home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Space & Astronomy
/
Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso
/
mac
/
TEXT_ZIP
/
spacedig
/
V15_2
/
V15NO273.ZIP
/
V15NO273
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1993-07-13
|
35KB
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 17:01:21
From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Space Digest V15 #273
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk
Space Digest Sat, 3 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 273
Today's Topics:
"Hearing" meteors with your FM radio?
0mm
another sad anniversary
Australian space industries....
Clinto and Space Funding (3 msgs)
Help! Need bitmaps (or good photographs) of planets viewed from earth
Laser Space Mirror
Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Military Funding
NASA Daily News for 09/30/92 (Forwarded)
Porous Silicon
Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System (2 msgs)
Space and Presidential Politics
SPS
what use is Freedom?
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:08:18 GMT
From: "robert.f.casey" <wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com>
Subject: "Hearing" meteors with your FM radio?
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,sci.space,sci.astro
Last night, my downstairs neighbor in my apartment complex left their
bathroom vent fan running all night, and it makes an annoying low
frequency rumble. Figured I could mask it some with some white noise
using my FM clock radio tuned to an empty frequency. Occasionally,
I would hear a station fade in, become clear, then fade out, all in
about 10 seconds. I once saw, many years ago, a short blurb in Sky
& Telescope (an astronomy mag) using your FM broadcast receiver and
a directional antenna tuned to a station normally out of range to
observe meteors. I suppose I accidently observed meteors last night
(Sept 30th).
------------------------------
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:45:00 GMT
From: Terry Martinez <terry.martinez@f820.n800.z3.fido.zeta.org.au>
Subject: 0mm
Newsgroups: sci.space
Original to: c[
1;31mRegistered To: Coffee Au Go-Go1;1H1;37m(1;34mMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM1;37m)1;29H1;34mK29H:3
;29H:4;29H:5;1H1;37m(1;34mMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM1;37m)5;29 H1;34mJ1H1;32mBy:3;1H1;32mTo:
4;1H1;32mRe: 5H;32mTerry Martinez3;5H;32mC[4;5H;32m0mm31H;37mTOPED
v1.03;31H;37m(C) Copyright 1991 TopSoft Software4;31H;37mPress ESC For
Commands (Ctrl-O For Help)4;1H64H;37mInsert Mode 6;2H;1H47H;37mMins Left:
1;36m16 6;2H6;2H6;2H6;2H6;2H;36m 6;2H6;1H7;1H8;1H9;1H10;1H11;1H12;1H13;1H14;
1H15;1H16;1H17;1H18;1H19;1H;1H;1H;1 H;1H6;2H;36m 6;3H6;3H;36m1;36m;;36m3;36m
1;36mm;36mR;36me;36mg;36mi;36ms;36mt;36me;36mr;36me ;36md;36m
;36mT;36mo;36m:;36m ;36mC;36mo;36mf;36mf;36me;36me;36m ;36mA;36mu;36m
;6;G6;KH2H[[1[[H3[;;1er:f[013[1;0m;m0[46;6;[M30;M306m30m;M30m;GH(mMMM;0m30m6
3[ M6[M6;m3M6;[m;m306;;[M30m63[M6;Mm306[;6;[m3m306[46;[23m;[m30m3[m30H30603;
0(3[; 0m;m363[M69M6;[M3[M6;m3m30M3030M30;[M6;m0M60M60m;306[M6;[m3Mm3[M;[m;[3
6[630920 m;m0m;36m30m;13[m30;460mm3026;:6;[m;M0[;60260m30m6;[i30mm3[H4
6;[36[m;6;vp7;[7az34[53m;m[m3060m;[ 7r 1m30m;o;0m;4;rM1H3[m3;0n;606m3to6[m;m
