Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no230.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 38KB

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 05:06:26
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #230
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 22 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 230

Today's Topics:
                          A modest proposal
                           Ethics (4 msgs)
                 How does population relate to space?
                 Investment in the 'common heritage'.
                            overpopulation
                PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO
                           Radio allocation
                   satellite construction question
                            Space Agencies
                        Space Digest V15 #224
              Spacelab-J Frog Embryology Experiment :-)
            Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)

    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: 21 Sep 92 18:27:39 GMT
From: Steve Willner <[e-mail]>
Subject: A modest proposal
Newsgroups: sci.space

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Thomas Clarke) writes:
> >I wonder if the treaty Henry cites prohibits the private possession
> >and commercial sale of bits of nothing returned from space ?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) writes:
> Not that I know of. :-)  But the NASA regulations on what you can do in
> GAS cans most assuredly do.

Either the regulations have changed, or they can be bent for the
right customer.  Some years ago, the US Postal Service flew a bunch
of first day covers in a GAS can, then sold them at a modest premium.
I have one at home somewhere.  They were not expensive at the time
(maybe $10 or $15); I wonder what they are worth now.  No doubt they
are readily available from philatelic sources.
--
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 23:57:42 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics

>> So, again, the question is "Is it GOOD to terra-form Mars?"  Unless you
>> contradict your own eixistence by asserting a) that life-in-general is good,
>> regardless of human existence, or b) that values have no realtion to human
>> choice, you must conclude that terra-forming Mars is good, if you beleive
>> that life is good.

>Neither of these contradict anything of the sort.

If you can't understand the contradiction in valuing something while
simultaneously not valuing the source of the value, please private E-mail
me, as I'm getting tired of re-re-re-explaining it.

If you think humans aren't the source of value, what is?

>> It's really that simple. You can't have a 'should' in a conclusion without
>> a 'should' in the premise.  If you have a should in your conlcusion, it's
>> pretty easy, in this case, to trace back the logical steps to the premise.
>> In your case, the premise MUST BE 'Life is bad'.

>Bull.

Bull, yourself.  Show me otherwise.

>> Oops, sorry, there are a few other positions possible. But I've totally
>> ignored them, making certain assumptions about the people on the list.

>Unwise.

"I read the other day..."

"You read?  I can conclude that you have eyes.  Or at least ONE eye.
Or at least you had one eye THEN."

People often wisely assume things for the sake of space, ease of converstaion,
etc.

>> You can claim that 'value' has independent existence, which means you
>> have to measure it, explain what it's made of, etc.  Or, you can claim
>> that some force/being/diety/whatever makes value, not Humans.  The first,
>> though possible, is so unlikely, given the (lack of) evidence that I am
>> calling it impossible.  The second requires the existence of something
>> that makes all science and logic impossible (the untestable hypothesis,
>> God, or the omnipotent premise, whatever you want to call it).  Since
>> it defeats logic, the best it can do for you is to make the question
>> unanswerable.

>And you then go on in other places to say "God is dead" and "God
>doesn't exist". Well, I'm sure the philosophers of the world will be
>delighted that you've settled this so definitively for them. Whether
>terraforming Mars is arrogance or not, _this_ is. "God makes all
>science and logic impossible" indeed. Try telling that to the many,
>many scientists who believe in some God or other. One can argue
>equally that the _nonexistence_ of God makes science and logic
>impossible. Read some history and philosophy of science.

PLEASE forgive my MOST humble and stupid, informal over-sight.  Let me, by
all means, make immediate amends:

Assuming the existence of GOD violates the rules of science and logic
impossible, if you take his existence into account within the system
of analysis used.  God, as he is imagined to be all-powerful, can, through
the holy application of said power, make analysis impossible by violating
the simplest rules of analysis, including, but, certainly, not limited
to: Testability of hypotheses (science), and non-contradiction of valid
arguments (logic).

I, personally believe, that god, as he is usually defined, is beyond the
power of human intellect to prove or disprove, or, indeed, define.
For the purposes of the above argument, I was assuming him to not exist,
as allowing otherwise is impossible, within the context of said discussion.

>> I refuted it, and have yet to see an argument based on LOGIC that supports
>> the premise that "we can/will hurt Mars by terra-forming."

