Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO012.ZIP/V16NO012

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Thu,  7 Jan 93 05:02:35
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #012
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  7 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 012

Today's Topics:
                   "Moonraker" -- fact or fiction?
                       *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
                        averting doom (2 msgs)
                 Justification for the Space Program
                  launcher costs by type of economy
  Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) (2 msgs)
                              man-rating
                          Moon Dust For Sale
                       NOAA/TIROS Satellites??
   Retros & doors opening (was Re: Soviet space disaster?) (2 msgs)
      Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
                        Soviet space disaster?
                      Space Questions and more..
                           SSTO vs 2 stage
     Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) (2 msgs)

    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: Wed, 06 Jan 93 22:27:27 NZST
From: Wayne McDougall <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Moonraker" -- fact or fiction?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

> Just shows what you know! Remember that TV show back in the 60's called
> "The Time Tunnel" created by Irwin Allen? Well, Mr. Allen was working
> for the SSA (I can't tell you what that stands for or they will kill me)
> and was responsible for announcing to the public the time travel technology
> which MJ-12 received from the aliens.
>
> The show flopped so SSA decided that the public wasn't ready to know
> about the newly acquired time travel technology (much less the source).

Does the poularity of Quantum Leap mean that the public is now ready to know?

--
  Wayne McDougall, BCNU
  This .sig unintentionally left blank.

Hello! I'm a .SIG Virus. Copy me and spread the fun.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:07:16 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason Cooper) writes:

>Sorry, couldn't quote all of this one.

>Firstly.  I see what you are talking about _now_.  Sounds not too bad.
>However, it still seems to me that carbon-catalyzed may be a great way to
>go.  1) your carbon keeps coming back and 2) you won't have to carry
>around what I see as becoming GIGANTIC amounts of antimatter.  So what
>YOU are talking about is using antimatter as a partial source of the
>energy to get the hydrogen to FUSE?  Sounds good thus far...

I didn't get the impression that that was what he meant.  After all,
if you have antimatter to use in heating the bulk of your exhaust
products, why do you need fusion?  You could probably get the same
sort of energy into the exhaust just using the antimatter.  Of course,
yuou couldn't cruise forever, but I wouldn't think it would require
amounts of anti-matter that would seem ridiculously large, given the
scale of such a vehicle.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:23:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: averting doom
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Andrew Poutiatine) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>from a U.P. story
>>>
>>>         WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will
>>>     come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will
>>>     look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500
>>>     million years, scientists said Wednesday.
>>
>>If we can't model the weather more than 5 days in advance nor agree on
>>climate prediction in 50 years, who would have any confidence in this
>>speculation?
>
> I believe the above prediction is based not on earth climate and weather

> considerations (for which I must agree predictions of more than a few days
> are not very dependable), but rather on the evolution of the sun.
>
> I am not an astronomer, but as I recall, theory predicts that stars of our
> sun's size go through a stage in their evolution at the end of their lives
> when they become hotter and expand.  It is this, I believe, that would
> parch the earth, killing life "as we know it."

Our understanding of the Sun is that it won't be at "the end of its life" for
another 4.5 or so *billion* years.  The news article  refers to predictions of
things to come in 1.5 to 2.5 billion years, when the Sun should still be a main
sequence star.

Any star will change slowly during its main sequence lifetime, and in the case
of the Sun and sunlike stars this means becoming slightly hotter and more
luminous.  The prediction quoted above seems to be saying that this part
of the Sun's main sequence evolution will be sufficient to raise Earth's
temperature to the point Earth becomes unable to support life.  While I've
no wish to dispute this claim (for now), it has nothing to do with the Sun's
predicted evolution into a red giant star after it leaves the main sequence
"at the end of its life".