6;sMm;0mrM1H33[643eo6;m;;;30m;d7;6;rH7ed7 33;m;[71[;60m;;so[H;0mm6;80m;0m7ed
1H30m;0vp3;066;n 7;[3;[H3to836;66e8[;6066;e 303;[mte83m60mm;2m36;[H13367[[m
;3ePMatOoCee1; [y 3;;36m1gTft[[drop;23m50HO3SoeHre4sdH26H;H;;1H11489;H36m60n
m;06;ve53[m6mrd;[660 [14m3[6;[[60mm3[06;m306[[6;m360m[;m;[037[66f10;;30(6;[m
36;[03m23[66m3[360mm30m 6[;6;m3m6;[[6[m606;;6;[m306;[66;;30m3[6;[030306;[630
m3[623[m36me266m 6Mm66m[201[03M[6036M;[3;3m;:4[p4;2;7f.duCrr[eC5RrvrEL
p.oC[Y3[m31T4HTMe;;66[43066;m;;gms),one)a6[H;67[66mmmmm333633666m6A;;;6KmM3G
MM 0;3m[2m[3;MMMM06[m[[406M037a53[06O1560m;[[[00;4mCsrtestreC1ttamDDD3m6;mM;
m;6[ 6;m0m30;6[m60m0m30[6[m60m06;[o3[m30m36;[m3m;036;mm3160;3;;M;M3010003336
p3mem03 0m0m603[5[mm;om;H3[H60m;[;603m10[630m3[m3030;m;m01[730m306;[60m3[3;[
330m06;[m0 634HH;0673tp0o466m6[me215;83[d1H;313[m306[36;[3;[60m0m3003306;30m
30m;066;[6;[m 303;[[6;[306;[[;3006[30;6;603;1;eemane) l3;dm1;[0Oypo1960m60;3
[3[33[0m;f30;03[m;6;60;0m60[36[60[3[mm[3[m;66;6m06;0m6;m
360[3[m;m;[m;6606m0m3660;360;m;e Ca o(tl3dmmt3;[3ttiDDDDDDm[LrOCCCtCnet
tvMDDDDDne;0 [e2338m;C[2031rH;46;5[[606[f03mm06m66;[3;11[f15;066[66;[m;60m1[
;;;1;[e306[[6;[ 6[;[6630[M;;0m3[Mm306;[m3[6m306;so[43;[367[04a1;;t;;D61HH;5;
7[t7[r;H31H6163[H3 [H[63[H0360 ;06[616 ;70[6[;0mmm[a6[CmK[1[6[[8;m[0M0[;3e;0
m80m34633e;0m80310M0Hm166[;;1330306[36633 [[[0;m1m6331;[663;361;100m[6[H6076
m36[H3m7633[mm00m[[H3m3mm[30;[236103[[0[10m3 ;1[m651m[1DOeoM OepooO
hetr[aLiM1na1002Mm00srt30;;m6031M0603[3;m03;3;1m03;34[Hnt; ;;
--- FMail 0.90
* Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either. (3:800/820)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:32:41 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1992Sep30.211128.20362@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>>Why on earth did they turn them off? ...
>
>Same reason they turned off the Magellan radar- to save money.
You're a little ahead of yourself; Magellan is still functioning, although
officially it's still slated to be turned off next spring.
Magellan is not doing radar mapping just now, but *that* was planned from
the start -- it's doing a cycle of gravity mapping which doesn't involve
using the radar. This is an important secondary mission.
--
There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:22:04 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au>
Subject: Australian space industries....
Newsgroups: sci.space
Original to: 10706747@Eng2.Eng.Monash.Edu.Au
1> 10706747@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (ANDREW BENNETT), via Kralizec 3:713/602
1> Hi everyone,
1> I was wondering if anyone knew of any Australian space
1> societies, companies,
1> organisations etc that I could write to ( e-mail(?) ) and/or join.
The National Space Society of Australia has a chapter in Melbourne.
address: PO Box 486
Camberwell
Vic 3114
Ta
Ralph
--- Maximus 2.01wb
* Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:49:17 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: Clinto and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <maguire-300992162151@128.149.100.151> maguire@copland.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin Maguire) writes:
>> I can't let this old chestnut pass. Tobacco is the *one* agricultural...