>Right, here's two:

>1. Fred values diversity of lifeforms and living environments. If
>there is life on Mars, then terraforming Mars will irrevocably destroy
>the living environment there. You can't just terraform half of Mars,
>or just 99%: it's all or nothing. Therefore it is a BAD thing (by
>Fred's value system).

For any moral argument, based on first principles, you must show that
said judgement does not depend upon the station of the person making
it, as the station would be a consideration in the judgement.  My
argument was based on that, as it was based upon the value to a
generic 'human', while yours is not necessarily based on that, since
it's based on 'fred.'  Fred might be holding contradictory values about
lots of stuff, so who knows if his geenral principles are useful or not.

So, to make a valid refutation, you must show the principles upon which
Fred's judgement is made, so that we may all consider it, regardless
of our station.  Fred may just have an opinion, not a judgement.

Maybe I made a bet with a friend that a meteor will strike in our
lifetimes, and now try to prevent a looking-for-large-meteor
projects, since I now judge a large meteor strike as 'good'.

Does that make it good?  Hardly.

>2. Harry values all life. He thinks that if you can genuinely
>terraform Mars, and make it into a fertile planet, that would be a
>good thing. But he's sceptical that you can actually do what you
>claim: he thinks that slamming comets into Mars will destroy the
>fragile ecosystem that exists there but _fail_ to make it fertile.
>Therefore attempting it is an UNWISE thing (by Harry's value system).

We've been assuming that it was possible, or at least, I was, in my
arguments.  If we couldn't, that would certainly change the whole
ballgame.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 00:39:51 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics

Dale Amon sez:

>I value knowledge. The understanding of the origin of life on Earth requires no
Earth based fossils, but fossils of other possible forms from other places, and
possibly (and even more informative) living examples of alternate, or maybe not
>so alternate forms of life.

>Since it is of value to humans to understand their own origins, protecting the
>Martian life and studying it is in human interests, possibly even more so than
>the loss of a bunch of Earth based species with the same old DNA. (Bor...ing!)

>Thus destruction of the Martian life prior to studying it is anti-human, and
>and thus anti-life.

Well, it's only anti-life if not knowing about it would endanger life here,
specifically Humane life.  But, hey, I totally agree with knowing a lot
about it, before we T-form.  One thing we just may discover is that, for
some reason, T-forming is impossible because of it.  Saved all that
effort, knowing about it first.  Maybe it's real toxic, and we almost
brought it back, save for that one scientific expedition.

Sure, I value knowledge, too.  But, like any life-form, it's a contradiction
to value it more than the thing it is valued by, or the thing it exists
to serve: Us.

>I just don't think the two are necessarily incompatible.

Nor do I.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 01:20:43 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics

>Somewhere I read that the amount of reason in a given statement is inversely
>proportional to the number of times the author has to use the word "logic"
>to make his point sound rational.

How many times did that author use 'logic'?  And you believe him? :-)

>>I'd agree that it
>>would be unethical to kill sentient beings, as well as destroy any Mars-life
>>before understanding, preserving, possibly finding that it won't conflict
>>with Earth-life.

>It would have simplified things if you'd mentioned _any_ of these in your
>first post.

C'mon, this is my umteenth bazillion post on this, when the first was only
to point out Dave Knapp's shaky premise "We can damage Mars".  Every other
post has been responding to people jumping on my case.  And I did point
out these assumptions before, though I hardly blame you for not reading
all my posts.  I hardly did either.

>>But if it came down to Human vs. Mars-life, you can only
>>conclude (logically; ethically) that we are as valuable or more valuable than
>>any potential Mars-life.

>Actually, one of the things I like about us is that I think some of us could
>choose the alien life if it were one or the other.   I can posit a situation
>or two (given that you said _any_ type of life) where I think it might not be
>such a horrible choice.

Too bad you can't imagine any of the benifits, as you wouldn't be here to
enjoy them.  I can imagine lots of un-rational people deciding all sorts
of things.  Irrational people used to die, that's why Humans are rational:
It saved our skins over and over and over.

>The argument is that we are at least as valuable as Mars-life.  From this
>value, we can draw conclusions about which life form would be good to
>have on Mars, if it's an either-or case.  The only conclusion we can draw,
>logically, is that it would be us.  If we killed said life, and then found
>that we still couldn't live there, I'd agree it would be unethical.  But,
>I'm taking 'terra-formed' to mean 'humanly habitable.'

