Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO583.TXT

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 93 05:23:58
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #583
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 18 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 583

Today's Topics:
     Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
                     Life on Earth (or elsewhere)
             Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
                    Questions for KC-135 veterans
            RE: Space Marketing would be wonderful.  NOT!
            Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games (2 msgs)
                      Space Marketing -- Boycott
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (7 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: 17 May 93 12:30:01 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> Ben Burch <[e-mail]> writes:
> They claim that without the threat of the Soviet Union, missile defense
> should concentrate on weapons from 'terrorist states',i.e. Scud- type
> missles.
>
> Well, Liberals don't like technology, so what do you think?

*BZZZZTT* Dead wrong, Simon, but thank you for playing.  As a consolation
prize, you win our "Generalization" home game.

*I'm* a liberal, and I like technology.  Therefore your statement is
incorrect.
>
> Liberals would rather waste tax money on social programs.

Than waste it on space programs? (-:

>I for one think
> our space program would go a long way if the welfare system wasn't sucking
> money away from it, stunting our technological development.

True.  Of course, space development might also go better if the United
States had no poor people whatsoever.

> Thank you Clinton for keeping us on Earth.
> In 20 years when someone asks me why we never went to Mars, I'll just say
> 'Clinton'

Mr. Bush was trembling on the verge of leading us all into space, when
the triumph was abruptly yanked away by the election of a sort-of
liberal guy?  Reagan presided over the first steps of opening up the
solar system?

I'm sorry, Simon.  It's true the human race has made only slow
progress toward a Buck Rogers future. You'll have to come up with a
more convincing explanation than blaming it on a single President
who's been in office a few months.  (Hint #1:  Maybe you can't lay the
blame fully on any President or set of Presidents.  Hint #2:
Americans are not the only people with rockets.)

(I won't ask what SDI has to do with never going to Mars, though you
seem to think there's a connection.)

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 93 13:32:33 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Earth (or elsewhere)

James Davis Nicoll wrote:

>>>>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;

>        Nicoll, actually. It's a pain to have an uncommon spelling of a common
>name.

Sorry about that.

>>>        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.

>        What evidence is there that there is a trend towards greater
>species diversity over time? What I see going on right now is a major
>extinction event, and  it isn't clear to me that the diversity 10K years
>ago was necessarily greater than 600 million years ago.

Though diversity is not always increasing, when it is, it is evolution that
drives it.  Diversity, however one measures it, probably has an upper bound,
due to energy constraints, minimum population size required for robust and
healthy gene-pools, size of the individual form, and a host of others
that I can't think of.

But diversity, driven by natural selection, tends to increase with time,
after 'extinction events', whatever they might be.  All things being
equal, life gets weirder, not simpler.  If you consider that 600 Myears
ago, there were lots of weird life-forms that don't exist anymore,
then, in a time-dimensional sense, diversity is always increasing, even
during extinction events or periods, always the effect of evolution.

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

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 15:36:58 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
>I watched the landing live, including that part, and I didn't hear the
>statement conventionally attributed to Armstrong.

Truly vast numbers of people (including me) did.  (Except that he left
out the "a" from "a man" -- there was some dispute about just exactly
why that hadn't been heard, but when Armstrong listened to the tapes
later, his conclusion was that he'd simply forgotten to say it.)  You
might have missed it -- it wasn't surrounded by long dramatic silences
or anything like that.

>... If Apollo 11 had not returned safely to Earth it is possible that
>no further expeditions to the moon would have been made, and our only
>direct geological evidence would have been the statement about purple
>rocks.

This is stretching it a bit.  The astronauts were talking constantly
about what they saw, and indeed Armstrong did go on to describe his
"purple rock" more precisely for the geologists.

>I've always felt that sending jet jockeys on an expedition and passing
>them off as scientists was a bad, even fraudulent, idea...

Nobody was "passing them off" as scientists, and there really was little
alternative.  Both crewmen had to be able to fly the LM.  As Harrison
Schmitt found out, astronaut training was incompatible with a scientific
career:  it was just too time-consuming.  (The NASA History series book
"Where No Man Has Gone Before" has a good discussion of the ins and outs
of the "scientist astronaut" problem.)

