Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no218.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 05:00:50
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #218
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 19 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 218

Today's Topics:
                          A modest proposal
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (2 msgs)
                   Ethics of Terra-forming (2 msgs)
                          Hubble's constant
                      Modest moon rock proposal
               NASA Daily News for 09/17/92 (Forwarded)
                              Population
     PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
             Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
           Space Conference 16-18 October in Columbus, Ohio
        Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) (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: 18 Sep 92 05:37:31 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: A modest proposal
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>Reminds me of a scheme a friend and I batted around once:  Rent a GAS
>CAN (Shuttle getaway special cannister), fill it with small open glass
>vials.  Once in orbit, expose the interior to space and seal the vials
>with timed resistance heating or some such mechanism.  After recovery
>mount the vials tastefully on wooden plaques and sell as PERSONAL SPACE.
>
>I wonder if the treaty Henry cites prohibits the private possession
>and commercial sale of bits of nothing returned from space ?

Not that I know of. :-)  But the NASA regulations on what you can do in
GAS cans most assuredly do.  (Assuming you could even get a GAS flight
opportunity; last I heard they were so horrendously backlogged that
it was "don't call us, we'll call you".)
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 15:56:48 EDT
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>John Stevenson asks:
>>Why not drop all the longlived nuclear waste into the sun to permanently
>>dispose of it?
>I would wonder, though, what happens at the Sun to the radioactive
>waste.  Does it vaporize, and sink to the center?  I don't think
>it's hot enough, except near the core, to transmute the elements.
>Would the materials ionize and get entrained
>in the solar wind and just get send back out, possibly towards Earth,
>albiet in a highly diluted concentration?

It gets vaporized and spewed back out, pretty much in all directions.  The
Earth subtends essentially 0 degrees of solid angle as seen from the Sun :-)
hence would intercept very little of the radioactive waste (certainly less
than we started with :-).  Note that the Sun *already* spews out *megatons* of
radioactive crap toward the Earth in the course of its job of being a gigantic
fusion reactor.

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 21:20:34 GMT
From: Richard Treitel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes:
|> 2. Launch accidents can be designed for so that the waste material stays
|> contained and the container is recovered.
If you can convince the eco-Soviets of this, you can probably convince them of
the safety of cheaper alternatives!  lotsa luck though

|> 4. Waste disposal is the single biggest technical problem preventing
|> growth in the nuclear power industry. (technical, not pr).
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I disagree, but it hardly matters.

OBTW, in the spirit of recent discussions, we have a moral duty to
begin by making sure that there is no life on/in the Sun that might be
disturbed by all these heavy elements arriving.

    - Richard

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 05:25:20 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>>But one question most people forget to ask is 'who was doing the extincting?'
>>
>>How many species do you know of that:
>>3) Causes mass extinctions on a daily basis.
>>5) Controls their enviroment, in all aspects, to suit their needs.
>>6) Expands to live in every environment on the planet.
>
>  All species that have the capability of doing so.

And how many are that?

>  To make a very silly example, if mooses suddenly would become capable of
>living anywhere, escape any predator and plan for the future, I'd expect them
>to use all this (especially the last thing) to exapand and spread to their
>utmost limits.

Yes, that *is* a silly example, because that isn't reality. Why pose silly
examples to realistic problems?

The only species that can do the above is *man* and *we're* the ones who
are discussing what might be similar effects on other planets.


>>After considering all these things, we have to conclude that mankind is not
>>just your average-joe species is just carrying a long with the rest of them.
>
>  Consistent along the latter history of mankind has been an inflated sense
>of self-importance. It seems to have started with the 'in gods image' idea,
>moved on to 'crown of creation' and 'lord of nature' and then on to 'most
>dangerous animal', 'controls their enviroment, in all aspects, to suit their
>needs', 'expands to live in every environment on the planet' and 'most
>disruptive influence in the history of the planet'.
>
>  The common theme of all this is obviously a self-congratulatory "We're
>Special!"(1).

Which, you must admit, we are. At *least* in the areas I've outlined.


