Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO582.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Tue, 18 May 93 05:00:21
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #582
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 18 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 582

Today's Topics:
                    ** Animations ASTRO wanted **
              ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL
              Life on Earth (or elsewhere : -)  (2 msgs)
                            McElwaine FAQ
             No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
                     Over zealous shuttle critics
                 Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (8 msgs)
                     Who is Henry Spencer anyway?

    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: Mon, 17 May 1993 13:11:20 GMT
From: Frank ROUSSEL <[e-mail]>
Subject: ** Animations ASTRO wanted **
Newsgroups: sci.space

Can someone tell me where i can get astronomic animations ?
(especially in .FLI or .ANIM format)
Thanks

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   _______       _______       ________   | Firstname: Frank
  /______/|     /______/\     /_______/|  | Lastname : ROUSSEL
 / ______|/    /  ____ \/|    |__   __|/  | E-mail: [e-mail]
/ /|           | |____| |/       | ||     | Telephone: + 33 99 83 26 10
| ||           |  __  __/        | ||     |
| |\______     | || \ \\       __| ||__   | Address: 175, rue Belle Epine
\ \______/|    | ||  \ \\     /__| |/_/|  | CityStateZip: 35510
 \_______|/    |_|/   \_\|    |_______|/  | Cityname: CESSON SEVIGNE
    Centre de Ressources Informatiques    | Country: FRANCE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Science without conscience is only soul's ruin (Rabelais) ------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Signed: The responsible of ASTROGOF project at Rennes' University of France   -
- who contributes to the development of CRI-CICB Gopher's server (ASTRO images) -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 17:36:10 GMT
From: "Robert B. Love " <raptor![e-mail]>
Subject: ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1so442$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat)
writes:
> >Adaptation Trainer (PAT).  Dr. Harm here at MSC (oops, I mean JSC)
>
>
> Now is that an aptly named person or what?
When I went thru all the spinning chair tests at JSC the PhD in charge
was Milt Reshke but the technician who strapped me in and, on occasion,
inserted the "probe" (needle) was named Bev Bloodworth.

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 93 14:32:25 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: Life on Earth (or elsewhere : -)

From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
>
> [e-mail] ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
> >[..] the Burgess shale [..] Some real science-fiction-type
> >critters were found in the shale.  It's pretty amazing stuff.
>
> Hasn't some of the early work on the Burgess shale been
> discredited in recent years?

Yes.  Early researchers tried too hard to pigeonhole
Burgess specimens into existing taxonomies.

In a bit of history-of-science, the book traces how
the "conventional thinking" came around to the idea
that maybe the specimens did *not* resemble *anything*
ever known to have existed, and in fact were examples
of heretofore unknown (and undreamt-of) geni.

It took many years and several ground-breaking papers
to set the fossil record straight.

Life on other water-covered planets might end up looking
like some of the Burgess critters; hell, "we" might have.
The fact that we exist as we do does not imply that this
was the only possible evolutionary path, or even the "best".
'Twas a bit of a crap shoot.  As things worked out, we have
the ability to get into space; why crap it up with billboards ?

--
* Fred Baube (tm)         * "Government had broken down. I found the
* [e-mail]       * experience invigorating." -- Maurice Grimaud,
* #include <disclaimer.h> * Paris prefect of police in May 1968

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 93 14:32:25 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: Life on Earth (or elsewhere : -)

From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
>
> [e-mail] ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
> >[..] the Burgess shale [..] Some real science-fiction-type
> >critters were found in the shale.  It's pretty amazing stuff.
>
> Hasn't some of the early work on the Burgess shale been
> discredited in recent years?

Yes.  Early researchers tried too hard to pigeonhole
Burgess specimens into existing taxonomies.

In a bit of history-of-science, the book traces how
the "conventional thinking" came around to the idea
that maybe the specimens did *not* resemble *anything*
ever known to have existed, and in fact were examples
of heretofore unknown (and undreamt-of) geni.