Incidentally, Armstrong was one of the few lunar astronauts that the
geologists thought quite highly of.  Schmitt's comment:  "He was probably
the best observer we sent to the Moon, in spite of very limited training;
he just had a knack for it."

(The other well-thought-of astronauts, apart from Schmitt himself -- the
only professional geologist to land on the Moon -- were Scott and Irwin,
the Apollo 15 crew.  Scott pushed for more geology in their training,
they ended up spending more time on it than any other crew, and it helped
that Schmitt was in their backup crew and spent a lot of time with them.
They were quite good amateur geologists by the time they flew.)
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 May 1993 17:13:45 GMT
From: "Michael Q. McHenry" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans
Newsgroups: sci.space

Greetings.  I am working on a proposal for my graduate school research
in the effects of microgravity on the vestibular system, and have some
questions about the nitty gritty details of hardware requirements for
the KC-135A aircraft from the user's point of view.  I have the Reduced
Gravity Program User's Guide but still have some specific questions
such as how picky the structural/operational requirements are for
computer equipment.  I know the operational limit of 2.5 G downward
during operation, but I get long pauses out of computer company reps
when I ask them if their hardware (esp. hard drives) can take that.

If anyone has experience with the KC-135, planning or designing hardware
for it, and would be willing to answer a few questions, please contact
me email.  Many thanks.

Quinn
--
M. Quinn McHenry                           Biomedical Engineering
[e-mail]                    Louisiana Tech University
Have salary will travel.                   5 days to graduation!!

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

Date: 17 May 1993 15:26:17 GMT
From: George Hayduke <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Space Marketing would be wonderful.  NOT!
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

  It's bad enough we have to put up with billboards on our highways and in
our towns.
  Ban 'em all; let god sort 'em out.

George Hayduke

**************************************************************************

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. -- Emerson

Geez, I gotta have a REASON for everything? -- Calvin, imaginary friend of
     the tiger, Hobbes
**************************************************************************

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 14:59:41 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <england-170593093754@156.40.182.12> [e-mail] (Mad Vlad) writes:
>The photos taken by the sats are stunning!  I know that sats are
>capable of photographing the license plates of vehicles...

Actually, this has never been claimed by anyone knowledgeable, and it
is fundamentally unlikely, unless the spysat builders have found a way
to beat the laws of physics.  The biggest spysats probably resemble the
Hubble telescope -- Hubble was shipped to the Cape in a modified C-5
meant to transport spysats -- and the diffraction limit gives a mirror
of that size in low orbit a resolution of a few centimeters.  Unless
they are doing something inordinately advanced (and I'm already assuming
heavy-duty adaptive optics to take out the effects of the atmosphere),
they can't read license plates from orbit.  A few cm is good enough to
do a lot of things, but not that.

The claim that *has* been aired is that an SR-71 can read the license
plates, in favorable conditions.  That's more plausible, since it's
an order of magnitude closer.

The satellite imagery is treated semi-realistically in the *book*
version of Patriot Games.  I haven't seen the movie, but I expect
Hollywood has exaggerated for dramatic effect.  X-ray vision from
orbit is just not available.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 17:04:09 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <england-170593093754@156.40.182.12> [e-mail] (Mad Vlad) writes:
>>The photos taken by the sats are stunning!  I know that sats are
>>capable of photographing the license plates of vehicles...

>Actually, this has never been claimed by anyone knowledgeable, and it
>is fundamentally unlikely, unless the spysat builders have found a way
>to beat the laws of physics.  The biggest spysats probably resemble the

The comment I once heard was: "You can see the cigarette packet, but
you can not actually tell if Ivan Ivanovitch is smoking on duty."

If a cigarette packet = 1 pixel that would be a best resolution of
a few centimeters. Sounds about right along with knowledge of
size of satellite and optics.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 May 93 15:06:57 GMT
From: Anselm Lingnau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
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 <[e-mail]> Dan Gaubatz
> <[e-mail]> writes:
> > Annoying little species, aren't we?
>
> I wounder if you feel the same way about beavers, trap-door spiders,
> or any other species that habitually modifies its environment to
> suit its needs.

