to be overcome at that
enormous scale.  I don't think that you can say in the same sentence
that it wasn't innovative and that it also required new solutions to
new problems caused by scale.  That seems contradictory to me.

Developing techniques for constructing hemispherical tank domes that
could be common bulkheads between two chemicals stored at temperatures
which differed by a hundred degrees required new insulation technology.
Making a dome thirty feet across so thin that it couldn't stand on its
own without being pressurized required innovative pyrotechnic
metal forming techniques, not to mention micro-precision welding
processes.  The list goes on and on and I never even mentioned engine
design.

Usually, new construction methods which were theoretically possible
needed to be performed.  In order to make them happen, the machines
and the materials needed to be manufactured from scratch.  The question
is where you draw the line between theory and real application.  In
my definition of invention and innovation, just because you got the
theory from some university professor, dosen't mean that there isn't
a lot of innovation necessary between his paper and the actual
hardware.


>many things are well known in lab environments,  but it can often
>take a "MAJOR" project like the MANHATTAN project,  the Apollo project
>or the Forbin project to really push the ideas off the bench.

True, I agree.  However, going from the blackboard to the launch pad
is always puctuated with problems never dreamed of in the theory stage
that need to be worked out.  That's innovation.


--
--------------
Gary Schroeder
[e-mail]
Brookhaven National Laboratory

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 16:14:55 GMT
From: Conor Frederick Prischmann <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education

In article <1srfii$[e-mail]> [e-mail]. (Gregory McColm) writes:
>
>The greatest philosopher since Aristotle was Immanuel Kant.  I do get
>the impression that much of 19th century philosophy was composed by
>neo-neo-neo-Kantians that were apparently high on something.  As for
>the separation of philosophy from religious superstition, well, are
>you talking about the apparent triumph of analysis (shudder) and
>materialism (whatever that is)?  Personally, I find the philosophers
>of science the most interesting, and you must admit that there are
>some definitely non-materialist influences there.

Huh?  Please state your criteria for selecting the "greatest philosopher"
title.  P.S. Ever read any Nietzsche?

>PS:  It is my impression that as avante garde literature in the
>West gets worse, the literature in the Third World, and indeed
>in Western genres, are getting better.  There are modern sci-fi
>and mystery writers better than Verne and Doyle.  Comments or
>disagreements?

And how exactly do you select better or worse in areas as subjective as
these?  It seems to me that such selections must be founded upon a selected
objective frame of reference, and that the only way to prefer one objective
framework over another is by an arbitrary, or at least extremely subjective,
choice.

To stop from becoming perpetually irate, I suppose I should pretranslate
the words of people such as you through a filter as so:
"good" -> "I like", "better" -> "I prefer", "bad" -> "not what I like", etc.

It might be mildly amusing to generalize on such topics across centuries,
cultures, etc., once you've subjectively chosen an objective frame of
reference for comparison and valuative (is that a word?) judgements, but
ultimately it is pointless and rather inflamatory to those who use other
objective frameworks.
--
"Are you so sure that your truth and your justice are worth more than the
truths and justices of other centuries?" - Simone de Beauvoir
"Where is there a certainty that rises above all doubt and withstands all
critique?" - Karl Jaspers          Rice University, Will Rice College '96

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

Date: 13 May 1993 18:20:49 GMT
From: Gregory McColm <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Conor Frederick Prischmann) writes:
>In article <1srfii$[e-mail]> [e-mail]. (Gregory McColm) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>
>Huh?  Please state your criteria for selecting the "greatest philosopher"
>title.  P.S. Ever read any Nietzsche?
>

Greatest = most likely to be remembered five hundred years hence.
I must admit that that makes many of my personal favorites not
that great.  I make no comment on Nietzche except to remark that
he was no Immanuel Kant.  Interpret that cryptic remark as you
please.

-----Greg McColm

PS:  I must admit a pro-generalist bias --- although I would still
rate Darwin above Faraday --- but how many great generalists has
this century produced?  Any Faradays?

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:43:19 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1sstkc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>>Glenn Reynolds points out that the entire DC-X costed roughly the
>>same as the Shuttle toilet! (See Space News, April 15, 1993).

>If DC-Y carries people into orbit, then it's gonna need that toilet
>too!... [story about how complex a space toilet is deleted]

Your missing the point Ken. I do not for a second doubt that toilets
will be needed. The point is that (you may not know this) the GAO looked
at the Shuttle toilet procurement and found that well over half the money
was wasted. This ignores the fact that Skylab had a toilet which seems
to have worked OK.

I note a common element to all your posts: you never seem to worry about
costs. That's fine if all you want from space is a few Shuttle misisons
a year and yet another experiment on how zero-g affects growing (insert
favorite living thing here) and what happens to tomato seeds when left
in space for 5 years. But if you want to see a return on the spending,
you got to cut costs.

Sure space toilets are needed, but not at $25 million.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 567
------------------------------