Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO592.TXT

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 93 05:27:41
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #592
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 19 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 592

Today's Topics:
                   * lunar eclipse of june 4 1993 *
                    Draft of SSTO report language
 Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
           Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
                  Mars Observer Update #2 - 05/18/93
                           murder in space
                       Near Miss Asteroids (Q)
             Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
          Oh yeah? Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
                             SDIO kaput!
      Space junk (was: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.)
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs)
               Vandalizing the sky-something is moving
    Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program) (2 msgs)
               Why Government?  Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    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: 18 May 1993 21:58:56 GMT
From: David Ray <[e-mail]>
Subject: * lunar eclipse of june 4 1993 *
Newsgroups: sci.space

>The penumbra starts at 10h16 TU -> Moon's height = 24 degrees at Santa Barbara

For the time zone impaired, what  does this translate to in Pacific
Daylight Time (the time on the clock in California)?

-Dave
--
| David Ray                Space Sciences Lab, UCB   |
| [e-mail]           [phone] w   |
| [e-mail]  [phone] h   |

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 23:39:40 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft of SSTO report language
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1tb1gl$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Ooops.  I think DC-Y is now DC-X2.

Nope. The DC-X2 would have been much smaller.

BTW, it is now the SX-2. I have a brief paper on this written by the
SDIO people which I will post soon (after I get it typed in).

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------29 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 20:36:19 GMT
Lines: 67
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

Voicing my frustration at yet another redesign, I said:
: >If we had just shut up and bent metal,
: >we'd have a Space Station right now instead of the ninth redesign.

Allen W. Sherzer ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Avation Week, November 12, 1990, page 26:

:    Johnson space center engineers said the current station concept,
:    a design that has evolved since 1984 is flawed in many respects
:    and would have required a significant reworking no matter what
:    the program budgets.

:    "the original station deisign proved to be essentially broken from
:    the start", one engineer in Houston said.

:    The new design proposals where briefed last week to the NASA
:    astronaut corps. Many astronaust have the view that "proper
:    integration of the current design has been totally lacking."

: From 1984 to 1990 NASA was spending billions designing a station which
: couldn't be built. All during this time many on the outside where saying
: the same thing. Yet NASA fought the 1990 redesign tooth and nail saying
: it wasn't. We still have Dennis Wingo insisting everything was just fine
: in 1990 except for the nasty Congress.

: The problem isn't criticism, the problem is a close-minded attitude
: toward it.

Now THAT's a good response.  Quoting AvWeek is always good for a few
points.  I certainly don't fault informed, well-intentioned criticism
of the Space Station Freedom Program.  But just saying, "It's a mess,
and it needs to be cleaned up," doesn't help the Program.  I have a lot
of respect for the Astronauts, but saying that "proper integration of
the current design has been totally lacking," (which is true) is
NASA-ese for "It's a mess, and it needs to be cleaned up."  What's
needed is not more criticism of what's wrong, but ideas for how to fix
it under the constraints we have, or ways to remove those constraints.

The constraints we work under are the subject of another posting.

Most of the troubles with the SSFP are managerial, not technical, yet
the redesign efforts have all been aimed at technical solutions to
management problems.  I certainly agree with the Astronauts; we need
integration.  But we lack the leadership to do it correctly.  Do you
have any ideas where we can get a few good leaders?

I said:
: >If you don't like the manned space program or the way it's being run,
: >don't just sit there and complain.  Get down here to Houston and put
: >your career where your mouth is.

Allen replied:
: With all due respect, I believe I am doing far more to fix it up
: here in Michigan than I could in Houston.

I stick by my guns, here.  Houston is where the action is.  For now.
Next year, if DC-X works, White Sands may be the place to be.

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

     Aldrin: "Contact light.  Okay, engine stop.  ACA out of detent."
     Armstrong: "Got it."
     Aldrin: "Mode controls, both auto.  Descent engine command override,
       off.  Engine arm off...."
     CAPCOM: "We copy you down, Eagle."
     Armstrong: "Houston, Tranquility Base here.  The Eagle has landed."

