Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO586.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Tue, 18 May 93 06:03:32
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #586
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 18 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 586

Today's Topics:
                          Billsats (2 msgs)
                            DC-X Publicity
                          Federal Employees
How useful is visible light astronomy (was space marketing billboard)
             International Mars Exploration Group Formed
             Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
             No. Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
                    Questions for KC-135 veterans
                      Space Marketing -- Boycott
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (4 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: Mon, 17 May 93 20:27:28 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billsats

David Fox (on Billsats) sez;
>>Are others as upset about this as I am?  I feel that a global
>>boycott of anyone involved with such a project would be a good
>>idea.  Perhaps it could be made illegal in various countries
>>around the world?  Do others agree?

Phil Fraering replies:
>1. Since when should the groundhogs and flatlanders have veto
>power over things that happen in space?

>2. I'm boycotting any corporation that joins the boycott.
>Anyone with me?

Judging from the feeling and volume of discourse about this subject, it
may be way too early for a wait-and-see attitude, but I want to at least
see one of these things in operation before I either condemn them or
unconditionally support them.

Anyone with me? :-)

-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 93 20:32:19 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billsats

Richard J Shank sez;

>I can see it now emblazened across the evening sky --
>                THIS SPACE FOR RENT

How about  - ALL SPACE FOR RENT -?   Who's the landlord for space, anyway?
Imagine the property taxes! :-)

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 00:14:06 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Publicity
Newsgroups: sci.space

>   Have the DC-X1, make an unscheduled landing at teh 50 yard
>   line during the halftime show of This years Superbowl.

Caltech undergrads are no doubt hard at work on this, but with
the landing in the Rose Bowl instead. Go Beavers!

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 18:19:45 GMT
From: Steve Willner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Federal Employees
Newsgroups: sci.space

There were several articles a few weeks ago discussing political
restrictions on Federal employees.  A lot of incorrect information was
posted.  Here is a summary of what I believe to be correct information,
based on the Federal Personnel Manual and a call to our General
Counsel's office.  Sorry this is so late, but it took a while to
research the subject, and I'm supposed to do some real work once in a
while.  This article does not deal with economic restrictions (stock
ownership and so forth), although I believe a lot of wrong information
was posted on that subject as well.

The bottom line appears to be that Federal employees can do whatever
most ordinary citizens do politically as long as they do it on their own
time and don't suggest official endorsement.  They cannot, however, do
the things political "pros" do.  Spouses are not restricted at all as
long as they act on their own and not as an agent for the employee.

I can cite specific sources if anyone wants and in some instances can
provide more details.  Quotations are from the FPM, Chapter 733, various
paragraphs.

First of all, all employees are guaranteed the right to vote as they
please and to express opinions "as an individual" on all political
subjects and candidates.  These rights cannot be taken away by agency
regulations.

Spouses are not restricted from political activity provided it is "upon
his or her own initiative and in his or her own behalf."

Other rights can be limited by individual agencies, either for all
employees or for particular classes of employees, "if participation in
the activity would interfere with the efficient performance of official
duties, or create a conflict or apparent conflict of interests."  In
particular, NASA may well have restrictions that do not apply to other
agencies.

Subject to the above, each employee retains the right to (among other
things):

"(2) Express his opinion as an individual citizen privately and publicly
on political subjects and candidates;"

"(3) Display a political picture, sticker, badge or button;" but not
while in uniform or in any manner that might suggest official
endorsement.

"(5) Be a member of a political party or other political organization,"
but certain activities are prohibited.  (See below.)

"(8) Make a financial contribution to a political party organization;"
or to an individual candidate.  [I find it odd that an agency apparently
can forbid financial contributions, and I have doubts whether any such
prohibition would withstand Constitutional challenge.]

"(10) Take an active part, as a candidate or in support of a candidate,
in a nonpartisan election;" including (11) referenda and similar ballot
questions not identified with a political party.