It took many years and several ground-breaking papers
to set the fossil record straight.

Life on other water-covered planets might end up looking
like some of the Burgess critters; hell, "we" might have.
The fact that we exist as we do does not imply that this
was the only possible evolutionary path, or even the "best".
'Twas a bit of a crap shoot.  As things worked out, we have
the ability to get into space; why crap it up with billboards ?

--
* Fred Baube (tm)         * "Government had broken down. I found the
* [e-mail]       * experience invigorating." -- Maurice Grimaud,
* #include <disclaimer.h> * Paris prefect of police in May 1968

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 10:15:29 GMT
From: benjamen berry <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>I'm not sure which amazes me more: the fact that someone would go
>>>to all this
>>>trouble to write about McElwaine or the fact that someone would
>>>post something
>>>which repeatedly says it shouldn't be posted.
>>>
>>>It's all moot anyway.  He had is net access privileges revoked last week.
>>>--
>
>>McElwaine got his access revoked?  Finally!!!!
>
>>And they say it couldn't be done.  If we can rid the net of McElwaine,
>>then anything is possible :-
>>Simon
>
>
>Oh, don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back!
>
>

If you can rid sci.space of McElwaine, can you rid Alt.sex of
Clayton Cramer?   :)

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 12:38:06 GMT
From: Dave Sill <[e-mail]>
Subject: No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,misc.rural

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

So let's put a moratorium on space advertising until that time.
Hopefully, by then we'll have come to our senses and enacted a permanent
ban.

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

I don't care if the Moon's sky is pristine!  I want *my* sky pristine.
It's already bad enough that I've got to tolerate planes and helicopters
overhead.

>If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
>on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
>"wild."

That would be a very sad day, indeed.

>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.

If we can't ban the cause, we should at least ban those symptoms we can.

>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...

All the world is not suburban/urban jungle, and it'll be quite some time
before it is.

Just say "no" to orbiting billboards.

--
Dave Sill ([e-mail])                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 13:21:39 GMT
From: Peter J Card <[e-mail]>
Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics
Newsgroups: sci.space

We`ve had the the Great Western, the [ dunno ] and the Great Northern
postulated as Brunel`s masterpiece. Keep boxing the compass chaps, you`ll
get round to it eventually.

The Great Western was a highly successful transatlantic mail ship,
with hybrid sail and steam propulsion. The Great Eastern, which broke
the 'Little Giant' financially and otherwise, was a revolutionary leap
forward in ship design. A thirty thousand ton all steel vessel, with
primary steam propulsion, it was at the time easily the biggest ocean
going vessel ever built. Brunel took advantage of the fact that cargo
and / or fuel capacity rose with the cube of scale, while drag rose
with the square, so a really big ship could steam thousands of miles
without coaling.

Unfortunately, there was no real market for such a beast at the time,
and it was eventually sold off at scrap values. As another poster
said, it then went on to a successful career as a telegraph cable
laying ship. It was in fact the only ship of its day capable of laying
a transatlantic cable in one go, with the endurance and capacity to
carry the huge reel all the way, and the manoeuverabilty to dredge for
defective sections. See Arthur C Clarke`s book "How the World was One"
[ I think that`s right ]

If that`s how the Shuttle goes down in history, as a technical triumph
and a financial disaster for the builder, it would not be entirely
ignoble, but I doubt if history will be so charitable.  Its true the
Shuttle can do things no other launch system can do, but are they
worth doing? With low cost access to space, you could have an
affordable space station for doing shuttle-like extended manned
missions. As it is, the shuttle is not so much a space-truck as a
space-RV, ( only not so cheap to run :-( )
--
__._____.___._____.__._______________________________________________________
__|_. ._| ._|_._._|__| Peter Card, Joint European Torus, Abingdon
    | | | |_. | |    | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA UK. tel [phone] FAX 464404
    | | |  _| | |    | email [e-mail] or compuserve 100010,366
  ._| | | |_. | |    | It wasnt me. It was the others. They made me do it.
--`--~'-+---+-+-+----+-------------------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 13:37:43 GMT
From: Mad Vlad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hello netters,

