Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO610.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Sat, 22 May 93 05:27:15
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #610
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 22 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 610

Today's Topics:
     Airship non-development (was, Over zealous shuttle critics)
                    Billsats and target audiences
             Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) (3 msgs)
                           Funding for NASA
                      Galileo Update - 05/21/93
                               Gov R&D
                      Magellan Update - 05/21/93
                   Mars Observer Update - 05/21/93
                Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
                           salvage in space
                 Salvage rules (was, murder in space)
                 Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
                 Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
                       SSF Termination *RUMOR*
                         Who owns Discovery?

    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: Fri, 21 May 1993 14:48:47 MST
From: "Richard Schroeppel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Airship non-development (was, Over zealous shuttle critics)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
  >After the R-100 flew to Canada and back, and the R-101 crashed
  >in France due to structural failure, the government declared that
  >Airships Were Obviously A Waste Of Time and therefore scrapped the
  >R-100.

Henry Spencer replies
> In truth, they did have *some* justification.  The R-100's maiden voyage,
  although successful, did uncover non-trivial bugs that needed fixing.
  And with the Great Depression just starting, and the government looking
  at plummeting tax revenues and rising expenses, they were probably happy
  to have an excuse to terminate funding for a speculative high-tech effort.

In "Slide Rule", Neville Shute says that airplanes were the right development
path for flying, because they were much faster than airships could be.  This
only became clear in the 1930s, as various developments in engines &
aerodynamics lead to faster planes.

Rich Schroeppel  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 17:38:08 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billsats and target audiences

Will Martin (on billsats) sez;
>Consider the target of advertising mass-market products, like, say,
>Pepsi: basically urban dwellers in developed countries with disposable
>income...

>These people DON'T LOOK AT THE NIGHT SKY! Sure, the astronomy and
>nature buffs on the net do. The professional astronomers do. But Joe
>Six-Pack and his teenage kids do NOT! Yuppie Jane and her kids do NOT!
>Those are the targets of ads, and this medium won't reach them. Such
>people spend 99.999% of the night-time under roofs -- house or apartment
>roofs, car roofs, mall roofs, etc. They're not looking up during the
>brief times they are going from their car to the store or into the
>house, etc., and so they'll only catch a miniscule glimpse of any such
>orbiting billboard when they look out the car window and it happens
>to be near the horizon and unobscured by buildings or streetlights.
>This isn't enough return to make the advertisers pay the cost of this
>venture.

>So don't worry about it. Even if it happens, it will be a money sink and
>a failure and it won't happen again.

In one sense, I'd agree with you.  But part of the reason people don't
look at the sky is becuase they think it's boring.  "Oh, I've seen the
moon lots of times."  It may be that a billsat would work precisely
because people will look up to see novelty.

How many people got turned on to astronomy by seeing something they'd
never seen before?  Saturn in a 'scope, aurora, eclipses, comets,
neighbors undressing in the next apartment (wait, that's interest
in *telescopes* :-).  But you know what I mean.

Hot-air ballons, strange clouds or weather, nuclear weapons, air shows
and maybe billsats, being novel, will get looked at, despite being
in the sky.  (BTW, don't look directly at nuclear explosions :-)

Of course, once they get turned on to the novelty of the sky, they may
become the people who would boycott a billsat project.

Also, in my experience running telescopes and answering questions at
our observatory on public viewing nights, Joe Six-Pack, Yuppie Jane
and their kids like looking up quite a bit.  Several of them bring
their own scopes, some show up on nights we are doing work, by
accident, and usually convince one of us to set up one of the small
scopes just for grins.  The questions they ask are often insightful
and challenging, the kids argue over whose turn it is to look next
(as if it's going away :-) and many of them without scopes are very
encouraged upon learning that a 6" scope can be had for very little
money compared to small, shaky, 'cheap' ones you see in department
stores.  We even bumped into a group of people one night, August
before last, that were all set up with snacks and blankets, watching
for meteors.  We've had over 300 people there, when the nights are
warm in the summer.  Even in the cold of a November evening, I've
seen 50 strangers show up, just to look at the sky.