Perhaps this thread should be moved to sci.space.smoking? Or maybe
talk.politics.space.smoking?
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they |
| aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" |
+----------------------205 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:00:06 GMT
From: Jim Mann <jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com>
Subject: Clinto and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <BvEMCo.2Kw.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
writes:
> Strange, I was under the impression that GATT broke down because
there was a
> refusal to end subsidies on the part of the EC. I agree that US
could hardly do
> better for itself than to totally end ALL farm subsidies for all
purposes. There'd
> be cheaper and more food for the third world. Not to mention the
knock on effects
> because the government:
> a) subsidizes farms, keeping them below market efficiency
> b) pays to keep food prices up and production down
> c) pays the poor so they can afford food at the prices caused by
a and b
> d) and the taxpayer gets to pay for a - c PLUS paying more for
groceries
>
This is getting way off topic, but... The government these days
usually messes up farm subsidies, and many of them are
unneeded. However, it's not as simple as "farm subsidies are
all bad and keep prices high." This is wrong and very
short sighted. They may keep prices high over a single year,
but the INTENT, at least, (or the original stated intent, though
I bet many Congressmen don't know this) is to stabilize the
market long term, and thus over the long term keep the US farm
system healthy and prices reasonable. If we ended farm
subsidies, I have no doubt prices would go down a bit in
the short term, but we'd pay for it 10-20 years from now. (On the
other hand, I'd agree that we should look at what farm
subsidies we are paying, since I'd bet we COULD drop a
substantial number of them.)
--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 18:19:34 BST
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Clinto and Space Funding
Steinn: I tried sending this offline, but got the following error:
<<< 553 There is a local configuration error. The hostname
is not recognized as local.
554 <steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu>... Service unavailable
I could finger but not mail to this address.
> To say that there are no queues in the US for health care
> services is as ludicrous a claim as I have yet seen on Usenet.
> What is true is that if you are in one of limited occupations,
> especially a public University or a rich private University,
> or if you have money/good credit you will get immediate health
> care in most places - until your coverage or cash runs out,
> and if the care is not intrinisically supply limited (eg. organ
> transplants). Of course unless you're part of a very powerful
> customer base, like UC, you better not plan on getting ill
> again or being chronically ill as you become uninsurable,
> in large part due to a very peculiar attitude in the US
> that insurance actually involves more of a pre-payment
> installation scheme rather than actual insurance (in which
> a large fraction of the contributors by definition do not
> recoup their contributions). If you are not one of the fortunate
> group you are essentially limited to heavily supply limited
> charity and enormously expensive emergency services, leading
> to a large fraction of the population receiving most of
> their health care as emergency services, often for routine
> maladies that had to wait treatment until they constituted
> an emergency.
>
Maybe the west coast is a different world than Pittsburgh, but this
has no relation whatever to my own experience. I don't know a single
person who has ever had to wait for tests or operations other than
such obviously supply limited ones as transplants... a problem that
is independant of the form of the health care system.
I think my mother's case is an excellent example. She took Blue Cross
and Blue Shield coverage which she paid out of her Social Security
checks. For the last decade of her life she visited a doctor once a
month, had various medications and tests as required... and when she
had the stroke that killed her, the hospital costs were $30,000 on
paper. And not a cent came out of her estate. She had no particular
clout, just an elderly woman living alone in a small town with a
small income.
I much prefered my doctor in Pittsburgh. His practice kept a chart on
me and a list of tests recommended at different ages and intervals
based on my life style and risk factors.
Besides which, virtually EVERYONE belongs to a group plan with clout.
My mother got hers through Senior Citizens. I had mine through CMU.
My best friend worked for the Pittsburgh Aviary and got it through
the City. Every company has a health plan, even most start up
companies. Hardly anyone would work for one if it didn't.
Here, I go and sit in a big instutional room until my number is
called and get a cursory examination by some bored person who
probably doesn't even remember my name except for the fact it was on
the chart. No calls that it is time to come in for a checkup, no
suggestions that certain tests would be recommended at my age...
because the test equipment is overallocated. Although admittedly it
is not nearly as bad here as in the rest of the UK.