   I'm new to this board and I thought this might be the best place
for my post.  I have a question regarding satellite technology seen
in the movie Patriot Games.  In the movies, the CIA utilizes its
orbitting sats to pinpoint a specific terrorist camp in N Africa.
The photos taken by the sats are stunning!  I know that sats are
capable of photographing the license plates of vehicles.  My
question is this:  The camp in question was taken out by the
British SAS.  And while the SAS was in action, the CIA team was
watching in the warroom back in Langley, VA.  The action of the SAS
was clear and appeared to be relayed via a sat.  The action was at
night and the photography appeared to be an x-ray type.  That is,
one could see the action within the tents/structures of the camp.
Does such techology exist and what is it's nature?  i.e., UV, IR,
x-ray, etc.

PS  Who wrote the book Patriot Games?

Mad Vlad

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 09:44:18 GMT
From: Jim Hart <[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,misc.legal

If anybody has a strong claim to control of the  the night sky, it is
astronomers.  Check out the common law.  In the days when wild lands
weren't scarce, pioneers laid claim to the land by putting it to
use, eg clearing and growing a crop.  Even trespassers can lay claim to
the right of passage if if they've done it for long enough and the
owners have not complained or taken steps to stop them.  Usage
begets property rights.

Astronomers have been using the night sky for thousands of years --
they own it.  If they don't complain now against scenic trespassers
(eg light polluters), they will lose their common-law right of ownership.

Another consequence of their ownership is that they are free to sell
it.  Now, astronomers need money for their work.  If light
polluting billboards and mirrors go up, they will need even
more money to buy extra image processing equipment, filters,
space telescopes etc. to get around the problem.

So, as long as we can define who "astronomers" are (eg do
"they" include amateur astronomers?  Nature lovers?)
we can set up a system of voluntary consensus to solve this
dispute, instead invoking bans, regulations, etc. enforced
by bribed politicians at the point of a gun (why do folks always
think of that sordid solution, "we ought to pass a law", to
solve problems first instead of as a last resort when other
methods have failed?)

The astronomers own the sky.  If they want to sell parts of
it to city-illuminators, advertisers, etc. (eg "the right to emit
N megacandles of light on nights between half and full moon"),
and use the proceeds to buy much better astronomical tools, then both
the economy and astronomy would win, and we could solve the
dispute peacefully without ramming the law down each other's
throats. If astronomers find a purely natural sky vastly more important
than new equipment, they should be able to make that choice too, as
the long-time users and therefore rightful owners of the night
sky.  This proposal certainly needs work, but how about working on
these kind of ideas first before writing "there ought to be a law"
letters to our Congresscritters: let's give noncoercive consensus, via
the free market, a chance to solve this problem.

Jim Hart
[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 May 93 08:57:35
From: "T. Joseph Lazio" <[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

>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 1993 14:31:20 GMT, [e-mail] (Frank Crary) said:
fc> Modern,
fc> ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
fc> orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
fc> opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
fc> driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
fc> telescopes.

 Here's one radio astronomer quite concerned about
 radio-frequency interference from portable telephones, etc.


--
                         | e-mail: [e-mail]
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  [phone]
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

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

Date: 17 May 93 09:07:58
From: "T. Joseph Lazio" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space

>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 1993 05:48:59 GMT, [e-mail] (Frank Crary) said:

fc> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
>>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

>Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter
>ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones.

fc> Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,
fc> visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less
fc> (down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
fc> to me...

