Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_2/V15NO299.ZIP/V15NO299

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

Date: Fri,  9 Oct 92 05:00:07
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #299
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  9 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 299

Today's Topics:
                                <None>
                       another sad anniversary
               Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase (2 msgs)
                      Clinton and Space Funding
Don't forget  Other Guy(was Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?)
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (3 msgs)
                                 HRMS
                Luna III images of the moon's farside
             Robert H. Goddard - Born 110 Years Ago Today
             Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
                          SETI NOT POSITIVE
                            SETI positive?
                Sputnik I - 35th anniversary (2 msgs)
                 UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan (2 msgs)
                           V-2 anniversary
                         von_Brown_ (2 msgs)
                Why not Mir? was(what use is freedom?)

    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: 8 Oct 92 09:43:59 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: <None>
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Breneman) writes:
>
>    If it hadn't been for inter-department politics in the US government,
>    the Soviets would have had the *second* satelite, but the US was (as
>    stated policy) in no hurry, and the Soviets wanted to be first at all
>
> Actually I like the rather devious argument I first heard recently
>  - probably on the net ;-) - that the US was quite happy to be second
> as they wanted the Soviets to establish precedent on limits to
> airspace, at the time it was not clear if air space restrictions
> extended up to orbit, would have been most inconvenient if pushed by
> somebody like the Soviets.

This is the thesis presented by Walter McDougall in his political
history of spaceflight, *The Heavens and the Earth*.  The book won a
Pulitzer prize and has been pretty widely read.

> But then again I doubt anyone had much of a coherent policy taking
> such factors into account...

McDougall doesn't think so, though he stops short of saying that
Eisenhower *deliberately* dragged his feet on satellites in hopes that
the Russians would launch first.

Bill Higgins          |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
Fermilab              |  we put a man on the Moon? -- Bill Engfer
[e-mail] |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
[e-mail]   |  we put a woman on the Moon? -- Bill Higgins

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 03:17:17 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: another sad anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (FRANK NEY) writes:
>
>So how about landing a series of corner reflector arrays set to the
>EME sub bands from 50Mhz to 20GHz or whatever?
>
>Should take care of the scatter....

Well it won't hurt, but it won't help much either. The problem is that
practical Earthside arrays pretty much illuminate the entire face of
the Moon at the frequencies of interest. At 50 MHz you'd be doing very
well to confine the energy to *just* the Moon. So your reflectors are
only going to receive a very small fraction of the energy transmitted
toward the Moon. Even lasers illuminate a several square mile area
of the Moon when fired from Earth.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:19:21 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>For the amounts we are talking about it would be cost effective to develop
>any of several ideas which would reduce launch costs to the moon by one
>to two orders of magnitude.

1. No one is going to spend these amounts.  Commerce would only spend
1/500-1/100 of that amount, and then only if it was profitable.

2. We should develop these ideas to reduce launch costs, instead of
assuming them. The markets -- commercial, military, and NASA if
they procure commercially -- exist today, and would expand more
rapidly than launch costs decreased.  At one order of magnitude
drop, it would make economic sense to move practically every radio
and TV broadcast tower to Clarke orbit, for example.

3. Reduced launch costs benefit competing proposals, such as asteroid
and comet mining, equally.  The factor of 50 relative disadvantage of
lunar regolith extraction outlined in my post remains.

>SSF to construction only runs $30 billion. A second set for a lunar base
>would run far far less.

It is ridiculous to count only construction costs.  We must also include
launch and life-cycle costs.  That brings us to $150 billion.
Furthermore, we need to develop Apollo-style launch hardware, but larger
and from scratch, so we add on the $120 billion Apollo costs, bringing
us to $270 billion.  Of course you wish it cost less; so do I.  I was
told, and wishfully believed, that SSF was only going to cost $8 billion
when I helped L-5/NSS lobby for it years ago.

>It looks like there is no point analyzing Nick's post...

True, there is no point in analyzing my posts if you are not willing
to be open minded to the facts, instead of wishes like
"one or two orders of magnitude drop on launch costs" which
magically benefit your pet project and nobody else's.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 13:21:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>1. No one is going to spend these amounts.