I had a long chat with a hospital research programmer who was working
on the queue "problem". In some categories the waiting lists in the
UK are TWO YEARS. Not for transplants, for straightforward test
procedures and operations. Most run at 6 months or longer.
I'll not commment on the scandinavian system at this time because I
know nothing whatever about it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:29:58 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
Subject: Help! Need bitmaps (or good photographs) of planets viewed from earth
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>I'm seeking earth based photographs or graphics files of Jupiter or Mars
>taken from ground based telescopes. I need, yes, *mediocre* quality and they
>need to be large in number over short time durations.
If someone has, could you please post the pointer publicly ?
(also of Saturn ?)
--
Hartmut Frommert <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
-- Eat whale killers, not whales --
------------------------------
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:00:02 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au>
Subject: Laser Space Mirror
Newsgroups: sci.space
Perhaps in the short term building a Space electricity transmitter would be
better than a SPS.
Put a flat optical mirror in Clarke orbit. Build a laser transmitters near a
ground based power station. Beam the generated energy to the mirror which
can then reflect it to a receiving station. This would be part of a global
power grid, allowing more efficiant use of conventional power stations and
opening new energy sources in remote areas ie African hydro electricty
schemes.
As most of the infrastructure is on Earth, the Space cost would be minimal.
The ground laser system can be large in area, allowing a small mirror.
Questions:
1) I would think that the limiting size of the mirror would be its capacity
to withstand the waste heat. Any ideas on how small we could make the mirror
with todays technology?
2) What would be the best way to convert the infra-red light back to
electricity?
3) How efficiant would the total system be? Especially compared to current
ground based power transmission?
4) Is anyone working on such a scheme? I think SDIO was considering space
mirrors for defense purposes.
ta
Ralph Buttigieg
--- Maximus 2.01wb
* Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:27:14 GMT
From: Mike Wexler <mikew@kpc.com>
Subject: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Newsgroups: sci.space
anita@astro.as.utexas.edu (Anita Cochran) writes:
>This still does not allow for the systematic studies. Systematic studies
>require that you study the various components at the same time.
It seems that in order to do systematic studies there needs to be an overlap
in the times that various instruments are being used. This doesn't mean they
have to be launched at the same time or that they need to study only
systematics.
For instance you could start by sending a relay sattelite with a Topaz
reactor, ion drive and large antennae (I know this is very small). This
could probably stay functioning for a decade. Especially if you operate
it well out of the main radiation belts of jupiter. Then you send
smaller instruments (as separate payloads but with overlapping in time).
Some of them can use new/risky propulsion techniques, others can use new/risky
types of instruments. As new needs are discovered, you send new craft out that
can work in concert with the existing instruments.
There are obviously tradeoffs here. You will have more failures, there will
probably be less systematics (at least at first). In some cases larger
instruments will have to be replaced with smaller less capable ones. On
the other hand, their are also many benefits.
1. Shorter lead times.
2. More opportunities to try new instruments.
3. More opportunities to try new propulsion techniques.
4. The ability to mass produce buses and launchers and cut costs.
5. The ability to study more objects. With the greatly increased number
of spacecraft you can examine more asteroids and moon in addition
to planets (like Gallileo studied Gaspra).
--
Mike Wexler (mikew@kpc.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 10:09:03 EDT
From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu>
Subject: Military Funding
>>>As I stated in my previous post. Until the programs are set up to
>>>orderly divert the money to another R and D effort, it should stay in the
>>>military budget where at least it is going some good.
>>This is plain silly! The only good the (extraneous) military budget does
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>is to pay people to work. We might as well pay them to bury rocks one
>>day, and dig them up the next.
>What would a VCR look like if it was built using vacuum tubes? Why was
What would a VCR look like if it was built with $700 screwdrivers? How
much would it cost? (The transistor, BTW, was developed privately)
It took military R&D to develop the billion-dollar aiplane door. :-)
>the IC developed? To make computers fit into ICBM's and SLBM's. How
>much did the first, very simple IC's cost? Over $1000 dollars a piece.