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:56:17 GMT
From: Andrew Poutiatine <[e-mail]>
Subject: averting doom
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Andrew Poutiatine) writes:
>
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>> (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>from a U.P. story
>>>>
>>>>         WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will
>>>>     come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will
>>>>     look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500
>>>>     million years, scientists said Wednesday.
>>>
>>>If we can't model the weather more than 5 days in advance nor agree on
>>>climate prediction in 50 years, who would have any confidence in this
>>>speculation?
>>
>> I believe the above prediction is based not on earth climate and weather
>> considerations (for which I must agree predictions of more than a few days
>> are not very dependable), but rather on the evolution of the sun.
>>
>> I am not an astronomer, but as I recall, theory predicts that stars of our
>> sun's size go through a stage in their evolution at the end of their lives
>> when they become hotter and expand.  It is this, I believe, that would
>> parch the earth, killing life "as we know it."
>
>Our understanding of the Sun is that it won't be at "the end of its life" for
>another 4.5 or so *billion* years.  The news article  refers to predictions of
>things to come in 1.5 to 2.5 billion years, when the Sun should still be a main
>sequence star.
>
>Any star will change slowly during its main sequence lifetime, and in the case
>of the Sun and sunlike stars this means becoming slightly hotter and more
>luminous.  The prediction quoted above seems to be saying that this part
>of the Sun's main sequence evolution will be sufficient to raise Earth's
>temperature to the point Earth becomes unable to support life.  While I've
>no wish to dispute this claim (for now), it has nothing to do with the Sun's
>predicted evolution into a red giant star after it leaves the main sequence
>"at the end of its life".
>
>-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

Bill, I'm glad to see you have simply agreed with me.  I did not say that
the sun would become a red giant by this point, only that it would become
hotter and grow, and the point I made was only that earth's drying up would
be due to our sun's evolution, not to long range terrestrial climate change,
although the former obviously causes the latter.

I said nothing about "the sun's predicted evolution into a red giant," that
was you.  As I understand it, the earth is about 5 billion years old or
so, and if we assume the sun was born about the same time as the earth, then
I am calling "the end of it's (the sun's) life " to be 79% of its life
span. If you wish to define "the end of it's life" differently, go right
ahead, just don't argue semantics under the guise of astronomy.

Please take a moment to reread my post, it is above.  I think upon more
careful examination you will see that you have simply (and in more detail
no less) restated my point.

-AIP,  LANL

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:37:47 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> Graydon <[e-mail]> writes:

>A functioning economy (a whole one - heavy manufacturing, food growing,
>service sector, the whole nine yards) on the Moon is in a what military
>position with respect to the earth?

A damned fragile one.  If access is suffiently easy to allow the
development of such an economy, tossing bombs at it will also be
sufficiently easy -- and cracking your house open on the Moon, unlike
doing it on Earth, will KILL you.

>Sounds like a justification to me....

Not hardly, Heinlein stories implying otherwise notwithstanding.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:52:44 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: launcher costs by type of economy
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>I agree that, other things being equal (an important precondition!), free
>>societies are more efficient than command economies.  Nobody has yet tried
>>building a space program on free enterprise.
>
>That's because nobody can show a high enough return on investment to
>interest private capital markets...

That's not actually a prerequisite.  I worded my posting carefully. :-)

A fully private space program would have to show a return on investment,
although just how high, and how soon, depends on who's doing the investing:
Ross Perot could probably fund his own small space program without having
to convince anyone but himself that it was a good idea.

However, you can build a space program *on* free enterprise without having
to find private money to get it started.  Government funding *can* be used
to build free enterprise rather than bypass it.  Buy services, not hardware.
Specify objectives, not methods.  Pay for results, not for attempts.  Give
market guarantees, not subsidies.

It worked for aviation.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:34:06 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
>>>it costs, I don't see your point.

>>I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now*
>>has it's capabilities at *any* price.

>I say again, since you back Shuttle no matter what it costs what's your
>point?

Allen, are you seriously calling for an almost exact repeat of what
happened with Shuttle development?  Do you seriously believe we should
toss the current system before we have a working, proven replacement?
I'm sorry, but if that's the case, I have to agree with Gary on this
one.  Keep flying what we're flying until we have something else to
fly IN HAND.  Paper birds are great, and I would not be at all
surprised to see DC work pretty much as advertised, but no matter how
good it eventually turns out to be, we can't use a paper bird for
current jobs.

This is how we lost things like Saturn V, remember?  Proponents of the
next system, which looked great on paper, calling for stopping current
flights "because the new bird will be so much better RSN".

Let's not make the same mistake again.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:11:17 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>And nothing better *is* online yet. So Shuttle remains the *cheapest* manned
>western launcher since all the others have infinite costs (*any* non-zero
>cost divided by zero availability is still infinite).

The Shuttle also has zero availability, if your time frame is the
next few days.  Your car has zero availability, if your time frame
is the next 30 seconds.  (I'm assuming you're not a track star.)
Soyuz spacecraft/launchers purchased from the Russians have zero
availability, if your time frame is the next six months.  DC-1
has zero availability, if your time frame is the next four years.

