Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO578.TXT

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 93 05:00:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #578
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 17 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 578

Today's Topics:
   Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC
 Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
             HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
              Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment
                       Near Miss Asteroids (Q)
        No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (3 msgs)
                    Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?
                             SDIO kaput!
                   Shuttle, "Centoxin", Government
                    Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs)
         U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
                     Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
    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: 16 May 1993 10:43:09 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <stephens.737384293@ngis> [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
|had.'  and went on to mention that in aviation if you are found
|with an adjustable spanner in your tool box you can be fired. An
|adjustable spanner by trying to fit all nuts, fits none of them
|properly, and so damages all of them. In the demanding environment of
|the air the adjustable wrench is rightly considered a lethal instrument.


Dave,

    What i recall from air craft maintence.  Torqque  and safety
wires or cotters  were more important, then if some bolt
face were nicked up.  If it was in bad shape you replaced it
with another $30,  aircraft grade bolt.  I can see adjustable spanners
eating up profit,  but lives?

pat

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

Date: 16 May 93 19:23:56 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 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.
> [...]

   Well, the thrust of a SSTO would certainly be overkill, even where we
might be able to use it, the fuel capacity would probably be too limited.
Additionally, providing extended life support for manned mssions and the
host of changes that might be needed to extend the mission length
for the fuel pressurization, manueuering, and control systems would severly
cut into the already limted payload margins and volumes of a SSTO. And then
there's rad hardening for high orbit and lunar missions...

   But while reusing a SSTO as a tug or LTV is questionable, the reuse, or
leveraging, of it's legacy could have greater impact than just the DC-1
alone. A successful DC program would provide an infrastructure that could
provide off-the-shelf subsystems and tooling, a stable and proven base of
engineering and manufacturing talent, and the lean management structure to
build follow-ons and specialized derivates in a timely and cost effective
manner. If we build a handful of DC-1's and then allow that team to fade
away, a great oppurtunity will have been lost.

   On the other hand, significant government support will be needed to
develop projects like tugs and LTV's, there's just no commercial market
within any reasonable time frame. And getting legislative and bureaucratic
support for large projects is dependant upon the projects having plenty of
pork to go around. Which make a DC-X style organizational structure very
difficult to acheive unless the project is just a small piece of a much
larger project: i.e. SDIO for a tug (not likely with the current ground-based
focus, which has also left DC-Y without a sponsor) or a large-scale return
to the moon for a LTV (someday, maybe, but I'm skeptical).

--
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 16:06:56 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <1t30fu$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>This is a real world too.  You can't do science like this with out doing
>>politics as well, unfortunately.  Good PR keep the $$ coming in.
>>
>
> "Do you know what makes rocket ships fly?  Funding, makes them fly.
> No Bucks,  No Buck Rogers" :-)
>
>

Ok, so you have proven you saw the right stuff.  However, as I said above,
it takes politics and PR to keep the bucks coming.
"No politics, no bucks, no buck rogers."

>
>     I think you are missing the point.   If an agency has gathered some data
> on something.  and once tax dollars have been spent,  the data is now
> Property of the people of the US government.  The government may
> charge to recover some of the cost,  or they may charge to maintain
> the data,  but they cannot claim the data  is proprietary,  unless it
> is classified national security data.
>

Yes this may be true in the case of the SCIENCE data coming from the spacecraft
and other stuff about the operations.  However, there is still stuff regarding
regular operation that belongs to the company and they have ever legal right
to keeping it theirs.  But this does not mean that everything can or
should be swept under the umbrella of company proprietory data.

> I live down the road from NIH.  THey run studies all the time.
> I can go into their  library  and  photocoppy all the raw data from
> any study thev'e  done.   Just bring a roll of quarters.
>

You can do the same here...you just have to wait a year.

> I'm not saying you guys don't have internal rules,  but they are
> not supported by US law.
>

Safeguard internal company data are indeed supported by US law.

-Dempsey

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 16:15:25 GMT
From: John McKay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education

[e-mail] (Mark Wilson) writes:

>|>Report called it The Science of Order, but that's probably pomposity.

>|It is, however, now somewhat of an experimental science with the exploration
>|of fractals, strange attractors, and artificial life. Whether important
>|insights will be gained from these experiments is unknown, but it does
>|tend to change the shape of what has mostly been viewed as an abstract
>|deductive field.