In fact, is was public interest in Halley's Comet that made it possible
for our astronomy department to un-mothball the thing.  To this day,
it is being used for research (RR Lyrae's in globulars, mostly), teaching
undergrads, projects for grads, and showing whoever wants to drop by how
intersting the sky can be.

Another thing is that a billsat could be better at reaching the non-
urban population in a way that no other medium could, and they
are on so much closer terms with the changes in the sky that they'd
almost immediately notice something odd.

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 19:56:06 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert A. Schultz) writes:
>Around '83 or so I can also remember finding a mini-shuttle proposal...
>... The 747 would carry the orbiter to 30K+ feet and
>then a Shuttle Main Engine mounted in the tail of the *747* would kickin and
>run the 747 at some hugh angle of attack (45???) to some hugh altitude
>(100k ft???) and release the little orbiter...

Actually, the release altitude wasn't all that enormous, it was just higher
than the 747 could get with a very heavy load on its back.  (The little
orbiter sat on top of a substantial external tank.)  45,000ft?

I'm told that Boeing eventually decided to dispense with the SSME in the
tail, having discovered a better trick:  inject liquid hydrogen (I think
it was) into the bypass ducts of the regular 747 engines, and burn it
there.  The increase in thrust is tremendous, and apparently it doesn't
hurt the engines much if you only do it for 30 seconds per flight.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 May 93 21:38:55 GMT
From: Jeff Berton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (jeff findley) writes:
>
> First Stage, or Host Aircraft (modified SST)
> --------------------------------------------
> o Doesn't specify what SST would be modified, but it doesn't look off
>   the shelf

The High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT), currently in the conceptual development
phase by industry and NASA.  It could enter the market as early as 2005.

> o Six 73,500-lb. static-thrust jet engines with afterburners burning
>   111,000 lb of JP-4 (this engines does not yet exsist)
> o One Space Shuttle Main Engine burning 284,000 lb of cryogenic fuel
>   (I would guess that this would need to be refurbished after every flight,
>    like the Space Shuttle's main engines)

The HSCT will have four engines, and, without a hefty dose of afterburning,
won't produce 73500 pounds of SLS thrust.  The engine cycles currently under
consideration will be narrowed in a late-October downselect.  The actual
engine flying circa 2005 will be one whose cycle performance is most likely
compromised by FAR 36 noise regulations and some yet-to-be-established
NOX generation restriction, so it would not be a great choice for a TSTO.
Adapting an HSCT for TSTO would involve replacing the commercial versions
of these airbreathing engines and adding a couple more of them, adding
a SSME, modifying the fuselage to accept an internal orbiter, and most
likely many other major structural changes.  It's all possible, I suppose, but
it sounds like trying to hot-rod a minivan.
--
Jeff Berton, Aeropropulsion Analysis Office, NASA Lewis Research Center
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 22:19:15 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Great. Two-stages to orbit in 12 years, versus one stage to orbit
in four. (Both schedules use maximum optimism.)

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 18:43:29 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Funding for NASA

Chuck Rose sez;
>I remember when I was in high school, one of the other
>history classes had to balance the budget.  What was the
>first thing they cut: NASA.  Completely.  Not one dime.
>This attitude is so prevalent in Americans that it scares me.
>(Even in people I otherwise consider intelligent).

In our high school, one of the poli-sci classes had a similar project.

My girlfreind at the time not only balanced the budget, but increased
NASA's funding.  Pretty sad when high school students around the
country can balance the budget for a project, but the idiots that are
getting paid to do so can't.

BTW, I have to take issue with your implication that NASA is deserving
of funding when other things aren't.  You seem to be saying that
NASA is objectively good.  Though this is certainly a medium
resplendent with beleivers, NASA has no claim that I can see to Fed
money that any other group doesn't.  Or, to be more precise, I don't
think NASA has a claim on tax money, just like I don't think most
things that get funded have a claim on tax money.