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

Date: 18 May 1993 22:24 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>>>... first-of-its-kind "aerobraking" maneuver...
>>>Well, second-of-its-kind, since Hiten did it last year.  (Note how, later
>>>in the press release, they're careful to say that it's never been used
>>>before on a *NASA* mission?)
>>
>>You're thinking of the Earth maneuvers Hiten did two years ago.   I
>>don't think this qualifies as an aerobraking maneuver because the closest
>>Hiten got to Earth during these maneuvers was something like 20,000 miles.
>
>No, I'm thinking of the aerobraking maneuver it did on 12 March 1991,
>perigee altitude 126km, lowering its apogee about 1000km.  It wasn't
>what you'd call a *big* aerobraking maneuver -- the dramatic drop in
>apogee was thanks to a highly elliptical orbit, strongly affected by
>even a small loss of velocity -- but aerobraking it was.

OK, I stand corrected.  I am kind of surprised though that the press release
didn't mention Pioneer Venus.  It made a number of passes through the
Venus' atmosphere before burning up, though under different conditions:
out of fuel and trying to stay alive.  Magellan's aerobraking will be
more controlled.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 18 May 1993 22:12 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update #2 - 05/18/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                  MARS OBSERVER MISSION STATUS
                          May 18, 1993

     The Mars Observer spacecraft was returned to normal cruise
mode at about 8:15 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on Monday, May 17,
eight days after the spacecraft automatically switched to a self-
protective mode on Sunday, May 9.  While recovery from
contingency mode had been possible last week, the flight team
took the opportunity to more thoroughly analyze memory readouts
of the incident and develop a software fix that would improve the
spacecraft's attitude reference performance.

     The software fix was sent at about 5:20 p.m. PDT Monday.
The fix involved a relatively minor parameter change to celestial
body sensing software.  Using the upgraded flight software, the
spacecraft should be able to better identify its orientation in
space and prevent the switch-over to contingency mode that has
been occurring recently.

     Contingency mode causes the spacecraft to automatically
point at the sun.  While in that orientation, the solar array
also faces directly at the sun and is subject to the effects of
the solar wind.  Had a much longer period of time elapsed,
perhaps four to five times longer than that experienced during
this contingency mode incident, the spacecraft's trajectory could
have been affected.  The navigation team, however, reported
Monday that the spacecraft was still on course for arrival at
Mars on Aug. 24, 1993.  At this time, the fourth trajectory
correction maneuver, which was planned as a backup maneuver to
correct any errors in the final trajectory to Mars, does not
appear to be necessary.

     All spacecraft subsystems are operating well.  The science
payload will be powered on now that the spacecraft has been
restored to normal cruise mode.  Two-way communication also has
been reestablished using the high-gain antenna.

     Today the spacecraft is about 19 million kilometers (11
million miles) from Mars and 232 million kilometers (144 million
miles) from Earth, traveling at a velocity of about 7,200
kilometers per hour (4,300 miles per hour) with respect to Mars.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 18:47:15 GMT
From: Marvin Batty <[e-mail]>
Subject: murder in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Achurist) writes:
>
>If you murdered someone in space, whose juristiction is it. i.e who
>will prosecute you for it? The boundaries of individual countries
>stop in the upper atmosphere so what happens???
>
>
>Akurist.

I presume that if the murder took place aborad a craft or station, the
country that owned the vessel would have juresdiction over the killer.
In 2010, A. C. Clarke has the Russians prohibited from boarding Discovery
on the grounds of it being US government property. Presumably, the government
would have juresdiction over all the nationals entering into that vessel.
Another question is not "who has juresdiction?" but "who can get the thief?"

Given the absence of a permanent presence in space the only notions of
policing in space are sci-fi ones. I recommend the BBC production
"Star Cops" as an example of the problems such an international body would
have.


--
****************************************************************************
                  Marvin Batty - [e-mail]
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 19:59:30 GMT
From: Martin Connors <[e-mail]>
Subject: Near Miss Asteroids (Q)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (THE ARTSTONE
COLLECTIVE) writes:
> I am interested in Asteroids that have passed close to the Earth.
>
>     1. When have these occured in modern times ?
- Look in the articles which follow....
>     2. Where might I find articles ?