>How do you do experiments in mathematics?
Well ...
Have a look at a new journal: Journal of Experimental Mathematics
It has several Fields medallists on its editorial board.
You want to knwo more?
Try Klaus Peters in Boston or David Epstein at Warwick .

--
Deep ideas are simple.
                      Odd groups are even.
                                           Even simples are not.

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

Date: 16 May 1993 10:57:26 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Near Miss Asteroids (Q)
Newsgroups: sci.space

TRry the SKywatch project in  Arizona.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 14:51:59 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <1t4pkc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ajay Shah) writes:
>If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
>companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
>sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
>looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By
the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas,
the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round
trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as
5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the
same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were
to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...

The night sky on a Lunar backpacking trip would still be very
pristine...

There's always been a problem of having to get
away from civilization before you can really find "natural"
scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip
of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles
or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
"wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital
billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of
growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will
not save your view of the night sky, because by the time
such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble
finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_
the stars...

>Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well,
>if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter)...

An ad on a moon of Jupiter would be rather pointless, since you need
a telescope to see them. However, I'd love to see them get all
the publicity they could from underwritting the "Coca Cola Io
Orbital Mapping Probe."

>...Microscum will want to
>name a galaxy `Microscum Galaxy'.

They already can, to some extent: The IAU allows names derived from
sponsors or patrons of scientific research. If Microscum donates
money to a university astronomy program, one of the galactic
astronomers could easily get a newly discovered galaxy named after
them.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 17:07:24 GMT
From: David Fox <[e-mail]>
Subject: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

   In article <1t4pkc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ajay Shah) writes:
   >If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
   >companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
   >sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
   >looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

   Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By
   the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas,
   the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round
   trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as
   5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the
   same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were
   to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...

This is nonsense.  Its like saying that by the time commercials
on television become commonplace every citizen will have their own
hour long nationally broadcast TV program.

   There's always been a problem of having to get
   away from civilization before you can really find "natural"
   scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip
   of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles
   or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
   on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
   "wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital
   billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of
   growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will
   not save your view of the night sky, because by the time
   such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble
   finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_
   the stars...

The rest of your post is strange mishmash of "its already really bad"
and "it doesn't really matter if it gets worse."  You should try to
figure out what you are really arguing for.  (Kneejerk anti-environ-
mentalism?)

-david

P.S.  A passing sattelite does not have the same effect on visible
light astronomy as an object as bright as the full moon.

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

Date: 16 May 1993 16:40:56 GMT
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

Others said:
# >Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well,
# >if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter)...

This reminds me of the old Arthur C. Clarke story about the Coca Cola
ad stashed inside an experiment.
--
A host is a host from coast to [e-mail]
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 13:16:44 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David M. Palmer) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Lack of a skeleton means that muscles have to actively resist
>>gravity at all times on land rather than supplying only balancing
>>forces. That means that much more energy would be required for the
>>creature to function. The bones also supply leverage points for
>>pushing and lateral movement. That's why you don't find large
>>active boneless creatures on land.
>
>Hydraulics can make rigid tubes.  No energy required just for
>support.  Hydraulics also allow a creature to produce large
>forces with weak muscles, using the principle of a hydraulic jack
>rather than a lever.

This is one of those "yes, but" things. It's true that a hydraulically
pressurized tube can be somewhat more rigid than an unpressurized tube,
but even at 2000 PSI levels a hydraulic hose will bend rather easily,
though it's straight-on compressive strength is high, and it's torsional
resistance increase is practically nil. On the other grasping member,
there's no doubt that hydraulic "leverage" exists in nature. Tree roots
are an example. Given time they can shatter concrete as osmotic pressure
increases.

>>It's interesting to note that, on
>>land, creatures are either two legged or 4 legged, with tiny insects
>>having 6 or 8 legs, but never 3 legged, though that would be a
>>stable configuration. It can be argued that 2 legged creatures
>
>Kangaroos are 3-legged.  The specific number of limbs a creature has is
>an accident of evolution, it is hard to make changes in some
>structures.  The panda has a thumb plus as many fingers as its
>ancestors (five?) on each hand, but the thumb is a modified wristbone
>rather than a modified finger, and extra fingers are much more common
>than extra limbs, especially fully-functional ones.