While I agree on the benefits of space research and technology, I
disagree about the methods of obtaining it, i.e. gov funding for
hugely expensive, and largely wasteful projects, which seem to
be the rule, not the exception for gov funded projects, no matter
what the goal.

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

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

Date: 21 May 93 20:24:23 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 05/21/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                                   GALILEO
                        MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                                 POST-LAUNCH
                             May 14 - 20, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On May 17, cruise science Memory Readouts (MROs) were performed for the
Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer (EUV), Dust Detector (DDS), and Magnetometer
(MAG) instruments.  Preliminary analysis indicates the data was received
properly.

2.  On May 17, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to
264 hours, its planned value for this mission phase.

3.  During the period from May 19 to May 21, a navigation cycle was performed.
This navigation cycle is providing near-continuous acquisition of two-way
doppler and ranging data during four consecutive passes of the spacecraft over
DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter antenna), DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna), DSS-43
(Canberra 70 meter antenna), and then back to DSS-63.

4.  On May 19, in preparation for repositioning the Radio Relay Antenna (RRA),
real-time commands were sent to turn the Two-Way Noncoherent (TWNC) on for the
activity.  Commands were then sent to update the variable telemetry packets.
Commands were then sent to slew the RRA from about 18.5 degrees from stow to
approximately 5 degrees from stow.  The slew executed nominally.  Preliminary
analysis indicates the RRA is between 5.5 and 7.0 degrees from stow.  After
completion of the slew, real-time commands were sent to reconfigure back to the
original spacecraft configuration.  Commands were also sent to restore a
System Fault Protection (SFP) table to its pre-RRA potentiometer calibration
activity state.

5.  The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements have not exhibited significant change
(greater than 25 DN) throughout this period.  The AC measurement reads 19 DN
(4.3 volts).  The DC measurement reads 150 DN (17.7 volts).  These
measurements are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special
anomaly team.

6.  The Spacecraft status as of May 20, 1993, is as follows:

       a)  System Power Margin -  72 watts
       b)  Spin Configuration - Dual-Spin
       c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 3.15rpm/Star Scanner
       d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 24 degrees
           off-sun (lagging) and 3 degrees off-earth (leading)
       e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 40bps(coded)/LGA-1
       f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
           acceptable range
       g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
       h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the PWS,
           EUV, UVS, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
       i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
           acceptable range
       j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 264 hours
           Time To Initiation - 240 hours


UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:

1.  The EJ-2 (Earth-Jupiter #2) Final Profile Design was approved by the
Project on May 20, 1993.  This sequence covers spacecraft activities from
July 6, 1993 to August 27, 1993 and includes the IDA optical navigation
images and the IDA approach Trajectory Correction Maneuvers (TCMs) Nos. 20
and 21.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, May 20, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         245,899,200 km (1.64 AU)
    Distance from Sun           323,869,100 km (2.17 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed          83,400 km per hour
    Distance from Jupiter       492,670,100 km
    Round Trip Light Time       27 minutes, 26 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of May 20, 1993, a total of 70361 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 65250 were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5111 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past week, 100 real time commands were transmitted; 98 were initiated
in the sequence design process and 2 initiated in the real-time command
process.  Major command activities included commands to reset the command loss
timer, turn the TWNC on and off, reposition the RRA, and update a SFP table.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 18:35:34 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gov R&D

Timothy J Brent writes:
>>And guess what.  It's paid for by taxes.  Now, your deeply ingrained
>>Republican indoctrination should have set off bells at that.  If your
>>going to tax people why not spend more on developing marketable products.

Doug Mahoney replies;
>It should not be the government's role to develop marketable products.  The
>Commies tried that and they came out with medocre solutions.

While I agree on your point, Doug, I'd like to add that it also isn't
the governemnt's job to develop unmarketable products, since doing so
results in mediocre non-solutions.

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

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

Date: 21 May 1993 20:19 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 05/21/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                             May 21, 1993

1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally as the
mission is just four days from the end of Cycle-4 and the start of the
Transition Experiment (TEX).

