Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_3/V15NO344.ZIP/V15NO344

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 39KB

Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 04:59:59
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #344
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 26 Oct 92       Volume 15 : Issue 344

Today's Topics:
             ==> New-Essential Clinton: Buying your Vote
                              databases
                           Dyson's Spheres
                             Dyson sphere
                       fun with slush hydrogen
            Gore Blames George Bush for Big Bang (3 msgs)
                    Putting volatiles on the moon
                       Voyager Family Portrait

    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: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 20:06:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ==> New-Essential Clinton: Buying your Vote
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> writes...
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Information in the public interest which does not imply that it
>is the opinion of UIC.  Contact [e-mail] for
>further information.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
*************************************************************************
This response is in the public interest and does not imply that Clinton is
a Charlatan that uses the omission of truth to deceive the American People

>Subj:   THE ESSENTIAL CLINTON: TECHNOLOGY (update)
>
>THE ESSENTIAL CLINTON: TECHNOLOGY
>
>
>"I have every confidence that America has the energy and the
>talent to regain its industrial and technological
>leadership."
>
>

Sounds good but what does it mean

>
>THE VISION
>---------------------------
>"America's international performance and international
>influence rest, in large part, on its technology base
>.. . . .  We are the world leaders in biotechnology,
>information technology, aerospace technology and [in] many
>other fields on the frontiers of science applied to human
>life.
>

True

>"Unfortunately, by losing the lead in the commercialization
>of many American-invented technologies, we are losing
>control of our own economic growth and prosperity.
>

It is called the shortsideness of stockholders and companies that flee
to the near east when getting their rears kicked by cheap imported computers.

>"The United States must act now to establish a technology
>policy that will help U.S. companies to succeed in world
>markets and help American citizens earn a good living in the
>global economy."
>

The Soviet Union tried it for 70 years and look what it got them
Oh and by the way it was "for the people" that the Russkies did it.
>
>
>THE BUSH LEGACY
>---------------------------
>"During the Cold War . . . U.S. industry dominated world
>markets and massive U.S. defense spending for high-tech
>weapons systems provided a big demand for leading-edge
>technology.  Today, however, U.S. industry faces intense
>international competition, and the global civilian market,
>not the Department of Defense, is the testing ground for
>most of the new technologies.

Read private market, such as in computer technology for the office, not
government sponsored programs from ANY nation. Also look at the rapid
advance of space tech from SDIO efforts. The military still pushes the
edge where corporations fear to tread. Also look at adaptive optics, small
bi-propellant thrusters, GPS atomic clocks, The GPS system itself, the use
of Military tech on Mars Observer, Multichip modules that put over 100
megaflops on a card smaller than a business card. Small star cameras for
spacecraft navigation, tandem solar cell technolgy. These are all military
technologies from SDIO and NSA. By the way all of these except for the
GPS has been cut by the Demorats.

>
>The absence of a coherent technology policy is one of the
>key reasons why America is trailing some of its major
>competitors in translating its strength in basic research
>into commercial success--and why America is losing its lead
>in technology.  Even in the technologies where we still
>lead, we face the challenge of translating the world's best
>research into the world's best jobs for American workers.
>

It is not technology policy or the lack thereof that is the problem, the
problem is that most of the world works cheaper than the average american
union or non-union worker. This fact is hundreds of years old and was the
basis of many wars in the two centuries previous to this one. Too bad
Clinton never reads history.

>"the Bush-Quayle administration has done nothing while wages
>have stagnated and our economic leadership has eroded.
>Despite the growing consensus on what needs to be done, they
>refuse to act, recycling the tired and failed policies of
>the past."
>

This forgets that the "erosion" is because the rest of the world is
finally coming into the twentieth century and that cheap worldwide
transportation is making it possible for these foreign nations to compete
directly with us

>
>
>THE CLINTON ALTERNATIVE
>---------------------------
>"In order to implement an effective U.S. technology policy,
>I will declare that U.S. technological leadership is a
>national priority and organize the government for results.
>

Organize Government? Isn't that a contridiction in terms?