>It only requires that Mars would be more valuable with us than without
>us.  The anti-terraforming argument requires that Mars be more valuable
>wihtout us than with.  Since that's impossible, as we are as valuable as
>anything that is valuable, the anti-T-forming argument hinges on a
>contradiction, and is, hence, invalid, not logical, not ethical.

Alright Tom, I'll give you three examples of people who, usuing your belief
system, can (I think) rationally decide that terraforming Mars is bad.

>Larry is X (where X is your choice of Amish, aborigine, Tibetan nomad,  Eskimo
>or miscellaneous hermit).  Larry will not recieve _any_ benefit should you
>decide to terraform Mars.  He doesn't give a wet noodle.  He can decide
>either way he wants.  He chooses to object because he doesn't want to see
>spacecraft zipping across the sky - looking at the stars is one of the things
>he likes to do best when Murphy Brown isn't on.

Conclusion based on station;  What general principles apply here?
How does looking at virgin mars compare to colonized mars, and why?
And why is he worrying about ethics anyway?  Is this just an opinon of his?

>Moe is Y (where Y is any number of religions or philosphies that believe it is
>wrong to destroy life).  He may or may not be wrong.  But it doesn't matter.
>He's decided that the potential limit to the number of children he can have
>(or other people can have) is better than facing the rest of his life knowing
>that he supported the destruction of an entire Kingdom (in the biological
>sense) of beings.  To him, having a few more people isn't worth destroying
>every known member of a species.
>      Remember - it's not a question of whether his religion is
>right, it's a matter of how much harm it would do him to go against his beliefs
Also dependent on station.
Why is it bad, and why doesn't general principle apply to other life-forms?
Why only 'kingdoms'?  Why not species? Individual? Cells?
If value resides in the tautology of only upholding beleif system, any
contradictory beleif system can be constructed, which means this is really
an argument for total value relatavism.  By total relatavism, again, the
Anti-T-Forming argument gets, at best, a draw.  T-forming is still not
unethical, though it might be only as good as not t-forming.

>Curly doesn't have an "ism."  But he's smart enough to realise that this isn't
>a matter of us or them.  He has no doubt in his mind that he's more "special"
>than any fungus anywhere.  However, he's a member of the old L5 society and
>really wants to build habitats in space.  He doesn't see lack of a habitable
>Mars as a problem - in fact, he may see it as a waste of resources.  Even if
>he doesn't, he may still object to terraforming on the grounds that he wants
>to be able to walk on the surface of an alien planet.  He and his like minded
>friends will get much more benefit from Mars as Mars (a nature preserve) than
>Mars as Earth (a cheap mail order clone without a warranty)

Cost-benefit a good question, but still a question.  Till we can work
that out, I'll assume it would be worth it, since any discussion of
ethics sort of pre-supposes that someone would want to do it.
Rest of it still dependent on station:  Needs general principles to work.
WHY is a nature preserve better than a colony?

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 01:56:29 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics

>It looks to me that Tom is coming across as a Utilitarian, whereas I (and
>maybe yourself from the above statement) would fall into more of a Natural
>Rights paradeigm.

Natural rights apply to humans, not the stuff on Mars.

>Utilitarianism makes interesting arguments, but it can justify some truly
>awful things. One can justify leibensraum with little trouble, because a
>simple regression of the ongoing argument makes "our race" better than "their
>race" because I am a member of "our race", and anything that improves
>conditions for "us" is therefore good. If you push on it at all, it basically
>breaks down into the "Might makes right" school.

I'm not so sure I am arguing strict 'utilitarianism', since my argument
is not based on the utility of mars, just the impossibility of valuing
anything more than yourself, and preserving consistnency.

>(One of these days I'm going to actually sit down and READ Hegel and
>Wittgenstein and Kant... :-)

That's too bad :-)  I've read them.  You won't enjoy it.  Much.

>>The argument against t-forming requires that you assume >life-in-general is
>>more valuable than Human life.  Since you are a human, you hold a >premise
>>that contradicts your own existence.  Anti-life.

>No, just anti-human-above-every-other-type-of-life.  There's a difference,
>which I guess you haven't noticed.

'Anti-human over every other type' and 'any type over human' are classifiable
in the same way:  Contradictions, useless in matters of strict ethics.
So what's the point of this difference?

>>>2)  I say life is good, just that we have no right to destroy others.