1. Spratt, C. E.      J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Can., 81, 8-18 (1987).

 Chris Spratt has written several interesting asteroid reviews in this
Canadian journal. This one is on Apollo objects which count for most NEAs.

2. Binzel, R., S. Xu, S. J. Bus, & E. Bowell       Science, 257, 779-782
(1992).

 'The Origin of NEAs' - good source of recent references

3. Wisdom, J.   Nature, 315, 731-733 (1985).

 The mechanism of how material gets from the asteroid belt to Earth.

5. Ostro, S. J.    Bull. Am. astr. Soc., 24, 934 (1992).

 Abstract about radar imaging possibilities for Toutatis (later done
during near pass on Dec. 8 1992)

8. Greenberg, R. & Nolan, M. C. in Asteroids II (eds. Binzel, R. P.,
Gehrels, T., & Matthews, M. S.) 778-804 (U. of Arizona Press, Tucson,
1989)

 Asteroids II is a valuable all-round reference

10. Milani, A., M. Carpino, G. Hahn, & M. Nobili       Icarus, 78, 212-269
(1989).

 Project Spaceguard - classifies all types of orbital behaviour.

There have been a number of NEA articles in Sky & Tel., Astronomy, but I
don't have a list in e-form.

Try to get (perhaps from JPL)
The Spaceguard Survey, Report of the NASA International Near-Earth-Object
Detection Workshop, by David Morrison, Jan. 25, 1992

also note:
Near miss of the Earth by a small asteroid, by Scotti, Rabinowitz,
Marsden, Nature v354, p 287 (28 Nov 1991)

and Asteroid and Comet orbits using radar data, Astronomical Journal,
v103,
p303, which gives a list of upcoming near encounters

I see I got carried away but hopefully the list will be useful
--
Martin Connors         |
Space Research         | [e-mail]  [phone]
University of Alberta  |

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 17:16:25 GMT
From: Loren Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

    He did say "a".  We didn't hear it because the suit had a voice-triggered
    transmitter.  The "a" wasn't crisp enough or loud enough to turn it on.
    You can hear the transmitter cut in & out if you listen carefully to
    the recording.  They didn't have NiMH batteries in those days...


    Loren Carpenter
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 22:42:58 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oh yeah? Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

[e-mail] (Eugene N. Miya) writes:

>Cross-posting to a few news groups eh fellows?

>Would you let another man sleep with your wife for a million dollars?

What a (theoretical) wife would do would be her business.

>    Are you one of those guys who doesn't put the seat down?
>    Are you one of those guys who says, "Bless you," when she sneezes?

>Your mother for sale as well?

I couldn't. She, along with my Dad and I owe too much due to the
oilfield service company we own. We owe too much to the IRS, besides
having nearly gone out of business a dozen or two times in the
past eight years.

>Greed good?

Besides that, we have this asshole administration that's deceided to
obliterate what's left of the oilfield (as if we made money instead
of losing it) as if we were the benificiaries of the Reagan years
that made $ 228,000.00 or above yearly...

>Would you "sell" you country out for a billion dollars?

My country is selling out my industry for a lot less than that...
I guess I'll go on welfare when it finally goes under.

>    Are you willing to spend a billion to trisect angles with just
>    straight edge and compass?

>Just asking.
>I side with the guy from Lewis.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 22:31:33 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SDIO kaput!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Todd Johnson) writes:

>Actually, say "Nixon."  Say it now, and say it forever.  He was the
>one who squashed the last Apollo missions to the Moon (18 thru 21), he
>was the one who switched to Skylab and he was the one who kept a war
>chewing up $300 million a day.  After he gave his little speech to the
>astronauts on the Moon, he lost any interest in a program that was
>started by a pair of stinking Liberals.

>Kennedy was the one who said "Let's go to the Moon."  LBJ was the one
>who kept the money coming to see it through.  (My recollection has
>them both as Liberals).

>Nixon was the one who killed it.

Actually, LBJ did start Vietnam; Nixon eventually ended it...

(Not that I like Nixon...)