I doubt that we *need* orbital billboards that badly. It's not as if our
survival were at stake. I, for one, could easily do without any of this
nonsense.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau .................................. [e-mail]
Now I know what a statesman is; he's a dead politician. We need more statesmen.
                                --- Bob Edwards

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

Date: 17 May 1993 15:15:55 GMT
From: Adam Stanford <[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

Frank Crary writes:
>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.)

I happen to be an astronomer at the UC-Berkeley and I must
say that this assesment of mainstream astronomy research is
wrong.  Most astronomers do most of their visible work with ground-based
telescopes these days and will continue to do so for some time -
witness the new 10 meter size telescopes being built at ground-based
sites in Hawaii and Chile.  While very useful, space astronomy is
so fantastically expensive and prone to single-point failures (for
example the Hubble Space Telescope) that it will not take
over the field unless the federal government is again able to fund
multibillion $ projects with ease and NASA is able to mend its
ways.  Radio has been an expanding field, which does as well from
the ground as from space, not because astronomers have been driven
into it by worsening conditions for visible astronomy but because
of technological developments (radio interferometry for example) and
the natural progression of finding new ways to attack scientific
problems.  Similarly, far infrared must be done from at least
high altitude aircraft and preferably from high earth orbit and has
experienced growth recently from the development of new kinds of
sensitive detectors.  The statement about satellites not ruining
ground-based work is correct, though one does occassionally see trails

in images due to passing satellites.

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 15:08:22 GMT
From: "R. Lee Hawkins" <[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] (Frank Crary) writes:
>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...

What exactly have you seen?  I suggest that since you do little (or no)
work in the visible (which you apparently can't even spell correctly),
that you are unaware of most of the work done in the area.  To be fair,
I ignore most radio work, also.

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

Adaptive optics *do* work at shorter wavelengths, just not as well as
they do in the infrared, and using them is certainly better than not
using them.  Also, quite large gains are had by just correcting for
image motion due to the atmosphere, something that is much easier to do
than to try and correct the wavefronts themselves.

>
>As for better locations, the Antarctic is one of the best and
>I'd have trouble imagining an ad in a completely polar orbit...

Actually, it does have a lot of problems.  Aurora Australis and a thin
haze being two.   See papers about the South Pole Photoelectric
Telescope by John Oliver and others from the University of Florida.

>The next best I can think of is on the KAO (an airplane),
>considering the scedueling they put into each flight, avoiding
>an object in a known orbit should be travial.

Also much more expensive than ground-based, and there is a limit to the
aperture that can be flown in an airplane.

>
>>...Also, scopes in low orbit (like Hubble) can only observe things
>>continuously for ~45 minutes at a time, which can be a serious
>>limitation.
>
>Which is why everyone involved in orbital astronomy is proposing
>telescopes in higher orbits (thermal loading is also a factor:
>Without the reflected sunlight and blackbody emissions from the Earth
>it is _much_ easier to cool a detector to helium temperatures...)

Kindly calculate the energy required to put a 10-meter class telescope
into a high orbit and you will soon realize why it hasn't been done.
Something that big can't be launched in one piece anyway, and assembling
it in orbit won't work, either.  The Shuttle doesn't go that high.  And
making a structure that large able to sustain the stresses of a boost to
a higher orbit is non-trivial.

>
>>>                                             Frank Crary
>>>                                             CU Boulder
>
>>What deparment are you in anyway, Philosophy?  You obviously are not
>>qualified to speak about astronomy...
>
>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.

Perhaps not.  Also remember that there is a lot of important information
about stars in the visible wavelength range that you ain't gonna get
with a radio telescope.  The strength of the Balmer series, for
instance.

--Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
R. Lee Hawkins                         [e-mail]
Department of Astronomy                     [e-mail]
Whitin Observatory
Wellesley College                Ph. 617-283-2708
Wellesley, MA 02181                FAX [phone]
________________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 17 May 93 15:02:39 GMT
From: Ken Kobayashi <[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,misc.legal

   Let's not forget the fact that, since this space billboard will be in
LEO, it will be visible from most countries in the world, not just the
U.S.  (ok, it depends on the inclination, but even if it barely covers all
of the U.S., it will cover a fair fraction of the globe).  Does America
have the right to force this to other countries?