>That was a lot of money back then. Only the defense of our nation could
>justify such outlays. But, imagine where we would be if the IC had been
>abandoned because of cost. Would it have been developed if the demands
>for national security hadn't required it? Someone out there will surely
>say yes, but I am sure that the true answer is probably no.
If we accept that the IC was developed, fast, to fit into ICBM's, that
still doesn't justify that kind of expense if we don't need sudden
R&D for defense. I think it's pretty safe to say that the IC would
have been developed at some time in the future, by private concerns,
thought perhaps not in the same short time as it was developed for
ICBM's. So the military _does_ R&D, sometimes necessary R&D, but not
all military R&D, and especially not all military spending, is actually
necessary. So we should save the dough, let someone else develop it,
on their bill.
For what it's worth, I don't think the military needs to be cut
as much as many people do. But I do recognize that there are
unneccesary expenditures all over the place, many of which could
easily be addressed, except for people with a special interest in
keeping uneccessary operations going.
The original point was that if, as has already been determined in several
sectors of our society, military costs need to be cut, then we should
cut them, not try to persuade ourselves that saving jobs is something we
can do by continuing NOT to cut, especially since the military is
inherently not wealth producing. Sure, it's necessary for our defense,
and that will require R&D into new weapons. I, personally, like the
idea, not sure from where, of a joint US, XUSSR SDI system to protect
the innocents of earth from the nuclear proliferation that recently
started, and has no apparent end in sight.
But the fact that the majority of training, building, designing and
spending goes into an endeavor that most people would rather avoid,
that is, war, describable as killing lots of people and breaking things,
means that the military is, by and large, not a net producer, and is,
in the worst case, a destroyer of wealth.
In scaling down from the cold war effort, I think it's pretty obvious
that spending that doesn't contribute to defense is wasted, since it
will just sit there; might as well be rocks. Saves R&D cost, too :-)
So the argument might be better brought to cases; What is and isn't
wasted spending. I don't think there's an argument possible that
_none_ of it is wasted.
-Tommy Mac . " +
.------------------------ + * +
| Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " +
| astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is
| Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh!
| 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , *
| (517) 355-2178 ; + ' *
'-----------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:26:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: NASA Daily News for 09/30/92 (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1992Sep30.200509.16758@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>... the second shuttle mission for a CSA astronaut -
>the first having been STS-41G in October 1984 with payload specialist
>Marc Garneau...
If I were Roberta Bondar, I'd be annoyed about being omitted...
--
There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:36:19 GMT
From: "James W. Swonger" <jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Porous Silicon
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.space
Photodetectors will be more efficient at collection because they are
operated with an external bias, applying an internal electric field which
assists collection of the ehp dissociated by the incident photon, and
which tends to sustain or increase the volume of the depletion region.
Solar cells on the other hand work against themselves; the photocurrent
forward-biases the junction and tends to decrease the depletion volume
and the charge collection.
--
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:30:56 GMT
From: Derek Kirkland <dp10@mc4adm.UWaterloo.ca>
Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Newsgroups: sci.space
Sounds like this guy has been reading too much science fiction.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 18:40:04 BST
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 30 Sep 1992 22:10:47 GMT
From: Robert Andrew Knop <rknop@cco.caltech.edu>
> Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
> Newsgroups: sci.space
>
> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>
> >I love this guy. Best laugh of the morning.
>
> Indeed. And, since it is difficult for others to see in a net
post, that
> you're a wide eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic, this guy did a
good job of
>
> CAPITALIZING every word that he thought needed EMPHASIS, DAMMIT so
that we got
> the idea that he was RANTING and RAVING with YOUR TAX DOLLARS!
(Oops, sorry
> about that last bit, got carried away.)