Completely and totally irrelevant. You provided an estimate of the cost which
was totally based on unrealisticly high launch costs. This invalidates your
entire assessment. Untill you produce an assessment with reasonable costs
associated with it there is no point in anybody wasting any time reading
or thinking about your comments.

>Commerce would only spend 1/500-1/100 of that amount

Oddly enough, this is achieveable in all likelyhood with SSTO.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------199 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:08:52 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding

T> hat's true, but the entry cost for space is considerably higher
than
> for a man with an ax and a gun trekking out on foot to find elbow

> room. And likely to remain so for a long long time. Any space
colonies
> are likely to have to be highly regimented in order to survive at
all.
> When disident groups have colonized the ocean floor, nearly as
difficult
> a place as space, then we'll see if colony life is really less
oppressive
> than our lives here.
>


Personally I want the stars over my head. And under my feet as well.
Your statement is true if you take a very short view If government
continues to develop and lead the way into space, it will come as no
surprise at all if the technologies developed are those requiring
large central facilities. Bureaucracies need dependence to exist.
They do not willing assist in creating options which make their
existance unnecessary.

Fortuneately this situation is not going to last. Within 30-100 years
molectular engineering is going to change the way we look at things,
and as a side effect will give us the technologies of independance in
space.

Even if this technology succeeds to only a fraction of what Eric
Drexler thinks is possible, it will still change the equation
drastically towards decentralization. We are coming into the age of
the 3D copier. Our computers (by then another 10^6 or so more
powerful) will then do to objects what has already been done to
information. Want an injector? Just ship it over the net. Don't like
the design? Then run the simulation locally, make your modification
and output a new one.

The times they will be achangin'

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 17:11:46 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Don't forget  Other Guy(was Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (David Breneman) writes:
|
|Isn't it true that the Redstone existed before the Vanguard, and that
|Von Braun lobbied for using it to send a satelite into orbit, but since

Von Braun proposed putting a satellite up as early as the late 40's and
was ready to implement it by 1954.

|the Redstone was "owned" by the Army, Eisenhower wanted to let NACA's
|Vanguard have the first shot, especially since the launch was tied

I don't think NACA (later NASA) had anything to do with Vanguard.
The Naval Research Lab did have a small part.

|into the International Geophysical Year observance.  After numerous
|Vanguard failures, and after the Soviets slapped together the Sputnik
|mission *in*order*to* beat the US into space, the US governemnt

Sputnik I was launched on Oct 4, 1957. The first Vanguard attempt
was on Dec 6, 1957. There was no 'slapping'. They were working
on it for a long time.

|agencies finally got together and agreed to let Von Braun use the
|Redstone as a satellite launch vehicle to bolster space program morale.
|If it hadn't been for inter-department politics in the US government,
|the Soviets would have had the *second* satelite, but the US was (as

Sputnik II, launched on Nov 3, 1957 was the *second* satellite.

|stated policy) in no hurry, and the Soviets wanted to be first at all
|cost.  In fact, James Oberg (if I remember his name correctly) in his
|book _Red Star in Orbit_, documented that all the "firsts" noted
|above (except the space station) were done *primarily* to beat the
|US and score propaganda coups.  The US announced a long-term goal,
|and the Soviets rushed in with very little concern for safety,
|scientific value, etc.

Krushchev definitely wanted space spectaculars, but being first
on the moon was pretty spectacular too.

--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 03:30:28 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
>[e-mail] (Paul Nimmo) writes:
>
>>Original to: [e-mail]
>>Hi all, now someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but, isn't the fundamentl
>>problem with sending waste to the sun the energy requirements? If my
>>schoolboy physics memory serves me correctly it would take more energy to
>>toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar
>>system. this being true it certainly does *not* present itself as a fesible
>>alternative.
>>see ya, paul.
>
>That shouldn't be a problem.  The sun's gravity will pull it towards the
>sun, saving energy.  The problem is getting the radioactive crap into
>space.  If one of these rockets blows up, there will be mucho radiation
>all over the place and the world will soon be glowing in the dark.