>"First and foremost, a Clinton-Gore Administration will
>emphasize the need to renew our civilian technology base.
>America cannot continue to rely on trickle down technology
>from the military to maintain competitiveness of its high-
>tech and manufacturing industries.
>

If the government is controlling it, it is not civilian. Read your
history Clinton. Your little "trickle down" remark flies in the face
of five thousand years of the history of military technology pushing
the civilian sector.

>"Civilian industry, not the military, is the driving force
>behind advanced technology today.  Only by strengthening our
>civilian technology base can we solve the twin problems of
>national security and economic competitiveness.
>

In certain areas I agree. You are planning to subvert that by a government
bureauracracy (I can never spell that word) (That was for your benefit Irwin)
that has no concrete goals only vague promises that we will be number one.
Look at space technology if you really want to push the frontier outside
of the military. No you can't do that because you have promised to cut
all expenditures for future mission to the Moon and Mars and the party that
you represent has made it a point to kill any technology like NASP and
the Delta Clipper for your pork barrel project like the ASRM.

>"The Vice President will take on the task of organizing all
>facets of government to develop and implement my
>Administration's technology policy."
>
Gore has consistantly held the line of the doom and gloomers that technology
is not the answer and that we must reduce reduce reduce ourselves in order
to survive. (Read his Club of Rome Book circa 1991 for details)

>
>
>THE PRESCRIPTION
>---------------------------
>
>[21st-Century Infrastructure]
>
>"Investing in infrastructure means more than repairing
>bridges, harbors and highways.  Today, the United States
>faces a new series of communications, transportation, and
>environmental needs for the 21st century.

True enough

>
>"The creation of a 21st-century infrastructure program would
>serve as a critical technology driver for the nation.  It
>would stimulate major new national R&D efforts; create
>large, predictable markets that would prompt significant
>private sector investments; and create millions of new jobs.
>

How when your party has consistently cut all technology development programs
in favor of bread and circuses?

>"For example, the government can serve as a catalyst for the
>development of an advanced national communications network
>[the National Research and Education Network], which would
>help companies collaborate on research and design for
>advanced manufacturing; allow doctors across the country to
>access leading medical expertise; put immense educational
>resources at the fingertips of American teachers and
>students; open new avenues for disabled people to do things
>they can't do today; provide technical information to small
>businesses; and make telecommunicating much easier.
>

Sorry slick one but Uncle George has already started that without your
help. The internet backbone is being upgraded to 400 megabits from 1.414 and
a program is already in place to make most of the major trunks optical by
1997.


>"Such a network could do for the productivity of individuals
>at their places of work and learning what the interstate
>highway of the 1950s did for the productivity of the
>nation's travel and distribution system.
>

Amen but George is already doing this without your help.

>
>[Toward a High-Skill Workforce]
>
>"The workplace of the future will be technology-intensive.
>The U.S. education system must make sure that American
>workers have the requisite skills.  The focus should be not
>only on the top American students who measure up to world-
>class standards, but also on average and disadvantaged
>students.  It must also take into account the need to
>upgrade workers' skills and help people make the difficult
>transition from repetitive, low-skill jobs to the demands of
>a flexible, high-skill workplace.
>

Amen but how are your going to accomplish this? Your party's policies that
keep teachers from being certified has lowered the quality of instruction.
The attack of your intellectual wing on standardized testing leaves us with
no reliable method of gauging student progress and comprehension. The
eradication of discipline in secondary schools that your party has accomplished
has made the city schools a danger zone and not a learning experience.

>"Unlike Germany, the United States does not have a
>sophisticated vocational education program, and unlike
>Japan, U.S. firms do not have a strong incentive to invest
>in the training and retraining of their workers.  We need
>more of both, geared to meet the needs of the mobile U.S.
>workforce."
>

Education is a province of the states far more than the federal government
and many states have fine vocational schools. I am a graduate of one thank
you. Their main problem is that the teacher salaries are so low that the
quality of instructors in the technology areas is often done with people
that can't hack it in the rough and tumble world of high tech. My high
school electronics teacher refused to work with the newfangled "transistor"
sets that were brought in for repair.

>
>[Empowering America's Small Businesses]
>
>"A healthy and growing small-business sector is essential to
>America's economic well-being.  America's 20 million small
>businesses account for 40 percent of our GNP, half of all
>employment, and more than half of the job creation.
>

Too bad that your health care and environmental regulations that you
propose will stifle the small business community. Remember that a health
care plan will be required of any business that has more than five employees
many startups simply cannot afford that and thus may high tech ventures
will never start due to this burden.