Political restrictions apply to most Federal employees and also to
contractors or similar personnel paid by direct Federal funds.  These
restrictions do not apply to political appointees in the Executive
Branch, to "secretaries and clerks of Members of Congress and
congressional committees" or to "officers and employees of the judicial
branch."  There are a few other exceptions, including certain municipal
elections in the Washington, DC area.

Prohibited activities include taking "an active part in political
management or in a political campaign" with a few exceptions mostly
mentioned above.  Note that these restrictions apply only to "partisan,"
i.e., political party, elections.  Specific prohibitions include:

Anything involving funds for a partisan political purpose except making
contributions (3, 4).

Serving as a party officer (1), being a candidate (6), or a campaign
manager (5), soliciting votes (7), driving voters to polls "on behalf of
a political party or candidate" (9), "endorsing or opposing... in a
political advertisement, a broadcast, campaign literature, or similar
material" (10), being involved in a party convention (11, 12),
initiating or circulating a nominating petition (13).

In addition to the above, there are a lot of special restrictions on
political (and other) fund raising.  These restrictions apply to
_everybody_, not just Federal employees.  The most important restriction
is that solicitations are banned on Federal job sites.  This includes
any site on which even a single Federal employee is working!  This law
applies to members of Congress as well as other elected officials.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion.  As noted, employees need to
check with their agencies about specific restrictions.
--
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 15:51:44 GMT
From: Anita Cochran <[e-mail]>
Subject: How useful is visible light astronomy (was space marketing billboard)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,sci.space

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...

Well, that just goes to show that you do not keep up with the field very well.
Visible light astronomy is still VERY useful and big and small telescopes
are still being built.  For one thing, detector technology is much more
advanced in the visible than other regions and the earth's atmosphere
is less restrictive in the visible.  The Keck will be a superb visible
light instrument.  If you look at the Astrophysical Journal or the Astronomical
Journal, you will note that the majority of the data being used is
visible light or near infrared.  True, visible light observations no longer
represent 100% of observations since the technology has now been developed
to ADD other wavelengths.  We have many times more visible light gathering
power now than in the old days but we now can ALSO do other things.

> >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.
>
Despite the fact that Frank Crary claims to have a degree in astrophysics
from Berkeley, he does not know what he is talking about here.
NO ONE calls things to 100 microns the visible.  In fact, 100 microns is
the FAR infrared.  The visible goes to other 7000 angstroms (0.7 microns)
if you are referring to photographic or 1 micron if you are talking
about solid state detectors such as CCDs.  Redward of 1 micron is the
infrared (1-5 microns often being referred to as the near infrared).

It is true that it is easier to do adaptive optics at infrared wavelengths
than visible wavelengths since the isoplanetic patch is larger and therefore
fewer actuators are necessary.  However, the laser guide star program
at LLNL and Kirtland are both working in the visible.  It can and IS
being done in the visible.

> >>...In any case, a bright point of light passing through
> >>the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
>
> >I sure as hell does if the 'point of light' is half a degree in extent
> >and as bright as the moon.  Have you ever noticed how much brighter the
> >night sky is on a moonlit night?
>
> I find that claim hard to believe: A _peak_ brightness or size
> along these lines is possible, but since we are talking about
> something at a height of only 300-500 km, the brightness would
> drop off sharply if it were away from the horizon. (as sec(z)^2)
> You would have to be almost underneath it for it to get a
> significant amount of scattered light.
>

Well, I don't know the particulars about the space billboard proposal.
All I know about it comes from the press release of May 13 of the
American Astronomical Society (the professional society for US
astronomers).  This press release reads (all typos mine):

++++
The American Astronomical Society opposes the proposal of the Space Marketing
Company of Roswell, Georgia to use an earth orbiting spacecraft for
advertising purposes.  The effects of such a spacecraft will interfere with
the observational capabilities of most existing astronomical telescopes and the
many ultra-sensitive, multi-million dollar telescopes that are under
construction around the world.