Yes the sun's gravity would pull the payload towards the sun, just as
the sun's gravity pulls the *Earth* towards the sun. But, just like
the Earth, the orbital velocity keeps it from falling into the sun.
The energy required to kill that velocity is substantially greater
than the energy requirement to put a payload into a solar system escape
trajectory since the Earth's orbital velocity already puts it most of
the way there.

>P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like dumping it
>in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else.

Indeed, throwing away a valuable resource where you can't get at it
later is always a *stupid* idea.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:43:56 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun

> P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like
dumping it
> in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else.
>


Well, I'd hang onto it for other reasons. It will one day be
considered a valuable resource. Probably after the nucleophobic
generation dies off.

But nonetheless, perform the following reality check on what you just
said. Try this thought experiment.

Assume the Earth is entirely made out of Plutonium.
Now atomize it and spread it over the volume of a sphere of solar
space representing half the average distance between stars in our
regions of space. (r = 2ly or 12e12 miles is a good "Fermi number"
for this.)

Now...  how good do your instruments have to be to detect it's
presence over the background cosmic radiation? (Other than by the
velocity distribution. That's cheating :-)

A slightly more difficult one is to break the Earth into n chunks of
radius r, spread them equidistant within the volume, and figure out
how often a random walk will approach one to within distance d.

My point is, there is simply not enough matter in the universe to
pollute the universe, and besides which, all the matter started off
in free space anyway. There were more radioactives in the pre-solar
nebula than exist now... it was all spread out nice and evenly. Well,
mostly evenly anyway.

The only reason for not firing it out of the solar system is that it
would be pretty much lost to everyone forever (or if someone finds it
in a billion years or so, they'll probably find not much more than
lead and a few long lived fissionables... which they'll thank us for,
for all the good it does us...)

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:45:00 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SCOTT
I CHASE) writes (about my post):

   For someone who so sharply critical of others, I would have thought that
   you would have taken a little care to work out the numbers before you
   said this:

   >If the Earth were an apple, the whole biosphere shebang, including the
   >oceans, would be thinner than the skin on the apple. The sun would be
   >a 10-foot sphere about a mile away. The solar system would be forty
   >miles across. The nearest star would be on the moon (if you see what I
   >mean). And in all this space, there's _nothing_ except a few
   >basketballs (the gas giants), assorted small fruit (the other planets)
   >and a bit of dust. We can't pollute something that large.

   The Sun's radius is roughly 110 Earth radii.  So if the Sun is a 10-foot
   sphere, the Earth is 1.1 inch, an awfully small apple, if you ask me.
   Even if you meant the sun to be a sphere of 10-foot radius (rather than
   diameter), I'd still recommend you find yourself a better greengrocer.

Whoops, yes, I got radius/diameter screwed up. That paragraph was only
written in a final fit of pique: I don't like that sort of analogy
because it's so much less clear than the simple figures, but thought
it might get through to anyone who doesn't understand what "6e3"
means.

So that's a 6-metre sphere, just in case anybody's still reading this.

Nick

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

Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 05:02:56 CST
From: Titanium Knight <[e-mail]>
Subject: HRMS
Newsgroups: sci.space

So, why is the U.S. spending money on HRMS when they have already been
visited by ET's?  (supposedly)  Dosen't make sense to me.  Well, I
it would be nice to see what else is out there.  Hmm..

Titan  :-)

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 00:18:04 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luna III images of the moon's farside
Newsgroups: sci.space

33 years ago, on Oct 7, 1959, Luna III, launched on the 4th
returned to earth the first images of the other side of the moon.

--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 05:11:52 GMT
From: Bob Montante <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robert H. Goddard - Born 110 Years Ago Today
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.misc,sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

| >    Boston).  Goddard launched the world's first liquid-fueled rocket
| >    in March of 1926 in Auburn, MA, along with many other contributions
| >    to the development of modern rocketry.  Goddard died in August of
| >
| >        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
|
| Why would he want to launch other contributions?
|

Excess launch capacity, drinking buddies who liked to "double-dare" him
--- "well, it seemed like a good idea at the time..."