>"My technology policy will recognize the importance of small
>and medium-sized business to America's economic growth by 1)
>creating a national technology extension service, and 2)
>expanding the highly successful Small Business Innovation
>Research (SBIR) program.
>


We already have both of these programs in place and the very few businesses
take advantage of the NASA and DoD services that are already in place. What
are you gonna do, make them use these services at gun point? The SBIR
program is great and was thought up by Republicans.

>"A national technology extension program will put the best
>tools in the hands of those companies that are creating the
>new jobs on which the American economy depends.
>

Sounds like gobbledegook to me. You always hear fine and uplifting words
when there is no substance to back them up. This is where I like Ross Perot's
approach. He knows how to straight talk in a way that George Bush even does
not.

>"The involvement of workers is critical to developing and
>executing successful industrial extension programs. . . .
>New production technology should be worker-centered and
>skill-based, not skill-eliminating.
>

This means that they will cave into the union interests like in the coal
mines opposed the introduction of robot technology in the mines.  this has
led to the virtual elimination of eastern deep coal mining because the
non union mines out west have beaten their pants off with new tech.  This
has led to a vast increase in productivity and a higher wage for the
workers that are associated with these efforts. My realtives worked in a
mine that still used mules to haul the coal out as late as 1978! We did not
need to retain the skill of the black smith in the age of the car. We do
not need to retain the skill of the hand stuffed electronics boads when
the rest of the world uses robots.

>"In technology, as in other areas, we must put people
>first."
>
Yes and this means education, education, education.

>
>[Increasing R&D for Critical Technologies]
>
>"{A Clinton-Gore Administration} will view the support of
>generic industrial technologies as a priority mission.
>

Speaks of critical technologies but then talks of "generic" industrial
technologies? Come on get a clue. What do you want to support? Remember that
in the malestrom of competition and without government help America now
has the most productive steel industy in the word according to recent
reports in the New York times. How will government intervention help this?
Remember price supports and the like during the Carter 70's? Our steel
industry almost died because of "goverment" help.

>"At present, 60% of the federal R&D budget is devoted to
>defense programs and 40% to non-defense programs.  This
>level of support for defense R&D is a holdover from the
>massive arms build-up of the 1980s.  At the very least, in
>the next three years, the federal government should shift
>the balance between defense and non-defense programs back to
>a 50-50 balance, which would free-up over $7 billion for
>non-defense R&D.

Ok let me, Allen, Nick and Henry divvy up this seven billion for space
technology efforts and watch our SMOKE! But no you want to put this into
"generic" technology efforts whatever that means.

>
>"We will create a civilian research and development program
>to support research in the technologies that will launch new
>growth industries and revitalize traditional ones."
>

Hey slick one, space tech is now the fastest growing segement of technology
especially communications technology and geo-location technology. You have
already stated that you will not support Lunar/Mars and solar system
exploration efforts. So where's the beef?

>
>[Maximizing Federal Investment in Technology]
>
>"R&D conducted at the federal labs and consortia should be
>carefully evaluated to assure that it has a maximum impact
>on industrial performance [and] cooperation between
>universities and industry should be encouraged.
>

Meaning a new commision that will say for the thousandth time to invest in
space and will be ignored by the demoratic party that is only interested
in bread and circuses.


>"Funding for basic university research should continue to be
>provided for a broad range of disciplines, since it is
>impossible to predict where the next breakthrough may come.
>

Amen brother although here at the University of Alabama where superconductivity
was invented, we did it without government funds.

>"While maintaining America's leadership in basic research,
>government, universities, and industry must all work
>together to take advantage of these new breakthroughs to
>enhance U.S. competitiveness.
>

Sounds nice. Do they know that this is a Republican platform?

>"Cooperative R&D programs represent another opportunity.
>Consortia can help firms share risks, pool resources, avoid
>duplication, and make investments that they would not
>undertake individually.  By requiring that firms match
>federal contributions on at least a 50-50 basis, the
>government can leverage its investments and ensure that they
>are market-oriented.

How can you do this when you are going to tax the bergees out of industry
to pay for your social and environmental programs?