>
> -Rob Knop
> rknop@cco.caltech.edu
>
Putting someone who holds strong but different opinions from your own
in the same catagory as this is rather insulting and I'd suggest it
requires an apology. There is certainly nothing wrong with holding
and defending strong opinions. If you don't like his ideas, then join
the debate and pull no intellectual punches. It is ENTIRELY another
matter when you blatently insult a member of our community for no
purpose other than to be "cute".
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:54:53 GMT
From: Jim Mann <jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com>
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <BvEJ3s.MLE.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
writes:
> > The problem with this is that I've met some space enthusiasts
> > over the years who would vote for Adolf Hitler if they thought
> > he would support a strong space program. Almost ANY issue has
> > to be put in perspective, and balanced off against others. A
> > candidates view of space explorations is ONE issue by which I
>
> > judge the candidate. You can argue about whether it should be
>
> > one of the most important ones or one of the minor ones, but it
> > certainly should not be the ONLY one.
> >
>
>
> This should not be a problem for you. Under this scenario, Adolph
can
> only get elected if:
>
> a) A majority of the population consider this to be the
> primary issue, in which case, by any definition of
> "public interest" it then IS. Neither you nor I can
> make something the prime issue just because our
> personal opinion says it is.
>
> b) Adolph has enough support due to his stands on other
> issues to garner a majority via the sum of the the
> different public interests.
>
> c) He doesn't make the mistake of saying he's going to
> execute or drive out of the country many of the leading
> scientists and engineers required for that space program.
>
> The later is partially tongue in cheek, but there is a serious
point
> to it. Those of us pushing for space are indeed pushing an entire
set
> of values and a vision of the future that is built around space.
But much of that never gets to reflected in these discussions. Many
people have posted "I don't care how they stand on other issues,
candidate A is pro-space and candidate B is luke warm on space
so obviously I'm for candidate A." But what if candidate B
has an industrial policy that would better able us to establish
a space infra structure 10 years from now. Or what if candidate
A also believed in various bigoted positions, that would erode parts
of our society (Well, that has nothing to do with space so it
wouldn't effect your vote, right?) [By the way, I'm NOT specifically
talking about Bush and Clinton here. I don't think Bush is
a bigot, and even voted for him in '88, though I'm not voting for
him this time.]
>
> You cannot castigate us because we do not happen to share YOUR
> particularly set of values and priorities.
Yes, I can. It doesn't simply come down to "everyone has
their own values, and everyone's are as good everyone else's."
Nor does it simply come down to the public interest being that
of the private intrests of the majority. Taken to extremes, your
statement becomes "we can't tell the Nazis they are wrong. If the
majority of the people support them, what they are doing must
be in the public interest."
Besides, in a sense, isn't the above statement hypocritical. Many
people in America don't think space is all that important.
Space enthusiast have always felt that it was OK to tell them
that they're priorities were wrong and that they should think
more about the future.
>
> The truth is, I am personally not voting on a single issue. I have
an
> entire social/economic/technological agenda. (In case you haven't
> noticed :-) But I am NOT going to knock someone who does.
OK, but I will. I think single issue voting is generally
silly, and hurts us all in the long run.
--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
------------------------------
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:25:12 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au>
Subject: SPS
Newsgroups: sci.space
Original to: Roberts@Cmr.Ncsl.Nist.Gov
to roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts), via *IXgate 3:713/602
r> According to Steve Willner, if you choose 10.6um (handy
r> because that's what
r> a CO2 laser put out), then the main absorption is by water vapor, at
about
r> 1% per millimeter equivalent. So it wouldn't heat the upper atmosphere
r> significantly, if you choose a high, dry site for reception there
wouldn't
But how do you convert the laser light back into electricity?
Photovoltics? Does not sound very efficiant to me.
r> by the greenhouse gases released by fossil fuel. Space-based solar power
r> would also heat the Earth much less than ground-based
r> solar power generation.
Why? Ground based collectors would use the energy coming to Earth
already. I must be missing something.
ta
Ralph
--- Maximus 2.01wb
* Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 15:45:13 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <Cohena@mdc.com>
Subject: what use is Freedom?