Kangaroos 3-limbed? I don't think so. If you take the view that the
tail is a limb, then monkeys and kangaroos are 5-limbed. I think the
tail is a different kind of structure, grossly enlarged in the case
of the kangaroo, but primarily still an instrument of balance rather
than locomotion. I don't know much about panda "thumbs", so I'll ask
is it opposable?

>>Thermodynamic considerations of surface/volume relationships would
>>seem to dictate that active complex creatures  stay in a size range
>>similar to what we see about us. 6 inch tall intelligent aliens
>>seem unlikely, as do those much larger than the elephant.
>
>Why can't a lemur or a brontosaurus* be intelligent?
>
>[*Yes, I know that the brontosaurus is a mythical beast produced by
>putting the head of another dinosaur on an apatosaurus, but so far
>space aliens are also mythical.]

Well I won't say flat out that they can't be intelligent, but I'll
bring a couple of lines of argument to bear to try to show why I
don't think it's likely. First let me say that when I say "intelligent"
I mean complex behaviors in response to novel situations on a level
with, or greater than, human tool use and tool building. IE assuming
suitable manipulators are present on the creature to allow it to alter
it's enviroment in a planned way, it will do so. That's certainly not
a universal or complete definition of intelligence, but it will suffice
for a putative technological alien.

Now no one knows exactly what makes a brain capable of thought, but
it's generally accepted that one of the criteria is a certain level
of complexity. This is generally determined by the number of neuron
cells, and their interconnections. So a creature the size of a lemur
wouldn't have enough neurons to support complex thought. This argument
is considerably less clear in the case of the dinosaur. There's room
for a large brain, though no indication that one ever developed. One
reason this may be true is neuronic speed. The electrochemical messages
that trigger neurons require time to propagate. This makes it difficult
for a highly complex central brain to coordinate the movements of very
large creatures. So there's little selection pressure for such brains.
Instead, a simpler distributed network evolves. This doesn't rule out
intelligent dinosaurs, but it points in that direction.

Then there are the thermodynamic arguments. A tiny creature like the
lemur needs to eat frequently because it's internal heat is rapidly
lost due to it's high surface to volume ratio. I contend that a creature
that must spend most of it's time and energy feeding won't have the time
to develop and exercise intelligence. That argument may be somewhat weak.
The dinosaur's problem is the reverse, it must moderate it's heat production
because it's high volume to surface ratio makes it tend to retain waste heat.
I'm assuming that a certain temperature range is optimal for chemical
reactivity reasons for productive neuron function. So creatures would
tend to need to maintain a regulated temperature in a range near that
of humans if they are carbon based. That tends to rule out cold blooded
creatures as potential homes of intelligence. Some people contend that
some of the dinosaurs may have been warm blooded. But for a creature
the size of a brontosaur, it's activity levels would have to be restrained
or it would be prone to generate an internal steam explosion from the
waste heat. Whales are similar size, but they can reject heat to the
ocean, a much more efficient sink than air. I suspect that for intelligence
to manifest itself, a certain degree of activity in interacting with the
environment is necessary. IE monkey curiousity. I doubt a large dinosaur
would be capable of that much activity.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 16 May 1993 10:56:40 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: SDIO kaput!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Not to mention how those those liberal presidents, Nixon, Ford,
Reagan, Bush.   did nothing to support  true commercial space
activities.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 19:18:18 GMT
From: Robert Ayers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle, "Centoxin", Government
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes about the drug "Centoxin" (which I've
never heard of) and compares it (only moderately effective, and
very expensive) to the shuttle.

Major difference:

  The government *forced* me to support the shuttle (with my own money).

  The government made it *illegal* for me to choose to buy centoxin
  (with my own money).

"Government is not the solution.  Government is the problem."

Bob

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

Date: 16 May 1993 16:43:01 GMT
From: ";;;;RD48" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

Are you guys talking about the Soviet "shuttle"?  It's not "Soyuz",
it's called "Buran" which means "snow storm."

(At least that's what they call it on Russian TV).


--
Gavin Helf
UC Berkeley Political Science
Berkeley-Stanford Program in Soviet Studies
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 14:31:20 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (OPIRG) writes:
>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.
>(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an
>object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind
>having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of
>us loathe it.