>
>"A Clinton-Gore Administration will work to build a
>productive partnership between government, research labs,
>universities, and business."
>

Sorry bub but this is more fluff. Remember there is an inverse relationship
in the number of high sounding adjectives and  substance to go along with it.

>
>[Creating a World-Class Business Environment]
>
>"Changes in America's tax, trade, and regulatory policies
>are also needed to help restore America's industrial and
>technological leadership.  In a global economy in which
>capital and technology are increasingly mobile, we must make
>sure that the United States has the best business
>environment for private sector investment.
>

Yea how about a flat percentage tax rate for businesses and individuals.
This would put 100,000 tax lawyers out of work but they can be retrained
into productive jobs in the electronic industries and space industries
of the future.

>"[My specific recommendations] include the following:
>
>*    Make the R&D tax credit permanent, to provide
>     incentives for U.S. companies that invest in developing
>     new technology.
>

One bad thing about this is that real estate speculation in building high tech
business parks comes under this R & D tax credit. The vast overbuilding of
technology parks in Southern California and other areas helped to fuel the
Savings and Loan disaster. It needs to be more focused on specific technologies
instead of "generic" R & D. By the way this was a Reagan program that the
slick one is endorsing.


>*    Place a permanent moratorium on Treasury Regulation
>     1.861-8, to encourage U.S. companies to perform more
>     R&D in the United States.
>

?

>*    Provide a targeted investment tax credit to encourage
>     investment in the new equipment that we need to compete
>     in the global economy. . . .
>
>*    Help small businesses and entrepreneurs by offering a
>     50% tax exclusion to those who take risks by making
>     long-term investments in new businesses.
>
>

How does this square with your health care plans? What is your definition
of new business?

>
>THE FUTURE
>---------------------------
>"The Bush-Quayle Administration has failed to stand up for
>U.S. workers and firms.  We need a President who will open
>foreign markets and respond forcefully to unfair trade
>practices.  I will:
>
>*    Enact a stronger, sharper Super 301 to ensure that U.S.
>     companies enjoy the same access to foreign markets that
>     foreign companies enjoy to our market.
>

What are you going to do go over to Japan with guns? The market forces  in
the world are fare more complex than your little homilies about standing
up for the american worker suggests.


>*    Successfully complete the Uruguay Round.  This will
>     help U.S. manufacturers and high-tech companies by
>     reducing foreign tariffs, putting an end to the rampant
>     theft of U.S. intellectual property, and maintaining
>     strong disciplines against unfair trade practices.
>
Yea Right. We have the problem in the international market due to the fact
that these people work cheaper than we do and that our government for the
last 48 years since the end of WWII has had a policy of helping these
nations to become more powerful through economic means. It is the government
as a whole and not just the Republicans that share the responsibility for
Japan reaching all of their WWII goals of a greater East Asia Co-Economic
Sphere, without the use of arms.

>*    Insist on results from our trade agreements.  Although
>     the U.S. has negotiated many trade agreements,
>     particularly with Japan, results have been
>     disappointing.  I will ensure that all trade agreements
>     are lived up to.
>

How will you insure this slick one? With Japan holding a trillion or two
of our national debt, bought on by your party's bread and circuses programs,
all Japan has to do is stop buying treasury bonds and see how fast we
go into a depression that will make 1929 look like a holiday.

>"[The Clinton Plan outlined here] comprises a technology
>policy that will restore economic growth at home, help U.S.
>firms succeed in world markets, and help American workers
>earn a good standard of living in the international
>economy."
>
>
>
>ENDORSEMENTS
>---------------------------
>556 economists, including these Nobel Prize winners:
>Paul Samuelson, MIT (1970)
>Kenneth Arrow, Stanford (1972)
>Lawrence Klein, Penn (1980)
>James Tobin, Yale (1981)
>Franco Modigliani, MIT (1985)
>Robert Solow, MIT (1987)
>

So what? Show the list of those who are against your plan and then we
might have a basis for judging.


>Business and Professional Women's PAC, by unanimous vote.
>The 7,000 participants at the B&PW convention in Minneapolis
>made the first presidential endorsement in B&PW's 75-year
>history.
>

So what?