>>Then stop eating, or admit the contradiction in your statement.

>Again, you're ignoring something.  I eat to survive.  Someday, something might
>eat me to survive.  There's a fundamental difference between survival needs
>and non-survival needs.

So your absolute 'we have no right...' above breaks down under survival
condidtions?

What is it about those conditions that makes the ethcial considerations
so different?
If you can value yourself that high, under duress, why not always?
What is this 'fundamental difference'?
How is choosing to survive different than any other choice?

>1)  The right to defend onesself from attack (be it disease or a foreign
>country)
>cannot be denied.

Why not?  You're arguing that my value is less than another form of life.
Why does that change when my life is threatened?

>Survival imperatives are different from voluntary imperatives.  If t-forming
>Mars were a survival imperative, then I'd agree that we should destroy the
>(hypothetical) life there.  After we understand as much as we can about it.

Survival imperatives ARE voluntary imperatives.  That's just the point.
You can choose to die, or not.  So what are the general principles upon
which you base this crucial difference?  Why does your value change so
arbitrarily?  (Actually, there is no 'survival imperative', just a
CHOICE to survive.)

>However, as I said before, but it bears repeating:  TERRAFORMING MARS IS
>NOT A SURVIVAL IMPERATIVE!

There is no survival imperative.  We only choose to survive.  So, What's
wrong with choosing to survive on Mars if choosing to survive on Earth is OK?

>In that case, logic also tells you to stop eating, as you must kill to eat,
>and you haven't killed yourself (yet?)

>If it wasn't in that particular message it was in this string that
>you cannot, repeat cannot, show any self interest in terms of
>survival by terraforming Mars. Unless you can there is no case that
>you can argue that I am ignoring my own self interest. This argument is
>getting stupid. You are just writing in debating style. I don't wish to
>argue with blank statements.

1) We can't survive on Mars, without T-forming.
2) My argument only requires that we are more valuable than Mars-life
3) T-forming is only unethical if we are less valuable than Mars-life
4) Since we are the source of value, we must be at least as valuable

(In the case of mars, the question is, what's more valuable, a T-formed
mars, or a non-T-formed Mars.  In answering this question, it's back to
"what's good for us?")

>>But if it came down to Human vs. Mars-life, you can only
>>conclude (logically; ethically) that we are as valuable or more valuable than
>>any potential Mars-life.  Hence, terra-forming is at least as good as not
>>terra-forming, even if it would kill said (non-sentient) Mars-life.

>How do you know what is sentient and what isn't? On the one hand you claim
>that you aren't omnipotent, then on the other you make statements that
>seem to say you are. Man has never gotten a decent definition of sentience
>and yet you know what it is.

I never said I knew what 'sentient' was, besides applying to us.  I only
included 'sentient' in the range of things a valuable as humans.

>>1) There are heterosexual, non needle-required-drug using AIDS victims.

>I spent 3 years working at a facility that handled HIV on a research basis.
>Since it was possible to become infected I made every effort to
>inform my self of all of the available information. So I read most
>of the CDC reports and the research papers. I suggest you do the same
>since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

So, was Magic Johnson homosexual?  Or a needle-drug user?

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 18:45:04 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: How does population relate to space?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep18.194039.27789@kbsw1> [e-mail] (Chris Kostanick 806 1044) writes:
>>If you truly oppose population increase in the United States
>>you should have a vasectomy. Have you had one?
>>
>>Chris Kostanick
>
>Now here is a *stellar* example of a logical extreme.
>
>You're right. Perhaps if I'm against overpoplation, I should shoot everyone
>too. Makes sense.

Could you start with yourself first? :)

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 23:46:39 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Investment in the 'common heritage'.

>  Since the status of the moon and other bodies are determined in various
>international agreements (Ok, it sounds like the pope dividing up America,
>but the agreements exist) viritually all the worlds nations would see a big
>free lunch hovering before their eyes: Since the agreements say that
>'humanity as a whole' or somesuch owns the moon (and probably the rest too),
>I can imagine a nation arguing that they should get a piece of the profit
>regardless of if they had invested in it or not.
>  Nations with high population will argue that they should get a share
>according to population, small nations will argue that it should be divided
>equally. All of them would argue that if the corporation didn't pay up, they'd
>start exercising the prerogatives of a nation (ie violence) on them.