It's a moot point: Step out of your door go _anywhere_ (except possibly
your mailbox). You will be "subject to some ad agency's 'poor taste'"

>...I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred
>by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious
>to an astronomer like Sagan.

While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern,
ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
they are extremely bright.)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 18:20:16 GMT
From: "George F. Krumins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (OPIRG) writes:
>>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone
>>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.
>>(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an
>>object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind
>>having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of
>>us loathe it.

>While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern,
>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
>opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
>driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
>telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
>the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
>thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
>might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
>they are extremely bright.)

>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder

Tell that to the people who run the 10-meter Keck telescope, or the
astronomers and engineers working on the Gemini twin 8-meter telescope
project.  It took 7 years to build Keck I and now they are building
Keck II.  According to the December 1992 Sky & Telescope, "This
second 10-meter eye will convert the facility into a binocular telescope
with double the light-gathering power and the ability to resolve
the headlights of a car some 25,000 kilometers away."   Japan's 8.3-meter
Subaru telescope will soon join Keck on Mauna Kea.  All these telescopes
will work in the infrared, yes, but they are _visible light_ telescopes!

And haven't you heard anything about adaptive optics?  A lot of research
was done with "Star Wars" funding, and some is now being shared with
astronomers.  This shows great promise.  Soon, probably within a few
years, even the largest telescopes will be able to resolve to their
theoretical limit _despite_ the distortions of the atmosphere.

To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is
pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't
matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic
are the dying fields.

George Krumins
--
Pufferfish Observatory         |^^^^^\^^^^|     The Universe had its origin
[e-mail]       ^^^/\ \^^^      in two hockeysticks colliding
                                  / /\ \
       "Home of the Hockeystick  /_/  \_\  Memorial Telescope"

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 16:29:37 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[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

[e-mail] writes:

>But as to the question of what philosopher will be most highly regarded in
>500 years, it may very well be Ayn Rand (who in every important respect
>was "American", but was born in Russia).  But I guess that remains to be seen.

1. Please take this out of sci.space.

2. Ayn Rand was not only born in Russia, but educated there. A lot
of her philosophy reflects not only a European education but a
reaction against certian events in Russia while she lived there.
I've heard that to the extent there is a division of modern philosophy
between the "Continental" and British/American schools, Rand belongs in
the former in terms of methodology et al, even though she was trying to
say things that would belong in the latter school.

I.e. she was trapped in the language of Kant and Hegel, even though
she was trying to say (at times) much different things.

--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 16:00:59 GMT
From: Barbara Trumpinski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hans Kinwel) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (aaron thode) writes:
>>Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions
>>about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything
>>going on in the space community, he seems to know it.
>>    The questions are somewhat tounge-in-cheek:
>>    1) Is sci.space a hobby or a job for you?
>>    1) Do you ever eat or sleep?
>>    3) Does U of Toronto Zoology department conduct space research?
>>    Or do you just use an account there?
>>Just curious.

>My god!  You dare posting!  I posed these very questions to Mr Spencer
>some time ago by email.  Unfortunately I never received any response.

well, IMHO (and i am just a nobody net.user) henry spencer is to
sci.* as kibo is to alt.* and rec.*....

....but i could be wrong...(did anybody mention the illuminati)

kitten
--

***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten       /\ /\  a.k.a. barbara ann
[e-mail]            {=.=}
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"    ~
"summmmmmmmmmmertimmmmmmmmmme....and the livin' is easy" gg

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

Date: 16 May 1993 10:39:58 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Hmmm.  Not sure what's required for ships.  Probably not much, since
>if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those
>on the ship and those who invested in it.  If a plane or spacecraft
>goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it
>land in an inappropriate place.


Considering the magnitude of loss of life in both the Moro Castle
and Titanic disasters,  I can't believe you can be so blithe
there fred.

Besides if a LNG tanker breaks up in a close harbor, you can kiss
off quite a lot of population.  same thing for any chemical
tankers.

I know the coast guard makes  mandatory safety equipment
checks on all watercraft.  they use this as an excuse to
make narcotics  searches, without warrants.

I suspect, that  commercial craft need a certificate at least similiar
in scope to an air worthiness certificate from the DOT.

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 578
------------------------------