>Roger Johnson, Chairman, Western Digital (member of the
>Orange County Eight and one of 30 presidents or CEOs of some
>of the nation's leading high-tech companies endorsing
>Clinton):  "As a Republican who has voted for every GOP
>presidential candidate since Eisenhower in 1952, it has been
>an eye-opening experience to find that a Democratic governor
>from Arkansas has a far better understanding of what America
>needs than does an incumbent Republican Administration."
>

Meaning that WD which has lost market share as its products have
slipped into technological obscurity wants to get in on the money teat of
government tech

>Delano Lewis, President and CEO, C&P Telephone:  "The
>Clinton-Gore plan is an investment in people, in plant, and
>in equipment, the elements that [will] generate private
>sector investment and participation in national economic
>recovery.  For business people who want to provide
>employment opportunities, this plan makes absolute sense."
>

What doest he president of AT & T think I wonder?

>Kathryn Thompson, real estate developer (and member of the
>Orange County Eight):  "Bill Clinton knows only an
>economically strong America can preserve world peace and
>promote expanding markets.  Bill Clinton can see past the
>moment and therefore is the most qualified [presidential
>candidate] in shaping history in America's best interest."
>

Orange county? Geez this is the county that has the most inflated
real estate prices in the nation. These people have sucked the blood of
hardworking So Cal people by the most vicious lies to sell houses in the
world.

>The Seattle Times (10/4/92):  Bush has presided over an
>economy that has created the fewest jobs of any
>administration since WWII. . . .  As Bush tries to blame
>others, Clinton talks about the future with plans for
>investments in educations and major jobs-training programs
>and strengthening the public works that allow private
>commerce to thrive."
>

We have nearly the only growing major economy in the world right now. Ask
folks from Russia how bad off we are, or France or Britian for that matter.
Also ask those in any nation that has thrown off the shackles of government
directed economies how government helped them.


>On Campus (official publication of the AFT), October 1992:
>"It may not capture headlines, but computer networking and
>its availability in schools and colleges is an issue that
>certainly is relevant to the fall election.  By nominating
>Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee as their vice presidential
>nominee, the Democrats have chosen a candidate who has
>consistently championed the rights of *all* schools to
>pariticipate in, and contribute to, a new age of high-speed
>computing."

We all know how important computer networking is.


>
>John P. White, former Issues Director, Perot Petition
>Committee (10/5/92):  "Today, I am announcing my support for
>Governor Bill Clinton for President of the United States.
>.. . .  I believe that a Clinton presidency will achieve for
>the country the essential combination of economic growth,
>good jobs, and long-term fiscal strength."
>

"Your numbers do not add up Mr. Clinton" Says anyone who has looked at them.

>The El Paso Times (10/11/92):  "The President, effective
>though he has been in the foreign policy arena, has failed
>to develop a cohesive domestic policy to address the issues
>at home--the economy, industrial development, health care,
>poverty, education or the environment.  Can we stand four
>more years of this?  No. . . .  President Bush has had his
>chance at the helm.  Today, Bill Clinton offers us the best
>hope for getting the country going again."
>

Remember it is exactly Bush's and Reagan's handling of the international
scene that has made it possible to reduce defense spending to help these
social programs. Most of the programs that Clinton supports in high tech
are Reagan/Bush programs. Who is fooling who here?


>*****
>
>The San Francisco Examiner (10/11/92):  "It is not enough to
>preside over the end of the Cold War; a president must lead
>the country to economic victory in the peace that follows.
>Although the presidential campaign has focused on the
>domestic economy, we believe, along with Clinton, that
>America's future depends on success in the global economy.
>

With the demonstrated misperception of the global economy and the lack of
understanding in international relations as shown in this document, how
can a statement like this be made?

>"Clinton envisions a new partnership among government,
>business and labor.  He believes America can be pro-growth
>and pro-environment.  He knows American business needs to be
>more competitive in the world.
>

JP Morgan said it 100 years ago that Labor, Capital and Brains are the
three legs of the stool that keeps America going forward. Government has
been a hinderance in the long term in every endeavour that it has ever
touched with the exception of infrastructure programs such as those in
transportation make the business of business more productive. Let Clinton
talk about how he will help with the next transportation that must be
developed, which is the highway to the solar system.