>  "We, the following nations, have decided that, in accordance with agreements
>so-and-so, corporation X's lunar mining operation, wherever on the moon it
>might be located, is a case of squatting and theft, and we have contracted
>upon corporation Y [that also have a space capability] to evict them by any
>means necessary. In return for this corpration Y get a concession from us to
>run the mine and get to keep 50% of the profit."

I can think of a great response by corporation Y, though it's kind of pie-in
the-sky.

"Since Nation Z is rightfully claiming it's rights, according to said treaty,
by requiring us to give up our profits on our investments, since we have
been mining the 'heritage of all mankind', so named because it is a
celestial body; we too, would like to claim our rights, on another celestial
body, namely, Earth, specifically, that part of said celestial body which
contains the palace treasure, and all the young women, of said upstart
Nation Z, for which we will gladly relinquish all claims to any other
nation, people, land, or value, not already owned by Corporation Y, on
Earth."

The ensuing international legal battle would probably last long enough
for corporation Y to amortize it's entire investment, or sell it off.

Another easy way to avoid this is to offer international stock options.

If some jerk claims he was cheated, the 'law' of the day can just say:
"Where the hell were you when the stock was offered to every person
on the face of the planet?  Buy some now, if you like, or shut up!"

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 18:26:50 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: overpopulation
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Lines: 18
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George F. McQuary) writes:

>The academic argument currently raging about this issue is entertaining,
>and well worth getting more aquainted with.
>
>=====
>     "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions
>     of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs
>     embarked upon now ... in 1985, when it is calculated [under the most
>     optimistic scenario] that the major die-back will be over, ..."
>                       Dr. Paul Erlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968

He'll be preaching that line until he dies... of old age. :)


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 18:53:35 GMT
From: Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>We need a new "Grand Tour" flight.  The Pluto direct flights should be
>directed to fly past Chiron, then Pluto, and then past this new planet.
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Until the orbit is determined, the actual ordering of those guys
is pretty much undetermined, too.

>Perhaps a few new objects will be sighted beyond Pluto in the mean time
>that can be added to the mission.

There's another one that was discovered earlier this year: 1992 AD,
a minor planet (?) that travels between about 9 AU and 32 AU away
from the Sun. It is just now passing through perihelion, and this surely
was a helping factor in its discovery. So this object can be added
before arriving to Pluto...

Ronny

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 01:39:04 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio allocation

>How many radio astronomers do you know who can afford to sue CBS?

How many radio astronomers would it take to buy out a few decent channels
from the current 'owners'?  Last I heard, radio astronomers only received,
so they would all pitch in on THAT purchase, right?

For that matter, what's wrong with suing, based on the infringement of
radio waves upon my peacful, quiet EM field?  Solar power has already
brought up the question of 'solar rights'.

Why can't they sue CBS?  Because the FCC won't let them.

>(Or, to take a real example of RF pollution, how many radio astronomers
>do you know who can afford to sue the Department of Defense over the
>rather unfortunate choice of frequency for GPS?)

This is an argument against gov. monopoly, not for.   The gov. has already
made it illegal to sue the gov.

>Even ignoring that, why do you assume that having a judge make such a
>decision is better than having the FCC make it?  The big guys *will*
>ride roughshod over the little guys unless there are referees to blow
>the whistle on them.

The US constitution, and, specifically, property rights, are based on
protection of the little guy.  The big guys, for the reason you point
out, don't need protection.

A judge is supposed to make decisions based on natural law, et. al.
When he doesn't, he's called 'a felon', not 'judge'.

The FCC is supposed to make decisions based on...what?  I guess I don't
really know.  I imagine it's something really vague and unenforcable like,
'public welfare' or some such gov agency double-talk.

And now, the FCC is 'the big guy'.  Between taxes, licensing, and the
disposal of frequencies, the FCC is the de facto owner of the entire
EM spectrum in the US.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 19:58:03 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: satellite construction question
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (k.c.archie) writes:
>Over dinner last night, a friend wondered if satellites had air in them.
>If they do and are airtight, they must be built to withstand the
>pressure in space. If they are evacuated, they must withstand the
>pressure on earth.

Satellite components are built to work in both earth atmospheric
pressure and in vacuum, and to equalize pressure as the launcher
gains altitude.  They are typically tested in vacuum chambers
before launch.  Some Russian satellites use pressurized vessels to
protect some components in space, in order to simplify design.
Propellant is pressurized so it won't diffuse into the vacuum.
The main problem for miniaturized satellite components Earthside is
keeping them from accumulating dust; thus the use of clean-rooms.