Even using this rather peculiar accounting system, the Shuttle's
cost doesn't seem any better than the alternatives.  All you can
really say is that it's availability sooner than some, perhaps
all, of the alternatives.  But not immediately.  Not tommorow
morning.  The question is, must we reject any alternative that
would result in *any* delay in *any* program.

Switching from the Shuttle to Vehicle X would certainly delay
some payloads and missions currently planned to fly aboard the
Shuttle.  But remaining with the Shuttle might delay other
payloads and missions that are not yet planned but could be
flown on Vehicle X.  You can't just look at one side of the
equation; you need to do a complete cost-benefit analysis.

But there's another aspect you need to consider.  The people
running the Shuttle program have engaged in guerilla warfare
against anyone trying to develop an alternative launcher, and
there is every reason to believe they will continue to do so
as long as the Shuttle keeps flying.  So the very existance
of the Shuttle may prevent us from *ever* developing an alternative
launch vehicle.

(Oh, and just to be picky about it, division by zero does not
produce infinity as a result.  The result is undefined.)

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:19:13 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: man-rating
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>There is no need to man rate. It adds cost but doesn't affect
>>safety. If it where your money would buy the $70 million 98% safe
>>Atlas or the $90 million 98% safe Atlas?
>
>YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who
>goes up on it IS going to disagree with you.

Depends on *who* goes up on it; sensible people will look at the reliability
figures and conclude that man-rating decreases the chances of a successful
flight (because it runs up the cost without increasing reliability).

The astronaut community is less conservative, overall, than their official
public image would have you think.  You'd have plenty of volunteers from
there if the engineering looked sensible and the purposes looked worthwhile,
even disregarding the number of qualified volunteers from elsewhere.

However, Doug's point is nevertheless valid, because the original context
was official government projects... and it is official NASA dogma that
man-rating is mandatory for such purposes.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:31:39 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Dust For Sale
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:


>I'm just guessing on my figures, but wasn't 500 lbs of moon rock and dust
>brought back from the moon? And didn't the entire Moon program cost around
>$67 billion? I think that puts the moon dust/rocks at about $134,000,000 a
>pound! But as Ken says, it ain't fer sale by Nasa.

Of course, the preceding reasoning assumes that the sole function of
the entire Moon program was to produce those rocks as a product.  I
think there was just a BIT more to it than that.  Using the same
logic, one could say that we paid $67 billion to develop Tang.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 20:24:31 GMT
From: tom sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: NOAA/TIROS Satellites??
Newsgroups: sci.space

We're interested in finding out some more about the NOAA TIROS weather
satellites. Specifically, what is the transmitter power of these polar
orbit satellites. Also, are there any good references concerning the
modulation format used for data transmission?

thanks

tom sullivan
Washington University in St. Louis

[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 16:46:31 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Retros & doors opening (was Re: Soviet space disaster?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.history

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Packer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stan Krieger) writes...
>>parachute deployment that killed the solo astronaut, and the second was
>>an apparent opening of the door of a 3 man spaceship when the retro-rockets
>>were fired (and the cosmonauts weren't wearing space suits).
>>
>>Because of this second accident, NASA made it a rule that spacesuits had
>>to be worn during all rocket firings.
>

It wasn't "an apparent opening of a door".  A pressure equalization valve that
wasn't supposed to open until they were several thousand feet above the ground
was jarred open prematurely.

--
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:07:08 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Retros & doors opening (was Re: Soviet space disaster?)
Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.history

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Packer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stan Krieger) writes...
>>parachute deployment that killed the solo astronaut, and the second was
>>an apparent opening of the door of a 3 man spaceship when the retro-rockets
>>were fired (and the cosmonauts weren't wearing space suits).
>
>This is bizarre. It suggests that Russian and American spacecraft
>doors are designed by the same company...

It wasn't a door. On Soyuz 11 the seperation of the orbital module took
place when firing of several pyrotechnics all at once instead of in
some order.  The shock from this opened the capsules pressure equilization
valve at a high altitude, it is normaly opened at low altitude to ease
opening the hatch.
This was all analyzed in great detail before the ASTP mission and is
well documented in the NASA history for ASTP. For those who want all
the gory details, I hear that a US film maker is preparing Russian films
of the Soyuz 11 crew recovery, the Soyuz 1 crash and fire, and the
Nedelin disaster for release soon. That's all I know about it so far
so don't ask me any questions about it. If anyone knows more please
post it.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:32:37 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight,
>NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I
>wrong?