 That doesn't seem like a fair comparison.  Infrared astronomy
 didn't really get started until something like 25 yrs. ago; it
 didn't explode until IRAS in 1983.  Gamma-ray (and I think
 X-ray) observations didn't really get started until the '70s.
 I believe the same is true of ultraviolet observations in
 general, and I know that extreme UV (short of 1000 Angstroms)
 observations, until the EUVE (launched last year) had almost
 no history except a few observations on Skylab in the '70s.

 Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of astronomers only
 had access to optical or radio instruments.  Now, with far more
 instruments available, growth in some of these new fields has
 resulted in optical work representing a smaller fraction of
 total astronomical work.


>Seriously, though, you're never going to get a 10-meter scope into orbit
>as cheaply as you can build one on the ground, and with adaptive optics
>and a good site, the difference in quality is narrowed quite a bit
>anyway.

fc> That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.
fc> But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything
fc> up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most
fc> people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are
fc> reasons to think adaptive optics will not work at shorter
fc> wavelengths without truely radical improvements in technology.

 Hmm, some of the folks in this department planning on using
 adaptive optics at the 5 m at Palomar for near-infrared
 observations (1 and 2 microns) might be surprised to hear this.

 And isn't the NTT already pushing toward 0.1 arcsecond resolution,
 from a ground-based site (remember 0.1 arcseconds was one of the
 selling points of HST).





--
                         | e-mail: [e-mail]
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  [phone]
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 13:34:44 GMT
From: Len Evens <[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,misc.legal

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Hart) writes:
>
>If anybody has a strong claim to control of the  the night sky, it is
>astronomers.  Check out the common law.  In the days when wild lands
>weren't scarce, pioneers laid claim to the land by putting it to
>use, eg clearing and growing a crop.  Even trespassers can lay claim to
>the right of passage if if they've done it for long enough and the
>owners have not complained or taken steps to stop them.  Usage
>begets property rights.
>
>Astronomers have been using the night sky for thousands of years --
>they own it.
>(eg light polluters), they will lose their common-law right of ownership.
>
>Another consequence of their ownership is that they are free to sell
>it.  Now, astronomers need money for their work.  If light
>polluting billboards and mirrors go up, they will need even
>more money to buy extra image processing equipment, filters,
>space telescopes etc. to get around the problem.
>
>So, as long as we can define who "astronomers" are (eg do
>"they" include amateur astronomers?  Nature lovers?)
>we can set up a system of voluntary consensus to solve this
>dispute, instead invoking bans, regulations, etc. enforced
>by bribed politicians at the point of a gun (why do folks always
>think of that sordid solution, "we ought to pass a law", to
>solve problems first instead of as a last resort when other
>methods have failed?)
>
[Stuff deleted]
>  This proposal certainly needs work, but how about working on
>these kind of ideas first before writing "there ought to be a law"
>letters to our Congresscritters: let's give noncoercive consensus, via
>the free market, a chance to solve this problem.
>
>Jim Hart
>[e-mail]

Would Mr. Hart please explain how one could get every nation on
earth and every corporation to agree that astronomers own the
night sky without `coercion'.   Remember that not every nation
follows the English common law.   In most countries, for most of
history, it was probably true that the rulers `owned' everything
not explicitly owned by individuals.   Even in North America,
where by the principle enunciated, the aboriginal inhabitants should
have owned everything, when new arrivals wanted to use land
and resources, they just took it over.  In case Mr. Hart hasn't noticed,
there is currently a brutal war going on in Bosnia about who owns what.
Of course, if some friendly super power were to give an international
astronomy organization some anti-satelite missiles and also agree
to defend it if attacked, such a proposal might work, but it
would hardly be non-coercive.

Some of us nutty environmentalists think it might make sense first
to try to mobilize public opinion against advertising in space
and also to use governmental actions (like taxing power, for example)
to discourage them.   This of course would be too coercive for
Mr. Hart.