>"He plans to stimulate the economy through public investment
>in roads, bridges, and technology.  He wants renewed
>emphasis on job training, new investment in infrastructure
>and small businesses, and a manufacturing revival.
>

Remember the first of this document where he said that roads, bridges and
were not as important as tech. What about the envirnmentalist stance that
says that the highways and the cars that drive on them must be dismantled in
favor of mass transportation.  There is a divergence here between stated
policy and fact that should be looked at.

>"He recognizes our country's greatest asset is its
>industrious people.
>

Sounds like an exerpt from one of Ronnie's speeches.

>"George Bush has failed to keep the promises he made four
>years ago; Bill Clinton is the best choice for President of
>the United States."

Bill Clinton promises bread and circuses for everyone with no pain for
anyone. How can this be? Perot was right when he said that your numbers dont
add up and that your are deceiving the American people.

This response was written in the service of stimulating real debate and
replacing hot air with discussion.  Also my misspellings that make Irwin
Horowitz so upset may or may not be intentional. I write this on the fly
and I hope that people will look at content not use ad hominum attacks due
to the lack of a real response.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 25 Oct 92 20:14:45 GMT
From: Earl W Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: databases
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Does anyone know where I can ftp a coupla databasesl
Aitkens Cat. of Double Stars
General Cat. of Variable Stars
Any other astronomy related db's?
I am putting together a telescope control program
for the Perkins 32" reflector, and need
these to complete it. Thanx in advance
for any help!

*****************************************************************
*                                    | ====@====      ///////// *
* [e-mail]|     ``________//         *
*                                    |       `------'           *
*                 -JR-               | Space;........the final  *
*                                    | frontier...............  *
*****************************************************************

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

Date: 25 Oct 92 18:41:00 GMT
From: "KLINE, ERIC MICHAEL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dyson's Spheres
Newsgroups: sci.space

Stuff Deleted...


>The big difference is that all the energy which normally continues on to
>such places as Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc. and also to all the other stars
>in the entire universe (eventually) would now be trapped within a sphere.
>Think what would happen if you took all the heat required to keep a large
>office building comfortable during the winter, and pumped it all into one
>room.  Now multiply that by a few million times, and you're starting to
>get a vague idea of the problem.

You are ignoring the obvious solution which is to radiate excess energy
back into space from the outer surface of the Dyson sphere.  The Dyson
sphere ENABLES you to utilize the full energy output of a star.  It does
not REQUIRE that you use all that energy.

  Eric

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

Date: 25 Oct 92 19:22:44 GMT
From: Erik Max Francis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dyson sphere
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

>     Ah, isn't escape velocity at 1 AU ~50 km/s? 11 km/s seems to hold
> an atmosphere down on Earth.

I calculate it to be about 42 km/s.

But it's not a matter of escape velocity; it's a matter of gravitational
gradient.  The thermal motions of the atoms in the gas can allow it to
disperse since the gravitational acceleration toward the Sun at Earth
orbit is only about 0.001 gee.

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  [e-mail]   464E4F5244   |

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

Date: 25 Oct 92 19:47:43 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: fun with slush hydrogen
Newsgroups: sci.space

Perhaps you could put strain gauges onthe tanks and figure out their
mass.  hand out a million dollar prize to the first developer of a decent
gage for slush hydrogen.  it's a technical problem, but it can be resolved.

oh at WSC the Mac Dac people had a diagram/drawing of a DC-1/delta clipper
launch and recovery pad.  basically a big 3-5 football field sized area,
with concrete troughing and concrete covers.  the troughs serve to
allow fuel piping to the ship and the other troughs act as flame
supressers.  think of a computer room floor where every plate is a ventilator.

two tankers provide fuel.  a lift vehicle loads crew and cargo.

one decent sized hangar for cover and support.

really any decent sized airport could support delta clipper flight ops.
of course, it's all spec, but it could be done.

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

Date: 25 Oct 92 14:25:27 GMT
From: William Fabanich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gore Blames George Bush for Big Bang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) says:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] writes...
>Oh, Dennis, Dennis, Dennis...you're beginning to sound like a broken record...
>(Dennis' tired old diatribe against the Democratic party has been deleted for
>everyone's benefit...and my sanity :-).