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 07:08:58 GMT
From: Patrick Chester <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Kirkland) writes:
)Sounds like this guy has been reading too much science fiction.
No, he hasn't read enough. Else he would have seen that all of his ideas
were taken by previous authors. He also wasn't creative enough to put a mass
driver at our "secret" moonbase instead of the ridiculous laser weapon on
the moon. What would the laser shoot at? The UFO base next door? ;>

Trust me, I've read too much science fiction. I could make up a better story
than he did. Maybe I should try. :)

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
[e-mail] |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 14:51:25 GMT
From: "Edward T. Olsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI NOT POSITIVE
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Gentlemen:

The NASA search for signals of extraterrestrial intelligent origin has
not yet begun. The Initial Deployment of the High Resolution Microwave
Survey (HRMS) will be October 12, 1992.

Do not propagate misinformation and rumor!

Edward Olsen
HRMS



--
 Edward T. Olsen
 Mail Stop 169-506, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA  91109
 Phone: [phone]   INTERNET: [e-mail] (Node: 128.149.82.1)

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

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:27:21 GMT
From: "thomas.vandoren" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI positive?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>still limitted in sensitivity.  For example, using this detector at 100 light
>years from Earth, you could not detect the random TV and radio signals that
>we have inadvertantly transmitted out into space.  We really only have

   Especially since those signals would still be 50 light years away!

   Sorry, just being smart!

   Would we be able to detect omni-directional signals, as long as they
were fairly strong (like space beacons or something)?  Or would they
really have to be directed at us?
   I assume what you were saying is that random radio or TV emissions could
be detected within a 100 light year range?  Thats not too bad, how many
systems are there in that range?  Maybe 20 ?

Lee

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 03:11:41 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Sputnik I - 35th anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson):
>> Today the earth has approximately 7000 moons.
>
>How many of these moons have stable orbits?  In this case, I define stable
>to mean that they will stay in orbit for 100+ years without expending any
>fuel.  (I have a hard time considering something like Sputnik or Echo I to
>be a "moon".)
>
>What would it take to build a sattelite that would stay up for a long time
>without having to be reboosted or carrying large amounts of fuel?  Could you
>use large solar panels or RTG's to power an ion thruster?  Is there a stable
>Earth orbit for a small sattelite?

There are no stable orbits. However, any satellite at least 1000 miles
up is going to stay up for thousands to millions of years unless perturbed
by a third body. If you want it to stay at a particular attitude, that's
going to require energy.

Gary

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 17:29:50 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sputnik I - 35th anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:
|In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Watson):
|> Today the earth has approximately 7000 moons.
|
|How many of these moons have stable orbits?  In this case, I define stable
|to mean that they will stay in orbit for 100+ years without expending any
|fuel.  (I have a hard time considering something like Sputnik or Echo I to
|be a "moon".)
|

Anything above 1000 km will stay up for 100+ years. I'm betting that
before then everything up there not working will be removed. I see
the Vanguard I payload being displayed at the Smithsonian.

--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 17:16:15 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] writes:
|
|
|
|                           UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
|
|               I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos"
|          programs on PBS during summer 1991.  In one of them, he STILL
|          maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO
|          Spacecraft, "just stories".
|
|               I should think that by now he would have heard about the
|          Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were
|          found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the

He did. It's a story.

--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 14:00:43 GMT
From: "Robert B. Whitehurst" <[e-mail]>
Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In <[e-mail]> Jeff Bytof writes:
>>(I am of course referring to Dr. Sagan's hobby interests - "ethical
>                              ============
>  Has Carl Sagan actually got a doctorate in anything ???  Last I heard
>(long time ago , true) he was just plain ol' C. Sagan

>Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] or [e-mail]

    He was a respected, bona fide astronomer long before he was a
celebrity.  He is still involved in active research, I believe
planetary science, associated with JPL.