2.  The Magellan Project Quarterly Review was held on Monday.

3.  Meetings of the Science Working Groups and the Project Science
Group were held on Monday and Tuesday.

4.  A follow-up TEX Operations Simulation was conducted on May 19th.


Magellan Significant Events for Next Week

1.  Cycle-4 will end and the Transition Experiment (TEX) will begin
Tuesday at 10:31 AM PDT with Orbit Trim Maneuver #3.  OTM-3 will lower
periapsis to a target altitude of 149.4 km.

2.  During the next four days a series of corridor-adjusting OTMs
will lower Magellan into the exact level of the atmosphere for
aerobraking.

3.  A Magellan Press Conference at NASA Headquarters will be
broadcast on NASA Select on Wednesday, March 26th, starting at 10:00
AM PST.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 21 May 93 20:26:07 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 05/21/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                         MARS OBSERER STATUS REPORT
                               May 21, 1993
                               11:00 AM PDT

The spacecraft is stable in Array Normal Spin. Communication is via the
High Gain Antenna; uplink at 125 bps, downlink is at the 4 kbps Science
and Engineering data rate.  Indications are that all spacecraft subsystems
are performing well.

The Flight Team has been carefully monitoring Attitude Control subsystem
performance since return to ANS on Monday evening.  The Gyro bias
estimates showed some instability Wednesday evening, apparently in
conjunction with nearly simultaneous Reaction Wheel Assembly zero
crossing and STAREX misidentified star counter resets.  AACS (Attitude and
Articulation Control Subsystem) engineers feel that there is a good possibility
that a star was erroneously accepted and is analyzing the situation.  It is
generally felt that this type of event would have been sufficient to cause the
spacecraft to lose inertial reference prior to the star processing software fix
made Monday evening.

The telemetry transition from 2kbps Engineering to 4kbps Science and
Engineering Mission mode telemetry yesterday was normal, indicating that
the Payload Data System/Engineering Data Formatter interface is
operating properly.

The Payload Data System, Gamma Ray Spectrometer, and
Magnetometer/Electron Reflectometer were powered on yesterday.
Telemetry indicates that they are performing well.

The Verification Test Laboratory (VTL) has been successful in replicating
the events leading up to the April 29 occurrence of Contingency Mode
Entry.  Recreation of the problem in a test environment allows teams the
opportunity to confirm that the star processing software fix uplinked
earlier this week resolves the problems which had been causing recurring
fault protection activation.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 22:18:09 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tdnfd$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sean Barrett) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martin Gemmel) writes:
>>Anselm Lingnau ([e-mail]) writes:
>>
>>} Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an
>>} abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value?
>>
>>No, because HAL is still on board.
>
>Nonsense.  Only a person (or a corporation) can own something.

Is HAL a person? How is "person" defined?

I find myself wondering "Would it be illegal to kill an extraterrestrial?"

If murder is only a crime when you kill a person, then murdering ET, or
enslaving him, would seem to be legal. Has this topic been addressed by
space law or treaty?

(This is genuine curiousity)

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

Date: 21 May 93 21:02:14 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: salvage in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Carter) writes:
>|> >Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an
>|> >abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value?
>|>
>|> As I recall, space law differs from sea law in this area...
>|> ...it will probably end up being changed...
>
>I wouldn't want anyone salvaging my comsat or trying to classify my
>mothballed construction shack as a derelict. How do we distinguish?

The problem is not new.  Real-life salvage operators don't want to be
charged with theft, so they want to see either (a) a clear contract
with the legitimate owners, or (b) strong evidence that the object in
question has been abandoned.

Transpose the problem to the sea for useful analogies, although there
are some new complications because unmanned operation isn't all that
common at sea.

Your comsat becomes salvage when you file an insurance claim for its
loss.  It's probably not worth salvaging unless someone is going to
legally pay for it anyway, so that will be the point where salvage
becomes interesting.