Although he is quit bias...he is right..No democrats since JFK and LBJ ha
been ardent supporters of the Program.  (I suppose the same could be said
for the republicans.....Hmmmm...)

>>There was a large contingent from the University of Alabama in Huntsville at
>>this little party carrying Bush/Quayle posters. Too bad it did not get on TV.
>>Sorry Gore baby but it was the University of South Dakota that did it first.
>>David Webb has also put the program in place at Emery Riddle University in
>>Florida.  The University of Alabama in Huntsville continues in its efforts
>>to train the real space professionals of the twentyfirst century. These
>>students can read write and see propaganda when it is put out. Your
>>talk is just talk.
>>


>It's just a pity that they haven't taught you how to spell properly.

PLEASE!!!...I thought this form was for intelligent remarks only ......
 ( ATTENTION ! Believe it or not this is not a flame.)
...There is nothing quit annoying as disgruntled individulas with
    opposing views who when unable to make ANY kind of valid point
    resort to make pointless comments on others spellings.....

 ...then, maybe...this post could be just as big a waste of bandwidth...

 ...oh well, rationality has never been prevalent in political
      discussions... Cest la' Vie (Did I spell that right...I'm sure
                                     someone will let me know)


>Irwin Horowitz                        |
>Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
>California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ William A. Fabanich, Jr.             / Internet:                   /
/ Undergrad. Assist.                   /     [e-mail]    /
/ Propulsion Engineering Research Ctr. /     [e-mail]     /
/ Penn State University                /     [e-mail]      /
/...the meek shall inherit the Earth...                              /
/                  ...the rest of us will go to the stars            /

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

Date: 25 Oct 1992 13:00 PDT
From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gore Blames George Bush for Big Bang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Patrick Draper) writes...
>Let's see,
>
>1)  Weak defense of the Democratic party and,
>
>2) a spelling flame!
>
>Irwin Horowitz is out of arguments, that is true.
>
Well, the weak defense of the Democratic party was b/c I replied to that
message late at night, and didn't want to refute Dennis' points one-by-one.
As for the spelling flame, well that may have been a cheap shot, but since
Dennis and I are old friends (despite our different views on politics), it
was perhaps a cheap jab on my part which was meant entirely in jest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
[e-mail]                |
[e-mail]                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 00:31:35 GMT
From: Patrick Draper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gore Blames George Bush for Big Bang
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
>Well, the weak defense of the Democratic party was b/c I replied to that
>message late at night, and didn't want to refute Dennis' points one-by-one.
>As for the spelling flame, well that may have been a cheap shot, but since
>Dennis and I are old friends (despite our different views on politics), it
>was perhaps a cheap jab on my part which was meant entirely in jest.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Irwin Horowitz                        |
>Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
>California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
>[e-mail]                |
>[e-mail]                 |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I guess we both sort of eat crow on this one. I *am* relieved that my
remarks didn't turn into flamage.

I posted because I was a little annoyed that what is potentially a good
topic of discussion apparently was turning into a flamefest with the first
follow up. Of course, my message didn't help much either.

So, anyone out there, I got the original piece of e-mail that Dennis
analyzed for us, and I'm curious what the real scoop is. Is Bill Clinton and
the Dem's more likely than than George Bush to support space science?


------------------////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\------------------
| Patrick Draper           Disclaimer:  I can't control my fingers,        |
| [e-mail]                   I can't control my toes! - Ramones |
| University of Michigan Computer Club                                     |
NO CARRIER                     We are a nation of laws, not people         |
------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////------------------

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

Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 17:58:09 GMT
From: Donald Lindsay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Putting volatiles on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

I haven't followed all the let's-mine-comets discussions, so maybe
this one's been done to death already, but:

Why not get rid of earth-crossing objects by deliberately crashing
them into the Moon?

There may be residual volatiles on the Moon, or there may not be. But
the chances sure would go up if we dumped a six-mile ball of ice
there.

--
Don        D.C.Lindsay     Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

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

Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1992 16:29:25 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Voyager Family Portrait
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes...
>If by chance you happen to visit JPL, the family portrait images are
>on one of the walls of Von Karman Auditorium across from Voyager 3.

Voyager 3?  A third probe whose mission got cancelled after it was built?  What
would its mission have been?

-Mike

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 344
------------------------------