   But here's an idea - what if the billboard was not composed of a single
gigantic 'thing' but instead of hundreds of little, high-quality mirrors?
Then they can just point the reflected light towards a particular city,
and the area outside will not be severely affected.  Of course, it will
reduce effectiveness and probably increase cost, but that would be a
reasonable compromise wouldn't it?




--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Ken Kobayashi              |
[e-mail]        |   "There is no final frontier." - IBM ad

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 16:36:40 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[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,misc.legal

[e-mail] (Ken Kobayashi) writes:

>   But here's an idea - what if the billboard was not composed of a single
>gigantic 'thing' but instead of hundreds of little, high-quality mirrors?
>Then they can just point the reflected light towards a particular city,
>and the area outside will not be severely affected.  Of course, it will
>reduce effectiveness and probably increase cost, but that would be a
>reasonable compromise wouldn't it?

***WARNING*** The following not suitable for the aethetically sensitive.

I  published an article on this concept back in 1986, after being
challenged that scientists do not think commercially. You do not
need hundreds of mirrors, just a few dozen will do. The object of
image management is not to overwhealm the expectations of the target
audience, but enhance them to the benefit of the client. I.e during an ice
hockey sports program you advertise macho beer commercials.
What do people expect in the night sky?. Constellations of a very limited
number of rather dim lights. So it follows, fly a few dozen mirror satellites
(400 squ m seems about right) then format them and reflect the sun onto
the target city. From an 8 hour circular orbit a plane mirror targets
a 130 km dia. zone on the equator. So then the lucky people down below
look up and see a commercial constallation in the form of a familar logo.
If it is not familiar it soon will be. Each star will be enhanced at about
-6 (Venus is -4) so will overcome city lighting in the evening (peak
shopping - sports -viewtime). This will counteract the effect such
economically unhealty activities such as jogging on the GDP. At a time of
audience mobility and fragmentation, space advertising will be the
fulfillment of the wildest dreams of the image enhancement industry.

As for sacrilage. This is the time of the ante-millenium: Know ye
therefore that there is
but one jealous God: Mamon, and this world is to be HIS profit!
Look Ye to the skies and seek HIS truth.

Will spaceship Earth to cruise majestically into the 21 st century
along a freeway through
the heavens marked by the signs of dynamic
market economics?

I have an ultra black hour's lecture on space advertising for SF cons.
 It is programmed to be
dangerous to the mental health of pinks, green, and even blues. Rated
suitable only for those that can fog film with the hard X rays coming
from their principles.

--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 17:11:12 GMT
From: Dave Sill <[e-mail]>
Subject: 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] (Kyle Jones) writes:
>
>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.

It does to me and many others, though.  Do our desires not count?  Are there
not other advertising media available?  Would not one such "billboard" lead to
another, and another, until the night sky is peppered with them?

--
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 16:37:45 GMT
From: Rob Dobson <[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] (Kyle Jones) writes:

>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.


Look, while Im glad to see someone doing such calculations, the situation
is like this:

1) If the advertising is not large enough, and visible long enough, for
people to read and notice it, it will not be any good as advertising.

2) If the advertising is large enough and visible long enough to
be good advertising, it will certainly be a nuisance to those who
do not wish to see this advertising in the night sky.

So the thing cant NOT be a nuisance, or else it wont work.


--
A jazz singin farmer
out standin in his field

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 93 16:55:04 GMT
From: "Eric.Cannell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.headlines,misc.invest,misc.legal,misc.rural,rec.backcountry,sci.astro,sci.environment,sci.space,talk.environment,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Loss) writes:

>   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.

Along these lines...

Isn't everybody negotiating the International Space Treaty? My take on the
treaty was that is was supposed to answer questions like:

   o How does third world countries protect their rights to future
     use of limited outer space resources...for example....

   o Allocation of geosynchronous orbits
   o Disposition/accountability for space junk (getting to be a big problem)
   o Access to the primo launch positions on the ground
   o Would my private US company have to pay royalties to every
     country for minerals mined on the moon?
   o If the UN is involved in space endeavors, who gets to pay, share data,
     and participate?
   o Who controls/gets use of the Langrangian Points (L5) between the Earth
     and the Moon?
   o Is it first come first serve?
   o of course, in the next hundred years....Mars

just wondering...

eric cannell

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 583
------------------------------