As for your construction shack... do you accept responsibility if it
runs into somebody's experimental satellite?  If you do (this being
the presumption if you don't say anything), it's yours.  If you renounce
responsibility for it, it's a derelict.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 14:38:52 MST
From: "Richard Schroeppel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Salvage rules (was, murder in space)

>   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Anselm Lingnau) writes:
    >> In 2010, A. C. Clarke has the Russians prohibited from boarding Discovery
    >> on the grounds of it being US government property.
    >
    >Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an
    >abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value?

Henry Spencer responds
>   As I recall, space law differs from sea law in this area.  The country
    that launches it, owns it until reentry or doomsday.

    This is a stupid approach, and it will probably end up being changed
    eventually (especially with the USSR no longer around as the champion
    of state-owned everything), but right now it's still in effect.

Unoccupied != Abandoned

It's perfectly reasonable to ship cargo in space without an accompanying
person; there needn't even be an active transponder aboard.  Defining
when something becomes abandoned becomes tricky -- maybe in Hal's case,
"irrevocable computer malfunction" would be the appropriate criterion.
But if Hubble fell silent due to a computer glitch, we'd go fix it, so
unexpected radio silence isn't the whole story.

Would current law of the sea prevent me from sending an unoccupied,
automated cargo ship from Los Angeles to Tokyo, assuming I hired pilots
for the departure and approach?

Rich Schroeppel  [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 May 93 19:36:55 GMT
From: Scott Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Smith) writes:
>
>*know* that was faked.  I'm curious, though.  Have you computed the
>'body rate' required of the satellite to see if it's so outrageous, or

No, I didn't actually compute, experience with working with orbits and
satellites suggested it.  I have worked on command generators for
certian spacecrafts that commanded different attitudes for the various
earth pointing activities.

>did you just take the linear velocity (high) and say, "Wow, that's a
>really big number -- it can't do that!"
>
>site in view has dropped significantly.
>
>The conclusion seems obvious.  If you can do single images of a quite
>specific spot on the surface of the Earth, you can also do 30 frames
>per second imaging.
>
>[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
I think that a slew rate of 15 deg/sec is high, but it is not impossible
to get if one is willing to pay for it.  I think the technical difficulties
are not impossible, but I still don't see a need for it, as one poster
said, the time is spent in analyzing the still photos and one could get
caught in "we can't invade until 2:00pm because thats when the satellite
will be able to film it" etc.

I think the whole point is that Patriot Games was a movie, any relation
to real life is purely a figment of someones imagination.
--
Scott Smith
[e-mail]

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

Date: 21 May 93 22:02:07 GMT
From: OPIRG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

In article <1tj4h5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>
>In a previous article, [e-mail] (OPIRG) says:
>
>>In article <1tdpk5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>>>
>>>On the contrary, the luddite communist technophobes ruled the roost for
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>almost three-quarters of a century in the former Soviet Union, and
>>>turned their beautiful country into a toilet.
>>
>>You mean the people who brought us Sputnik?
>
>Yes.  However, the "luddite communist technophobes" phrase was Victor
>Yodaiken's characterization of them; I wasn't interested in taking issue
>with his view.  If you think it's not an accurate description, you
>should argue the point with Victor and decide exactly what you think
>they _should_ be called, and we can take it from there.

I've checked the thread, and emailed Victor about this. You appear to
be the first to use the phrase "luddite communist technophobes".

Provided that you're aware that the Sovs also miss-used tech to the
detriment of our environment, this seems to be a non-issue. The Sovs
*loved* tech, to the point of using it without thinking. The Sovs'
problem was that the USSR govt was in a conflict of interest re legal
protection of the environment - the govt *was* the one doing the polluting.

>>>  Billowing smokestacks are symbolic of their failure, not our success.
>>
>>Ever been to Detroit?
>
>Yes.  Ever been to Magnitogorsk?  No?  Me neither.  You couldn't pay me
>enough to go there for any reason.

Me either. If I want to see "billowing smokestacks", I can see plenty
in North America.