Newsgroups: sci.space
It's good to see a thread here on questions that we have all been asking
ourselves on this program...... I've been deeply involved in it for four
years and let me tell you....this program ain't easy. However, I'd like to
add a few comments.....
First of all the press makes the program look real bad when a redesign is
announced... Truth is, the redesign of a little while ago was way overdue
and caused by the group think notion of the astronaut building the station
rather than it being prebuilt on the ground.... The old design would NEVER
have worked. Since we had to redesign AND keep to the schedule of a first
launch in 1995 (now 1996) we are all scrambling to complete the design in
an environment which seems dead set against us.... funds are shrinking,
schedule slips are taboo and most importantly...we are STILL learning about
how to do it..... Now.....learning how to do it should stick in your
mind........
Space Station Freedom is big....REALLY BIG...I mean, it's not just some
skylab or something....listen... We are talking about something the size
and mass of a building for cripes sake! AND....it is orbiting within the
altitude envelope of the shuttle.....that means there is an atmosphere
hitting up against all those surfaces making the guidance and navigation a
very tricky prospect indeed. However, technically it IS feasible and once
we got it....WE GOT IT!!! Not only do we know how to do it once it's
up....we also have the standards for all manned space endeavers for the
future....the power systems, the avionics...the modules...the environmental
control...the truss assemblies...the launch capacities...I can go on and
on.... all can be off-the-shelf for a moon base....for a moon orbiting
station...for an interplanetary jump-off platform...for orbiting
factories....and yes don't forget Mars..One real good way to think of SSF
is as an analogy to Gemini. The Gemini program taught us how to maneuver,
dock, set orbits... basically how to get around...all of which was vital to
the success of Apollo.... SSF is this for all aspects of the future
missions.........Well, this is MY opinion anyway!!
A while back I was watching an old film about Apollo... It was made about
midway through the program and before the first successful launch.... If
one removed all references to Apollo...that is, just blanked them
out....then listened to the sound track.... It would sound JUST like Space
Station.... The same arguments, the same debates, the same challenges....
We succeeded bigtime on Apollo.... Our silicon CPU industry is one of the
biggest results.... The experiments that Judy at UofH was talking about
are just a glimmer of the iceberg....
... Please....don't just attack this program.....ask questions. I'll
answer what I can.
Andy Cohen.....these are MY opinions expressed....NOT MDSSC!!!
------------------------------
id AA21068; Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:19:02 EDT
Received: from crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
id aa16789; 1 Oct 92 8:08:20 EDT
To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!strath-cs!stl!bmdhh243!agc
From: Alan Carter <agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Easter Goof
Message-Id: <1992Oct01.094938.24363@bnr.uk>
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:49:38 GMT
Sender: News Administrator <news@bnr.uk>
Organization: BNR-Europe-Limited, Maidenhead, England
Lines: 30
Nntp-Posting-Host: bmdhh298
Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Oh boy, when I make a mistake I make a big one! I have, quite honestly,
thought from childhood that the Resurrection was on Easter Monday.
I've received much email correcting me on this, my thanks to all,
especially Nick Haines who pointed out ""Early in the morning on the
first day of the week ...". The first day of the week is Sunday, the
day after the Sabbath.", and Warren Kurt who clarified things
" The resurection did happen on Easter Sunday. The ancient Hebrews measured a
day as sunset to sunset, so, since the Sabbath started at sunset of Friday,
Jesus had to have already died by then. Three days later would be Sunday.
(Friday gets included in the count for no good reason)."
My confusion was added to by the way that Easter is celebrated in the UK.
Because there is an established Church, the Christian faith was a bearing
on the law. Easter Monday is treated like a Sunday for trading and licensing
purposes, as is Christmas day. Christians point out however, that Easter is
a more important festival than Christmas, and they usually do this on
Easter Monday.
My apologies if my lack of understanding distressed anyone.
Alan (who knows more than he did yesterday)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls.
Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 273
------------------------------