>>We are a *major* influence here like no othe species before us.
>
>  Changed the environment more than the blue-green algae did?

Yes.

>reformatted quotes:
>>....Mankind is most certainly a special case when you point to 'nature.'..
>>..The power that mankind currently has....You can see the bullet holes all
>>around you....*We* decide what is moral....What you see in nature is nothing
>>near the result of a 'relatively ignorant' species.

What is your point?


>>David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
>
>(1) This also has some connection to the question "What's the difference
>    between George Bush and Noam Chomsky?" where the correct answer is that it
>    is very small. Both believe that the US is the mightiest country in the
>    world. Both believe that US domestic politics drives all international
>    politics. Both believe that the world as it looks today is a creation of
>    the US.
>    1/2:)

I don't understand the connection.

>-bertil-
>--
>"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
> strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
> exercise for your kill-file."
>"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"



There is certainly no overabundance of clear responses.

--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 05:35:46 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>>  To make a very silly example, if mooses suddenly would become capable of
>>living anywhere, escape any predator and plan for the future, I'd expect them
>>to use all this (especially the last thing) to exapand and spread to their
>>utmost limits.

>Yes, that *is* a silly example, because that isn't reality. Why pose silly
>examples to realistic problems?

I think the point is that humans are no more or less moral, in their
treatment of the environment, than any other animal, although the
effects of our actions may be more noticable.

>>>We are a *major* influence here like no othe species before us.
>>  Changed the environment more than the blue-green algae did?
>Yes.

Didn't this radically alter the composition of the atmosphere (raising
oxygen from near zero to almost 20%) and thereby cause a huge number
of species to become extinct? Are you saying that humans have altered
the environment more than this?

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 04:30:18 GMT
From: Chris Metzler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's constant
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]>, Jon J Thaler <[e-mail]> writes:
|> This belongs in sci.astro, so I'm crossposting it there.
|>
|> [e-mail] (Richard J Brooks) says:
|>
|> > I read this past week about a researcher stating that some measurements
|> > indicate that the HUBBLE constant is changing with time.  The acticle
|> > stated that the change was fast enought that a remeasurement in 2 or 3 year
|> > would verify this.
|>
|> I haven't heard about this, but considering that people can't agree what the
|> value of the Hubble constant is to within a factor of two, I'd be surprised
|> if there exists any reliable measurement of its time derivative.
|>
|> > (As a side comment - If my memory is correct, Hubble's constant is used
|> > in determining distances in space.  Does this mean that the size of the
|> > universe is changing?)
|>
|> In the standard cosmology the first sentence is true.  Thus, if the
|> "constant" is really changing, either:
|> * We're in *BIG* trouble, or
|> * The standard picture (big bang, and all that) is wrong.  In the standard
|>   picture, the time derivative is about one part in 10**10 per year.

or, this is not right.

In the standard hot big bang model, the Hubble constant is a constant
in space (the same everywhere), but not time.  Some cosmology books
make an effort to refer to H_o as the "Hubble parameter," in order
to make this clear.

A Simple Model of the Hubble Flow
---------------------------------
Most people's conception of H_o only extends to the Hubble law:

            v = H_o * r

-- that is, two objects separated by a large distance r are moving apart
with respect to each other, and an observer on one of the objects would
see the other moving away in a radial direction with velocity v.  A
simple model can illustrate why the law exists.  Consider a circle with
radius "a".  Two points on the circle, separated by a distance "s" along
the circumference of the circle, and on an arc of angle "theta", fulfill
the equation

            s = a * theta

This is just high-school geometry (if the two points are at the same
place, the angle is 2 * pi, and we have that the circumference of a circle
is 2 * pi * its radius).  Now, assume further that the points stay
fixed on the perimeter of the circle, but THE CIRCLE ITSELF IS EXPANDING
-- the radius a is not constant.  We then have

            ds   da
            -- = -- * theta
            dt   dt

There is no d(theta)/dt term because we had the points stay fixed.  The
points are getting farther apart, but only because the circle is expanding,
and they are moving along with the expanding circle.  But Hey!  ds/dt is
a velocity!  Let's write it as v, the rate at which the two points move
apart (the rate at which the space between them is increasing).  We have

            ds   da    1
            -- = -- * --- * a * theta
            dt   dt    a

Note that I multiplied the right hand side by 1; I just wrote 1 in the
form a/a.  Now, a * theta = s!  So we have . . .