The "Environmental Space Platform" as the proposal is called by the Space
Marketing corporation is anything but an environmentally friendly idea.
The company's proposal to launch into orbit in 1996 a mile-long mylar
billboard that would rival the size and brilliance of the full moon would
hamper earth-based astronomy, add to the growing pollution of the night
sky by light and even infringe on everyone's enjoyment of nature's sunsets.

Modern astronomy depends on darkness, radio silence and cold temperatures for
its observations of extremely distant, faint bodies throughout the universe.
Modern astronomical instruments are so sensitive that astronomers using
conventional telescopes cannot now make their most sensitive observations
at times when the moon is full or approaching full.  More and more radio
telescopes find the faint signals from the edges of the universe drowned out
by humankind's ever increasing use of TV channels and cellular phones.
The proposed billboard in space is one more infringement on the natural
beauty of the night sky.

The American Astronomical Society reaffirms that the splendor of the dark,
starry night sky is everyone's heritage and calls for careful consideration
of the possible adverse effects of this and any future proposals upon
this precious resource.
++++++++++
--
 Anita Cochran  uucp:  !utastro!anita
                arpa:  [e-mail]
                snail: Astronomy Dept., The Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712
                at&t:  [phone]

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

Date: 17 May 1993 18:12 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Mars Exploration Group Formed
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                          May 17, 1993
(Phone:  [phone])

RELEASE:  93-87

INTERNATIONAL MARS EXPLORATION GROUP FORMED

    NASA, the European Space Agency, the Russian Space Research Institute
(IKI), the Italian Space Agency , the German Space Agency  and the French
Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales have decided to form an International Mars
Exploration Working Group to produce an international strategy for the
exploration of Mars after the year 2000.

     This decision was made during a meeting in Wiesbaden, Germany, on
May 10, 1993.

    This marks the first time that the agencies have agreed to develop a
multilateral strategy on the exploration of Mars.  The working group also will
examine the possibilities for an International Mars Network mission.  In
addition, it will provide a forum for the coordination of future Mars
exploration missions.

    All interested space agencies that wish to participate will be invited
to join the working group.  The first meeting is scheduled in Graz, Austria,
in October 1993.

    During this meeting in Wiesbaden, the space agency representatives,
together with scientists from around the world, also unanimously expressed
their support for the Russian Mars 96 mission, an extension beyond 1996 for
the U.S. Mars Observer mission and a new start for the Mars Environmental
Survey Pathfinder mission in 1994.

-end-
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 17:58:23 GMT
From: "George F. Krumins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
(stuff deleted)
>>I've always felt that sending jet jockeys on an expedition and passing
>>them off as scientists was a bad, even fraudulent, idea...
(stuff deleted)
>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.)
>--
>SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

The way I understand it, when they were nearly to the surface of the
Moon, Armstrong had to take manual control in order to avoid crashing
into a big rock.  It was only because of his piloting expertise that
the landing didn't end in disaster.

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

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

Date: 17 May 1993 18:11:34 GMT
From: Don Van Drei <[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

    Its bad enough that only a few stars are visible from anywhere near
a large city now we get more propaganda from Madison Avenue every time we
want to get away from it all and just stare at the stars.  If this is what
is meant by commericalization of space then please just give me my
unemployment check and cancel the space budget entirely.

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Donald Van Drei            NASA Lewis Research Center
[e-mail]       [phone]
-----------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 93 13:16:13 PDT
From: Charlie Prael <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Michael Q. McHenry) writes:

> 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.
>

You might also want to talk to some of the memory/chip manufacturers
directly about the possibility of getting your hands on a flashram box.
It'll give you storage that's just as invulnerable to G as the board it's
mounted on.

Of course, it's still a little experimental....
<g>

------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Prael  - [e-mail]
Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 93 16:45:51 GMT
From: John De Armond <[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

[e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>1. Since when should the groundhogs and flatlanders have veto
>power over things that happen in space?

The panty-wetters think they should have power over anything they don't like.

>2. I'm boycotting any corporation that joins the boycott.
>Anyone with me?

yep.  Sure 'nuff.  This thing should be neat.