Yes, those restrictions have been relaxed, though not removed
entirely.  Remember the Intelsat salvage mission?


>>constructed its own communications facilities and rented those to
>>commercial customers,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Is NASA doing that?  On any scale bigger than small, occasional excess
>capacity?  If so, I agree it's playing games with its charter.

It's certainly tried.  The original plan for the TDRS system
called for at least one on-orbit spare, which would be leased
to a private company for commercial service until/unless NASA
needed it.  This never happened because NASA had trouble just
launching enough TDRS satellites for a minimal constellation.


>As for NASA hiring its own flight crew, constructing its own
>communications facilities and in general operating the shuttle system
>on its own instead of contracting out the whole works, I don't see any
>inherent problem with that.  Just like I don't hire Tektronix to
>operate my oscilloscope in the lab.

There is some difference between operating an oscilloscope
and operating an airline.  At least six orders of magnitude
worth.  And I don't think you actively try to put other people
out of the oscilloscope business, do you?

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

Date: 6 Jan 1993 19:11:51 GMT
From: Chris Barr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soviet space disaster?
Newsgroups: soc.history,sci.space,soc.culture.soviet

This reminds me of an often-told rumor about a Soviet
submarine which supposedly sank off the California coast
and no rescue was attempted, and it was publicly denied,
supposedly for face-saving reasons.  I first heard this
in 1982 or so.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:20:51 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Questions and more..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>> When DCX flys, why not use it as a way to lift a small payload such as the
>> "solar Sail Race" contestants into space? That is if the contestants are
>> unmanned..
>
>Probably because DC-X is only going to 30,000 ft...

In fact, since that's about 10km, and solar sails don't function worth a
damn below about 1000km, we have another member for the what's-a-few-
orders-of-magnitude-between-friends club. :-)
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 18:28:21 GMT
From: Magnus Redin <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs 2 stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>        The most likely thing that we are going to want in large quantities
>in orbit is propellant.  For example, a Mars expedition using conventional
>chemical propulsion might require something like 5000 tons initial mass in
>orbit, most of which is LOX and LH2.  To transfer 50 tons of LOX and LH2 to
>orbit in a DC-1 using a lower stage,
Wouldent it be a much smaller technical risk if one built 10 more DC-1
wehicels instead and stream lined the fuel flights?
It ought to be cheaper but I havent got reliable figurs.
I think it makes sence to use standard DC-1 wehicels for simple high volume
cargo until there is enough flights to justify a gas gun that launches
smal cannisters for a much lover cost per kilogram to orbit.

--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  [e-mail]
Mail: Magnus redin, Rydsv{gen 240C26, 582 51 LINK|PING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (Answering machine) and (0)120 13706

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:24:11 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Technically possible, but militarily dangerous. You've just escalated
>>a brushfire conventional war into a nuclear exchange.

>Oh?  So what are you going to do about it?  MAD -- the aptly named
>legacy of Robert McNamara -- is still in effect.  If you retaliate
>by launching a nuclear strike against your enemy's territory, he can
>do the same to you. Are you prepared to sacrifice millions of your
>citizens to avenge the loss of one spy satellite?

>I didn't think so.

This same logic, of course, is sometimes used to show how it is
possible to nuke an enemy city and get away with it -- is he going to
sacrifice millions MORE of his citizens in a full scale exchange?
This is usually used to show why MAD ostensibly has nothing to do with
us not having fought a war with the Soviets over all this time.

The trick is that once the first nuke flies, things stop being
'logical'.  Whoever fired first, the other guy has now detected at
least one nuclear burst and has lost a lot of electronic assets (C3I
stuff).  He's blinded, uninformed, and knows the other guy has fired
at least one nuke.  What's he going to do?

>You might retaliate by attacking your enemy's satellites, but if
>he started the ASAT battle, it's because he decided he has less
>to lose than you do.  (And if you're the United States, he's almost
>certainly right.)

Using this kind of tactic to get satellites is VERY dangerous, and I
would say it is generally a bad idea.






--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 6 Jan 93 18:42:37 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>    A) Raised the level of tension

Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
a bit anyway, don't you think?

>    B) Invited attack on any space assets you've got

So, how many nations have more space assets to lose (and
less ability to quickly replace them) than the United States?

>    C) Tossed public opinion and the world community off your side;
>       NOT a good thing.

That didn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait.  A lot of
wars might be prevented if Americans came to realize that most
of the world doesn't care a fig about "public opinion and the
world community."

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 012
------------------------------