            ds   ( 1    da)
            -- = (--- * --) * s
            dt   ( a    dt)

or v = H * s, where H = (1/a) * da/dt.  Bingo!  I have a "Hubble Law."  At
any given instant, the instantaneous rate at which the space between the
two points is increasing is proportional to the distance between them.


The Time-Evolution of the Hubble Flow
-------------------------------------
Now, suppose da/dt is a constant -- that is, the rate at which the radius
of my circle is increasing is a constant.  Merely looking at the form of
H should make it obvious that H will decrease with time.  In fact, there
is only one functional form for a(t) that will allow H to be a constant.
If you've had any calculus, you can easily find what it is.  Just set that
equation above for H equal to a constant, and solve the differential eqn
you have there for a.


BUT WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
--------------------------------------------

In cosmology, one writes the physical coordinates of an object -- the
coordinates we observe and experience by looking out our telescope at
M87 -- as

            r = a * x        (r and x both vectors)

where x is the location of the object in "comoving coordinates" and a is a
scale factor.  The "expansion of space" corresponds to the fact that "a,"
our scale factor, is increasing.  Two objects which stay fixed in
comoving coordinates nonetheless move apart in physical coordinates,
because a(t) is increasing with time.  Sounds a lot like our circle above,
huh?  Following the same reasoning, you can derive the Hubble law.

So the Hubble "constant" is just (1/a) * da/dt, where a is the scale
factor that describes the expansion of spacetime.

Is the Hubble "constant" constant in time?  Not unless a(t) goes like
the function you derived above, when you solved the differential
equation.  Common wisdom says a(t) currently is going as t^(2/3);
that is,

                                2/3
        a(t_2)     (t_2)
        ------  =  (---)
        a(t_1)     (t_1)

The reason why we think this is true comes shortly.  Perhaps the most
fundamental equation of the hot big bang model is the First Friedmann
Equation,

                  2
        ( 1    da)       k     8*pi*G
        (--- * --)   +  ---  = ------ * rho
        ( a    dt)      a^2      3

where a(t) is our friend, the scale factor; k determines whether the
universe is open (k<0), closed (k>0), or flat (k=0), G is Newton's
constant, and rho(r,t) is the mass-energy density.  This is a differential
equation for a(t), and if we know k, and we know how rho changes when
a(t) changes, then we can solve for a(t).  In a matter-dominated
universe (rho from matter is much more than rho from anything else),
to good accuracy, rho goes as a^(-3), because in our real world, the
density is inversely proportional to the volume.  If k=0, or if rho is
big enough that the curvature term (the one with k) is negligible,
then we have a simple first-order differential equation again.  You
can solve it.  That's where t^(2/3) comes from.

This is enough.  I'm tired.  Yes, the Hubble "constant" changes with
time in the hot big bang cosmology.

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 07:56:10 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modest moon rock proposal
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
[identity of original poster dropped from Phil's message]
>
> \Considering how much moon material there is down here, why couldn't a
> /few of those rocks be ground into little bits, mounted and sold to the
> \people who financed those rides in the first place - i.e., the American
> /public.
>
> [...] one could build an unmanned sample return
> mission that tested fuelmaking from native resources in order
> to take back as much moon rock as could be auctioned off...

I've seen this idea before: in late 1988 or early 1989 the Space
Studies Institute ran a little think-tank (I think they called it the
Lunar Systems Study or something similar).  The purpose was to find
a low-cost route to using extraterrestrial resources that could be
financed privately.