John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance cars?
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers?
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to
[e-mail]                        | [e-mail] for a free sample mag
Whadda ya call the big sore on the butt of the US?  A Hilliaroid.

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 17:58:19 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[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 <1t86ba$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug S. Caprette) writes:
>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.

Not really. But not only do _I_ not use ground-based visible light
data, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone I know who does. The
only case I can think of is some imagry of Jupiter's plasma torus
taken in a sodium line. I'm not even sure if that was ground-based:
it might have been from the KAO. Perhaps my department is atypical
and I shouldn't generalize, but the existing literature seems to
confirm my opinion (i.e. other observing techniques predominate.)

>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.

That was my initial point: Sagan may very well consider it "sacrilege",
but the central objection relates to emotional, not professional
issues (I don't think it's a matter of professional ethics either,
since it isn't widely agreed on nor central to the profession in
the same way that fradulent data is a violation of professional
ethics.)

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 20:04:04 GMT
From: "Eric S. Perlman" <[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 <1t86ba$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug S. Caprette) writes:
>>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.
>
>Not really. But not only do _I_ not use ground-based visible light
>data, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone I know who does. The
>only case I can think of is some imagry of Jupiter's plasma torus
>taken in a sodium line. I'm not even sure if that was ground-based:
>it might have been from the KAO. Perhaps my department is atypical
>and I shouldn't generalize, but the existing literature seems to
>confirm my opinion (i.e. other observing techniques predominate.)

Then you don't know many people - even here at CU.  I use it even though
I'm primarily a radio observer (was at both Kitt Peak and MMT in last 2
months).  I'm willing to bet that far more than the majority here also
use ground-based visible light observations.

Next...


--
"How sad to see/A model of decorum and tranquillity/become like any other sport
A battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee." -Tim Rice,"Chess"
     Eric S. Perlman                  <[e-mail]>
  Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado, Boulder

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 22:13:36 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[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 <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George F. Krumins) writes:
>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.

Apparently so, given the number of people getting all worked up about
something that will only be visible for short periods before and after
sunrise.  Hell, do the viewing in the middle of the night when it
isn't around (it isn't high enough to reflect then); that's the best
time, anyway!

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 22:30:00 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,misc.rural

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

>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?

No, your desires don't particularly count any more than anyone else's
unless you can give some better reasons than "because we don't like
it".  As for the night sky becoming "peppered" with them, it may be
news to you, but the Earth is *round*.  Unless such ads are going to
be self-illuminating (compute the power needed for *that*) or much,
much further away (and hence much, much larger, to get the visual
resolution required), you could "pepper" the sky with them and most of
them would be invisible to you most of the time.

Hey, if you don't like it that much, don't get up until after sunrise
and eat dinner around sunset.  You'll pretty much miss them entirely.

[Round ball illuminated from very far away, remember?]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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


          id ac19652; 17 May 93 20:25:00 EDT
To: [e-mail]
From: Robin Kenny <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 07:31:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: HP Australasian Response Centre (Melbourne)
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpcc05!hparc0.aus.hp.com!robink
Newsgroups: sci.space
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: News Adminstrator <[e-mail]>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.5]
Lines: 25
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

Henry Minsky ([e-mail]) wrote:


: Can anyone tell me what Neil Armstrong's real first words were after
: he stepped out of the apollo 11 lander? Someone told me that they were
: something like "The soil is sandy and loose, I can kick it around with
: my toe" or something like that.

: (I would be grateful if anyone could please send a copy of your reply
: via email to [e-mail], or post it if you think it is of general
: interest).

: Thanks very much!

: Henry

In a similar vein, would you agree that what Armstrong actually said
was: "That's one small step for (a) man, one damn leap for mankind!"
                                ^^^          ^^^^
Forever more it was reported as "big leap" - until many people ACTUALLY
REPORT HEARING it as "big" and not "damn". The (a) was more an intake
of breath than actually voiced.

Robin Kenny - who doesn't hear that as "big" and is curious who else doesn't...

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 586
------------------------------