--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 18:42:32 GMT
From: Aaron R Wininger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Agencies
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does anyone know what ecaxtly the National Reconaissance Agency, who's
existence was recently declassified, responsibe for? Also the US Space
Command (part of the US Air Force?)? The Science and Tech division of the
CIA? (And how does a college student get an internship at these places?)

Thanks
Aaron


Aaron R. Wininger, Carnivore                 Columbia Plasma Physics Laboratory
[e-mail]                                 Columbia University
[e-mail]                              New York, NY 10027
      'That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.'  -Nietzche

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 00:47:37 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Digest V15 #224

>>The point is that you are a fascist, since you have intellectually set
>>yourself as the pinnacle of all human life, with sole power to decide
>>right/wrong, good/bad, and a host of other principles that translate
>>into 'who get's controlled, and how'.

>I stumbled over this one twice before I broke out laughing.  To the best of my
>knowledge, the author is the same person who, despite our protestations, has
>decided that terraforming Mars is defined to be good, and we can't possibly
>dissagree unless our adress includes the numbers 666.  Does this mean that Tom
>is a Facist?  Naw, we'll find out next week that "sole power to decide right an
>wrong" doesn't apply in this case.

I didn't say, in my argument about Mars, that I DECIDED what was right/wrong,
good/bad, etc.

I instead pointed out that you can't value object X more than the source
of said object's value: Humans.  Well, OK, you can, but it's a contradiction,
upon which no logical argument can be based.  Since we were talking ethics,
we were in the correct context to be talking logic, arguments, and values,
since that's what ethics is.

Community standards, cultural mores, etc., are a whole different thing.
Trying to decide those is fascist.  Pointing out some dynamics of value
and logic is what I've been doing.  Different breeds.  (Actually, I think
Fascism is when the state decides those things)

Your 'protestations', since they are not logical, aren't arguments.

Maybe you like brown shoes.  I like blue.  Opinions aren't really something
worth arguing over.  But ethics are, and I have yet to see an Anti-T-forming
ARGUMENT based on non-contradictions.

>>It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY HUMAN to act self-lessly, without coercion,
>>but the worst of all dictators are those that do things out of 'non-
>>self-interest'.  At least the admitted evil ones have a concience to
>>stop them when their anti-life practices get particularly evil.

>I wonder if [example of a self-less person] would agree with you?

I wonder if Mother Thersa, mother of some child, soldier dying for his
country, smaritan, etc., were doing what they WNATED to do?  If they
were, they were not acting self-lessly.  If they didn't want to, why
did they?

>Selfless acts of courage aren't rare at all. They occur every single day. They
>are happening all around you. Too bad that you have your blinders on.
>You might see something rather unique about human beings.

Acts that help others happen all the time.  I, contrary to your opinion,
recognize that selfishness can be a source of good, as every form of
charity was performed by selfish people.

Self-less acts don't happen, short of coercion.  When some women is raped,
that a self-less act.  When you are involuntarily drafted, that's self-less.
When you help others, because you beleive you should, or because you feel
good doing so, you are responding to something within yourself, and said
act CANNOT be self-less.  You are responding to some aspect of yourself.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 19:38:44 GMT
From: FRANK NEY <tnc!m0102>
Subject: Spacelab-J Frog Embryology Experiment :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space

And while we're at it, any results on the unofficial mission
experiment?
--
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.

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

Date: 21 Sep 92 19:12:00 GMT
From: Barry Schlesinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry Schlesinger) writes:
>>
>>
>>   Does that mean no more intenational agreements to keep certain
>>   frequencies clear for radio astronomy?
>
>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.
            ...
>International
>treaties wouldn't be effected except to the extent Libertarians can
>renegogiate them to follow the tradeable property rights model.

So, if someone were to buy 21 cm and not want to sell the rights,
radio astronomy would be wiped out?

Radio astronomy would have to take whatever was left over after
the big money had spoken, and might lose some frequencies of major
scientific interest?

No international agreements to keep certain frequencies clear because
of their scientific value?

And where is astronomy to get the money to buy frequencies.  Part of
the same fund-raising as is used to get money for large telescopes?

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 230
------------------------------