I don't recall all the details, but some features were:

--about three automated lander missions
--sample return where a portion of the lunar samples would be marketed
as souvenirs to help finance the missions
--small-scale test experiments in oxygen extraction and other
materials processing aboard a lander
--a mini-rover road rally, involving several teleoperated rovers,
marketed as a sporting event, and perhaps renting out time in the
operator's seat as another moneyraiser

I would presume that SSI has a report on this.

SPACE STUDIES INSTITUTE         [phone]
P.O. Box 82, Princeton, NJ  08542

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | The restaurant's architect
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | said every effort had been
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | made to build McDonald's
Internet:       [e-mail]  | 15th outlet in Italy
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | in harmony with Pompeii.
                                       | --Reuters story in *Chicago
                                       |  Sun-Times*, 18 June 92

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 04:19:52 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Daily News for 09/17/92 (Forwarded)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Daily                 News
>Thursday, September 17, 1992  24-hour audio service at 202/755-1788
>
>NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin will be the keynote speaker at a
>luncheon being held in Washington today of the Aerospace Industries
>Association of America.

The Aerospace Industries Association of America???  It was a good try,
but whoever writes these things should really have an acronym list
handy.  AIAA = American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Of course if there are two aerospace societies with the initials AIAA,
I've just made a fool of myself on an international network.  But I'm not
worried.

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 08:52:28 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> SCOTT I CHASE writes:
>You are perhaps the only person on the planet who would identify concern
>with the environment with either self-hate or racism.
  Not the only person. A common theme that runs through all environmental
debate is that every other species is more important than Man.
ie. It is OK to completely ruin some peoples lives, provided you are
saving another species. (I might also point out here, that I have
_never_ heard an environmentalist offer to contribute out of their
own pocket to assist communities whose livelihoods they intend to
destroy)
Environmentalists tend to regard Man as
seperate from nature, as if we were some alien interlopers, rather
than an integral part. Even their choice of language shows this.
   Yes I regard caring for the environment as simple self interest
as well. It can be overdone however. The environment is going to
change no matter what. Trying to take a snapshot of a planet's history
at one point in time and saying 'This is Nature, let's keep it like
this forever' is, at best, pointless. Species come and go, perhaps
history will say that we took ourselves too seriously :-)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  voice/fax: [phone]

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 06:32:39 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Chaotic orbits don't necessarily imply a situation where a small change
> could send planets flying off in all directions.  It is quite possible
> for an orbit to be chaotic, in the sense that you cannot predict *exactly*
> where it will be in a billion years, and still be bounded (either absolutely
> or just with high probability), in the sense that you can say that it will
> stay *somewhere* between Venus's orbit and Mars's orbit.  My impression
> is that the recent findings are along those lines:  there is no reason
                                                      ^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^
> to suspect Velikovskian planets-wandering-wildly behavior in either the
> past or the future, but small-scale variations appear to be unpredictable
> in any practical sense.

Yes, there is, if Iowa State University gets control of the solar
system!

> Agreed that we should put planet-moving work on hold for a few years :-)
> until the situation is better understood.

Does this mean you're in favor of diverting Galileo, Henry?

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 05:49:54 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[747]  It is interesting that each time a new
>upgrade has been added, the FAA required a new certification program as if
>the upgrage was a new plane.

Actually, if memory serves, the upgrades do get a somewhat streamlined
version of certification.  They've still got to demonstrate overall
performance characteristics and the like, particularly where the upgrade
has affected important characteristics like how hard the brakes have to
work to stop the thing, but the airworthiness of the basic design does
not have to be re-established all over again.

>Also the follow on for the 747 is in the works.  It is called the 777...

Nope, sorry, you heard wrong.  The 777 is indeed in the works, but it is
*not* a 747 replacement.  Boeing has no plans to stop building the 747
any time in the foreseeable future.  The 777 is substantially smaller
(although it's a large airliner by anyone *else's* standards).
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 07:07:02 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Conference 16-18 October in Columbus, Ohio
Newsgroups: sci.space

My friends at MSDC have cooked up a great-looking conference this
year.  Alas, I won't be able to attend this year, but I thought you
might be interested in it.  I probably can't give you more info if you
have questions-- you're better off calling Benny Shoults at
[phone].