LBJ did plan for the Vietnam war to continue into Nixon's
era; I've heard some people talking about how there was a
meeting in '66 where LBJ and his economic advisors talked
about the war in SE Asia limiting funds for ventures elsewhere,
so Apollo was capped at the 19th mission or something like
that.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 93 22:34:50 GMT
From: Tom Tilley <leads15!tilley>
Subject: Space junk (was: 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

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>[e-mail] (OPIRG) writes:
>
>>...  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. 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.
>
>>Reid Cooper
>
>Look, people, it's just a picture. It's not an abomination like the one
>everyone and their brother is helping perpetrate in the former Yugoslavia
>where the holocaust is being ressurected.  ...

>... So lay off on the "visual sacrelige" stuff, at least until you've
>tried living on a planet like Earth for a while, instead of the
>fantasyland you've imagined where the worst thing people have to
>think about (and not everyone hates it!) is an orbiting billboard,
>visible only shortly before or after twilight...

I don't understand why the presense of the abomination of a holocaust in
Yugoslavia makes space billboards a good idea.  I also don't understand
why I cannot simultaneously oppose holocaust in the former Yugoslavia and
space billboards.

I agree with the sentiment that one should be able to look into the night
sky and not see billboards.  Here, of course, I cannot see anything in the
night sky because of the intense light pollution, but when I backpack, or
travel to Tahoe to ski, I do not want the night sky subjecting me to pleas
to buy brand X over brand Y.

I would join in any effort to boycott companies that advertise on a space
billboard.

Tom.
#--------------------------------------------------#
| Tom Tilley                                       |
| Internet : [e-mail]   |

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 93 14:21:34 EDT
From: Jurkat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.headlines,misc.invest,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,talk.environment,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kyle Jones) writes:
>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.
>
Do you really think there'll be only one advertiser or just one billboard?
Also advertisers like to outdo one another:  i.e. bigger and brighter
billboards, with animation, blinking attention grabbing lights, billboards
shaped like the product, several billboard to show a special effect, etc.
It'll make Los Vegas look down right homey in comparison.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 93 14:47:04 EDT
From: Jurkat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.headlines,misc.invest,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,talk.environment,talk.politics.space

In article <1t9b8j$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>
>In a previous article, [e-mail] (Kyle Jones) says:
>
>>I was curious how much of an eyesore this proposed flying
>>billboard would be so I did some rough calculations...
>>
>>...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's even better than that.  In order to be seen from the United States
>(presumably the main target for advertising) the orbit would have to be
>highly inclined, with the northernmost point somewhere near the sunset
>terminator of the Earth.  Thus it would be in the sky _only_ during
>falling twilight when the sky is still too bright to do any useful
>astronomical work.  No need for concern about this thing interrupting
>deep-sky observations:  Whenever the sky is dark enough for it to be a
>factor, the thing will be below the horizon.
>
>For the folks "down under" it's the same story, except the object would
>be in the sky only during morning twilight.  Observatories nearer the
>equator would not be affected by any "light pollution" from the object,
>because the thing would be in darkness (or broad daylight) when it
>passes over.  It would be _extremely_ unlikely that the object would
>pass through any particular field of view at any particular time, given
>its small size.  All of the extremely rare occurrences when this could
>happen would be quite predictable--no worse than any existing
>satellites.
>
>Even better, if the orbit was aligned with the terminator in a nearly
>circumpolar orbit, the object would be continually bathed in sunlight,
>visible in twilight around the world (which would make the advertisers
>happy) and would _never_ be in the sky after dark (keeping the
>astronomers and horny starry-eyed lovers happy.)
>
>This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky
>(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant
>impact on astronomical observations.  I suspect there must be some kind
>of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this,
>people are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would
>so vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism.
>
>A whole lot of people advocate space development and exploration,
>including Carl Sagan.  Their schemes often include huge orbiting space
>stations and vehicles.  These structures would _dwarf_ this little
>billboard, but you don't hear Sagan referring to the kinds of gigantic
>interstellar spaceships appearing on his _Cosmos_ television show as an
>"abomination".  How is mankind supposed to make use of space if every
>large structure going up there is to be condemned for destroying the
>pristine sanctity of heaven?
>
>Jeff Cook                            [e-mail]