>Yeltsin admits that pollution has rendered 15% of the Soviet Union's
>enormous land mass unfit for human habitation.  Take a look at the
>4/13/92 issue of _U.S. News and World Report_ to see why "toilet" is a
>charitable description of the situation in Russia.

The Russians have big problems; much bigger than ours. But so what?
That doesn't make our own problems any smaller.

>  I'd rather live in Detroit than _anywhere_ in Russia.
>
>Jeff Cook                            [e-mail]

A bit of an overstatement. Just as most of Michigan is much nicer than
Detroit, I gather much of Russia is much nicer than its industrial
wastelands. A friend of mine visited Kiev a few months ago; he said it
was quite nice.

Reid Cooper

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

Date: 21 May 1993 16:14 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Termination *RUMOR*
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes...
>There's a real fishey rumor floating around that a termination notice has
>been sent to the prime SSF contractors.......
>
>
>To those out there who may know...there's gotta be someone on the net with
>enough connections.....
>
>
>Help me dispel or confirm the rumor please!

I believe it's an easy rumor to squash. It's my understanding that no
change can be made to the Space Station Freedom without congressional
approval. So if, for example, the President were to select Option "C"
from the redesign team, along with a management/contract structure
that would require termination of the existing contracts, then
NASA cannot begin to implement this Presidential decision without
Congressional action. This means the current Space Station Freedom
organization will be functioning for quite some time, regardless
of the outcome of the redesign activities.

As there have been no reports of Congressional action to change the
existing SSF contracts (let alone terminate them), I conclude
the rumor must be false.

Also, don't you think it would be a just a little peculiar for
NASA to terminate any contracts *now*, just 3 weeks before
NASA presents their recommendation to the Dr. Vest Advisory
Panel (scheduled for June 7), who then presents his conclusions
to the White House on June 10, who then picks the option they
want to support?

DM

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 18:15:57 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who owns Discovery?

Sorry about the lost attributions.  You know who you are :-)

[can discovery be taken as salvage ?]

>>>>No, because HAL is still on board.

>>>Nonsense.  Only a person (or a corporation) can own something.

>>       Hmmm....anyone asked HAL what he thinks? Hey, Bill, isn't HAL
>>       a year old or so now? :-) Probably still waiting for the ethernet
>>       'nection to hook him into the net so he can read comp.ai and/or mail

>Yes, he is over a year old, but doesn't have a Usenet connection yet.
>Probably some red tape within UofI at UC is holding it up.

>As for corporations, in the SF novels of Alexis Gilliland, AIs are
>incorporated so they can be treated as people for legal purposes.

I would agree with this, in the context of our own law.  The basics
of property law are premised on our nature as sentient beings, not
tool-users, primates, or whatever.  Sentience is the issue in the case
sentient rights (as opposed to human rights :-) for dolphins and whales,
too.  If they could talk the way HAL did, the question could be solved,
perhaps after a dolphin-style turing test.

BTW, who can I talk to about getting HAL's E-mail address when he (it?)
is hooked up? :-)

Oh, yeah, didn't they shut HAL off?  Hard to be sentient when your
power is cut. :-)

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

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


    id AA25448; Fri, 21 May 93 16:39:48 EDT
Received: from CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa00746; 21 May 93 17:35:38 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!skates.gsfc.nasa.gov!mudpuppy!xrcjd
From: "Charles J. Divine" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSF Termination *RUMOR*
Date: 21 May 1993 19:13:20 GMT
Organization: NASA/GSFC Greenbelt Maryland
Lines: 18
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <1tj9kg$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andy Cohen) writes:
>There's a real fishey rumor floating around that a termination notice has
>been sent to the prime SSF contractors.......
>
>
>To those out there who may know...there's gotta be someone on the net with
>enough connections.....

I don't have very much in the way of connections, but I did read in
the Washington Post this morning that George Brown currently favors
only the somewhat reduced version of station that has been proposed
(since it seems that the earlier version won't be approved).  He
expressed the view that the smaller version of Freedom has only a 50%
chance of winning approval.  Other versions were put at 10% chance.


--
Chuck Divine

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 610
------------------------------