--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 19:43:56 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: V-2 anniversary
Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.history

In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Bruce Watson) writes:
+Trivia question: Which city was targeted and hit by the most number
+of V-2s?
+
The title should have read 'A-4 anniversary' It didn't become the V-2
until much later.

Jeff Hagen had the correct answer.

Successful V-2 combat launches (From 'The Rocket Team', Ordway and Sharpe, 1979)

UK
   London     1359
   Ipswich       1
   Norwich      43

Belgium
   Antwerp    1610
   Liege        86
   Brussels   (See Other)

France
   Paris        19

Other
   Continental 137 (including 11 at Remagen, the town whose bridge was
                    captured before it could be blown up, Tournai, Hasselt
                    Maastricht (been in the news lately), Lille, Arras, Mons,
                    Cambrai, St. Quentin, and Tourning.)

Total         3225

I hear, so often, London associated with the V-2 (or I hear London and
other cities). I make this association, too and have to remind myself
of the above numbers. I wonder why this is. Is it all the films we've
seen about WWII? We get the idea that it was the RAF and Patton who
single handedly won the war in Europe. We forget that the Russians
were taking the brunt of it all from the summer of 1941 until after
the invasion of France in the summer of 1944.

--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.

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

Date: 7 Oct 92 13:00:00 GMT
From: Public Service Telecommunications Consortium <[e-mail]>
Subject: von_Brown_
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'll have to ht some books on Von Braun's Gestapo role and title,
but I do remember, years ago, one of his sidekicks, in an
interview in the old (long-gone) Herald Tribune in New York,
stating that "Dr. von Braun was a major in the Gestapo, but,
of course, the title was strictly honorary."  In this same
interview, the same sidekick spoke of Dr. von Braun's desire
to become fully Americanized and was seriously considering
changing his name. Henceforth, he would _not_ be Werner von
_Braun_ but, instead, Werner von _Brown_.  I kept this
item for many years but, in my last move, it got away
from me.  Perhaps someone else is old enough to recall
both the New York Herald Tribune - and the item.  Bert
Cowlan. <pstc@igc>

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 04:08:53 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: von_Brown_
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Public Service Telecommunications Consortium) writes:
>
> I'll have to ht some books on Von Braun's Gestapo role and title,

The last claim we saw on the Net was that he was in the SS, which is
not true.

> but I do remember, years ago, one of his sidekicks, in an
> interview in the old (long-gone) Herald Tribune in New York,
> stating that "Dr. von Braun was a major in the Gestapo, but,
> of course, the title was strictly honorary."

I doubt this very much.  I believe he *did* hold a nominal military
rank of some kind.  Almost certainly not in the Gestapo.

Of course, memory dims with time, and who knows what *my* sidekicks
would say about me?

Engineer of Hijacked Train:      Bill Higgins
"Is this a holdup?"
                                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Masked Gunman:
(Hesitates, looks at partner,    Bitnet: [e-mail]
looks at engineer again)         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"     Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Oct 92 03:23:55 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Why not Mir? was(what use is freedom?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>            I don't see why NASA, ESA, and the Japanese Space
>>Agencies should spend all that money on this Space Station Freedom.  My
>>question is:  why not spend less, and have each country but a module on
>>the Mir? ...
>
>Evidently you're under the impression that putting a useful space station
>into orbit is the highest priority for SSF.  This is technically sensible
>but politically naive.  SSF's first priority is full employment for the
>NASA internal bureaucracy.  Its second priority is major contracts for
>a bunch of very hungry aerospace contractors.  (The order of priorities
>1 and 2 may be reversed depending on who you're talking to.)  Putting
>hardware into space is a distant third.  This is how such megaprojects
>work, unfortunately.

Henry is being cynical, but SSF is not primarily a science project. It
is primarily a engineering development testbed and demonstration project.
The aim is not to get maximum science return for the buck. The aim is to
get maximum engineering experience in large habitable space structures.
That we'll get some science return from the project is only a side benefit.
Using MIR would not build the US engineering base that is the primary
goal of the project.

Gary

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 299
------------------------------