Bill Higgins                            Internet: [e-mail]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory   Bitnet:   [e-mail]

                       ======================

                             8TH ANNUAL
              MIDWEST SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE 1992
                         October 16-18, 1992
                           Columbus, Ohio



Co-sponsored by Midwest Space Development Corporation, Batelle,
and NASA

Held at:

Holiday Inn, Worthington
175 Hutchinson Dr.
Columbus, Ohio 43235
[phone]
Located where I-270 meets route 23 north of Columbus.
For hotel rooms, call 1-800-HOLIDAY and ask for "Midwest Space"
special rates.


SOME HIGH SPOTS OF THE PROGRAM:
[where I know more about the speaker than the brochure provides, I've
added my own comments in brackets --WSH]

FRIDAY

Panel on Industrial Opportunities in the Space Sector--
commercial space experts, moderated by Rajiv Kohli of Batelle

European Space Agency, Present and Future-- Ian Pryke [ESA's top guy
in the States --WSH]

Star Party at Perkins Observatory

SATURDAY

Opening Address-- Frank White, author of *The Overview Effect*

SSTO-Delta Clipper-- William Gaubatz, McDonnell Douglas [DC-X's boss
--WSH]

Nuclear Propulsion-- Michael Doherty, NASA Lewis

Space in Arts and Humanities Curricula-- Jeffrey Fiske

Martian Imperative-- Tim Stroup, Lockheed Missiles & Space

Luncheon-- John Billingham, NASA SETI project

Making Mars Relevant-- Jim Plaxco, Planetary Studies Foundation
                      [Chicago-area space activist and lecturer --WSH]

Ohio Aerospace Institute-- Donald Bailey, OAI Director of Industrial
                           Programs

Space Exploration as Inspiration for Music-- Jane Ira Bloom

NASA Today-- Dave Herb, NASA Lewis

Banquet: Hubble Space Telescope-- Steven Shore, NASA Goddard

SUNDAY

Space Station Freedom-- Gary Oleson, NASA [also an activist with L5,
                        NSS, and Space Frontier Foundation,
                        has worked for JPL --WSH]

Russian Space Program-- Daniel Gauthier [freelance artist and writer
           frequently appearing in *AvLeak*, *Ad Astra*, etc. --WSH]

International Space University-- Richard Wills [aerospace engineer
   involved in Ohio company developing new liquid rocket motors --WSH]

Seeds of Invention-- Poster Session by conference attendees
             [they'd like you to contribute if you have an idea! --WSH]

Advanced Materials Development-- Frank Jelinek, Batelle

EXITUS-- William Avery [Educational effort to teach about lunar bases
                and space development --WSH]

Luncheon-- Lynn Bondurant, NASA Lewis [runs education office there
                       --WSH]

Tour of Big Ear Radio Telescope, home of the longest-running SETI
program

For more information on the MSDC, call Conference Chairman Benny
Shoults at [phone].
========================

REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ALL THREE DAYS
Advance registration $50 (until 9/28)   On-site $60
Student registration $15 (until 9/28)   On-site $20

SATURDAY ONLY
Education Conference

Teacher-only registration (due 10/9/92) $25

Teacher Packages:
Education Conference Plus (all 3 days): $40
Education Conference and Banquet: $50

MEALS

Friday Evening-- Pizza & Soda $7.50
Saturday Luncheon-- Ham/Cheese Pita & Pasta $9
                    Roast Beef Pita & Pasta $9
Saturday Banquet-- Sliced Roast Top Sirloin of Beef $25
                                   Chicken Parmesan $25
Sunday Luncheon-- Beef Stroganoff $12
                      Baked Scrod $12

(Please specify if you wish vegetarian meal substitute)

SPECIAL CONFERENCE PACKAGE
Includes Registration and All Meals
$95

Send check or money order payable to MSDC to:
MSDC, 524 W. 6th St. Lakeside OH 43440 USA

[Complicated, but I *hope* I got all details right! --WSH]