Leonard Evens      [e-mail]      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 13:47:13 GMT
From: Doug Loss <[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,misc.legal

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Hart) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>Astronomers have been using the night sky for thousands of years --
>they own it.  If they don't complain now against scenic trespassers
>(eg light polluters), they will lose their common-law right of ownership.
>
   Is English (American, Canadian, etc.) common law recognized as
legally binding under international law?  After all, we're talking about
something that by its very nature isn't limited to the territory of one
nation.

Doug Loss
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 13:29:04 GMT
From: Roger Collins <[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] (Geoff Miller) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Herrin)
|> writes:
|>
|> >Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space
|> >advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution
|> >of wealth would help them ...
|>
|>
|> This is specious emotionalism.  Commercial enterprises typically don't
|> spend money on starving children (or other world problems) anyway, at
|> least not in excess of whatever minimum amount is required for lip-
|> service and PR purposes.  Precisely where would you place the threshold
|> beyond which advertising spending is deemed "abominable," and why?

Yes!  Just take money from the profitable commercial enterprises
and give it to the government to "redistribute."  Government is so much
more efficient, trustworthy, and noble than self-serving businesses. :)

Let's nip this redistributionist ignorance in the bud.  If it were not
for commercial enterprises, the whole world would be starving.

Roger Collins

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

Date: 17 May 1993 10:07:21 -0400
From: Kyle Jones <[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

I was curious how much of an eyesore this proposed flying
billboard would be so I did some rough calculations.

A mile wide object that appears to be about the size of the full
Moon would have an orbit of about 108 miles above Earth.  Note
that it will be 108 miles away from the viewer only when it is
directly overhead.  At the horizon the flying billboard will be
around 1316 miles away, reducing its apparent size to about 1/32
the size of the full Moon, which is not going to be readable to
the unaided eye.

Further, the billboard will be visible from the ground during
only 1/20th of its orbit.  I don't have the constants I'd need to
compute the period of a 108 mile orbit. But assuming 90 minutes
is a reasonable guess, and a circular orbit and assuming the
Earth's own rotation will keep the thing in view a bit longer,
the billboard will only be visible for about four and three
quarter minutes per orbit, or 38 minutes per twelve hour night.

This doesn't sound like a nuisance or an abomination to me.

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

Date: 17 May 1993 14:09:46 GMT
From: "Doug S. Caprette" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
>>>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
>
>>Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter
>>ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones.
>
>Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,
>visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less
>(down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
>to me...
>


This of course, is not due to a decrease in visible light astronomy.  Rather,
it is due to an increase in the other areas.  More data is being gathered in
visible wavelengths today, than ever befor.


>
>The sign the office door says, "Astrophysical, Planetary and
>Atmospheric Sciences." Although perhaps my degree in astrophysics
>from Berkeley doesn't qualify me either... On the other hand,
>I just might not be too attached to one particular way of collecting
>astronomical data.
>
>                                                  Frank Crary
>                                                  CU Boulder


I gather that it is not the way you gather data, so you don't care.  Some of us
do not share your indifference to your coleagues.  Indeed, perhpas you feel that
if they can no longer do their work, there will be more funding available for
whatever it is that you do.

Aside from which, I'm sure that professional astronomers would find work
arounds.

The real objection here is esthetic.  We object to advertising in the night sky
for the same reasons that any rational person objects to billboards in the
National Parks, on the Washington Monument, or in our own front yards.

The sky is a common area, belonging at once to all, and to none.

--
[e-mail]
 |  Regards,         |   Hughes STX                |    Code 926.9 GSFC        |
 |  Doug Caprette    |   Lanham, Maryland          |    Greenbelt, MD  20771   |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The sword cannot cut itself." -- Unknown

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 09:35:05 GMT
From: Ward Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
Newsgroups: sci.space

We will shortly start an RFD for alt.god.henry-spencer.  All in
favour please face Toronto and fall prostrate and repeat after
me "C-News is God's gift to Usenet".
--
Paul

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 582
------------------------------