What makes you think that mirrors is all they'll use.  Seems to me an
advertiser wouldn't want to waste the night and just stick in a nuclear
battery to power some way-cool visual eye-catching super-duper special
effects.  Isn't that how most satelites are powered.  Even solar batteries
could work for the el-cheepo advertisers.  All right you can still use
the mirrors to focus your ad to different sections of the city or whatever.
The yuppies get an ad for "Volvos" and the ghetto can get an ad for "Spam".
Give these advertisers an "inch" for twighlight ads and soon the entire
sky will be filled with all kinds of bombarding annoying junk.

s

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 22:38:25 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky-something is moving
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Enzo Liguori) writes:

>from What's new 14 May 1993, in sci.physics:

>>2. COALITION IS FORMED TO OPPOSE EARTH-ORBITING BILLBOARDS.  No
>>sooner do you get rid of Brilliant Pebbles than someone comes up
>>with an idea to clutter space with advertising.  Environmental,
>>scientific, and consumer organizations joined forces this week to
>>oppose a plan by Space Marketing, Inc. of Roswell, GA, to launch
>>a mile-long inflatable billboard.  Mike Lawson of Space Marketing
>>estimates that it would be seen by five times as many people as
>>the Super Bowl.  Lawson says he will hang ozone monitors on the
>>billboard, which he calls the "Environmental Space Platform."
>>Space marketing is working with engineers from the University of
>>Colorado and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  Hmmm. LLNL
>>was also involved in Brilliant Pebbles and the inflatable space
>>station (a.k.a. "the flying condom").  The American Astronomical
>>Society warns that the space billboard would hamper Earth-based
>>astronomy, and Alice Harding, chair of the APS Division of
>>Astrophysics, points out that it would also set a dangerous
>>precedent for the unregulated commercialism of outer space.


I knew the real reason they were against it wasn't because
of advertising per se but the idea that commercial ventures
have just as much rights to outer space as everyone else...

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

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

Date: 18 May 93 17:43:40 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tb0uo$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> Von Brauns  original plan was to have the capsule fully automatic,
> with the occupants, performing a few bio experiments.

Did Wernher von Braun actually have anything to do with the Mercury
program, or did pat just see *The Right Stuff* too many times? (A
lousy way to get your history, by the way...)

"Do you know the asteroids, Mr.Kemp?...    Bill Higgins
Hundreds of thousands of them.  All
wandering around the Sun in strange        Fermilab
orbits.  Some never named, never
charted.  The orphans of the Solar         [e-mail]
System, Mr. Kemp."
                                           [e-mail]
"And you want to become a father."
  --*Moon Zero Two*                        SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 18 May 1993 17:03:55 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) wrote:
>Did Wernher von Braun actually have anything to do with the Mercury
>program, or did pat just see *The Right Stuff* too many times? (A
>lousy way to get your history, by the way...)


If I am not mistaken, the US Army had employed Dr. Von Braun's team
at Huntsville in order to develop the Redstone rocket.  Apollo-Saturn was the
decendant of those original Redstone rockets.

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

Date: 18 May 1993 17:14:29 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government?  Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Robert Ayers) writes:
>  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."

To bad that you feel this way.  I hope that you are not suggesting to
divorce government from research and development of critical technologies
which impact every day life.  As a minority person who is critical of
shuttle, you must accept the majority's view that it is a worthwhile
program worthy of continued funding.

You should also not criticize the Food and Drug Administration for electing
to perform high levels of testing before allowing the wide spread use
of centoxin.  Do you know what thalidomide is?

In a democratic nation as ours, we need to put down our own views and
accept the majority's view at times, even if we believe them totally incorrect.

Shuttle is like penicillin.  It was extremely difficult to isolate and
extremely expensive.  Its original use was very limited.  But demand for
the drug caused mass production.  It is a drug which must be used carefully,
or side effects will occur.  Whether or not shuttles (or any following
vehicle) gets mass produced will be driven by the market.

This market should be identified.  Where is the money to support multi-
million dollar vehicles in space?

ken

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 592
------------------------------