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 01:40:09 GMT
From: Peter Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.individualism,alt.politics.libertarian

[e-mail] (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>[on radio frequencies]
>|Privatization means the current assignments become tradeable
>|property rights.  Thus, if Barry needed a used spectrum for
>|a new radio astronomy experiment, he would go to its owners
>|instead of the FCC bureacracy to negotiate purchase or rent of
>|time.  And vice versa, the FCC couldn't pull somebody's frequencies
>|without compensation.  Violation of the property would be trespassing
>|and treated as violations of assignment are now.  International
>|treaties wouldn't be effected except to the extent Libertarians can
>|renegogiate them to follow the tradeable property rights model.
>
>You're avoiding the big question by talking about conversion from
>*now*.  How do you address the question of frequency ownership (from a
>purely private view) absent an initial government intervention?
>
>Let us posit that Star Trek had the right idea and subspace
>frequencies exist.  When Widget company invents a sub space
>communicator, do they immediately own all of the subspace frequencies?
>Isn't this, by definition, a monopoly?  Must a governmental body first
>divide up the frequencies and assign them before a free market
>mechanism can be employed?
>
>What if two weeks later Acme invents a similar device?  By using it to
>broadcast on the newly discovered subspace frequencies, are they
>violating the property rights of Widget?  I'm not clear on how this
>becomes a practically ownable resource.  Seems like air or something.

    Widget would not automatically own all of the subspace frequencies;
rather, Widget would only own the patent rights to its design of a subspace
communicator.  If Acme incorporates into its design the innovative elements of
Widget's communicator which make it unique, then Acme is violating Widget's
patent.  Acme's design would have to either incorporate existing technology
or have innovative parts of its own.
    There should be no government regulation of who
can use what frequency, whether it's in the EM or subspace spectrum.  Nor
do I object to EM emitters forming a contract among themselves to not emit
at certain frequencies of certain power, but that would be called
"restraint of trade" or "collusion" under current anti-trust laws.
--

Peter Johnson           "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:

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

Date: 18 Sep 92 03:58:02 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.war

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bertil Jonell) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>* Privatize the radio spectrum and orbital slots, and disavow all
>>  treaties (Sea, Moon, Antartica, etc.) that prohibit private
>>  property and enterprise in frontier areas.
>
>   That sounds almost as anti-social as when the Soviet union voided all
> international agreements (including the Geneva convention) or when the Mullas
> in Iran felt they were above worldly stuff like diplomatic status.
>
>   If the US did something like that, and stepped somebody on the toes (like
> drowning out others transmissions, crowding out their satelites, and start
> drilling for oil in the Norwegian zone (or Russian zone, or Argentinean zone),
> I'd expect an international conflict on the level of at least trade war.
>
>>[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
>
> -bertil-

i think that privatization of space would be much easier.  If US Steel started
mining and refining ore (say, nickel or iron) in space, and returning to Earth
refined steel, etc. for use it would be hard to come up with a good reason to
stop them.  (Especially ecologically, assuming a low pollution method of
launching/recovering spacecraft).  Space, the Moon, etc. is big enough that if
anyone started claiming that the resources are for everyone, a private company
could simply say something like ``yes, we agree, and in fact that asteroid
right over there is just waiting for you to come develop it.  Now let us try to
get a fair return on the investment we made in getting out here to work.''  At
least, that's what i would hope they would say.  Of course, some government or
other will probably try to claim sovereignty over sections of space once people
get out there (well, IF people get out there.)


The sea and Antarctica however, are different stories.  The sea is becoming
dangerously over-utilized as it is, and regulatory controls are needed (IMHO).
Antarctica is also valuable to the Earth as a whole, and should be developed
very carefully, if at all (also IMHO).  As resources planetside become more and
more valuable, i think the risk of war over them gets higher.  One more reason
to take a serious look at what's out there...

This reply is going to so many newsgroups i can't hope to read them all, and so
i won't.  If you disagree, or agree, or want me to clarify something, please
e-mail me.


James Zuelow
[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 218
------------------------------