Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_6/v15no605.txt

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 05:04:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #605
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 29 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 605

Today's Topics:
                       *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
                             Acceleration
                         fast-track failures
                             Galileo HGA
             Justification for the Space Program (2 msgs)
      Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
           Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
                 Stupid Shut Cost arguements (2 msgs)
    Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw) (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: 28 Dec 92 19:34:20 GMT
From: nathan wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

There is an excellent book on this subject and several similar designs
called "Starflight Pioneers". It is a hardback, and came out about
two years ago. I got my copy at a college bookstore, and i'm sure others
could obtain a copy also. It has a lot of information on the bussard
ramjet system, and gives complete technical references.

I am a computer science graduate student but have long been interested
in real space and interstellar flight and ways that technology may
evolve. I found this book very accurate and informative.

I will try to dig out my copy (my den is the current resting place of
primordial chaos) and post the exact ISBN number to make it easier for
people to order it.

+----------------------------------------------+------------------------+
|                                              |              __        |
|                                              |             / /\       |
|  Nathan F. Wallace                           |      ______/ /_/___    |
|  email: [e-mail]  |     / ____  ______ \   |
+----------------------------------------------+    / /\__/ /\____|\/|  |
|                                              |   | |\/ / / /     \|/  |
|  Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and are |   | || / /_/_____      |
|              not those of any other person,  |   | ||/_______  /\     |
|              organization, or supreme being. |   | ||\______/ / /     |
|                                              |   | ||      / / /      |
+----------------------------------------------+    \ \_____/ /_/__/\   |
|  "War is the art of deception."              |     \_____  _______/|  |
|                                 Sun Tzu      |      \___/ /\______|/  |
|                                              |          \_\/          |
|                                              |                        |
+----------------------------------------------+------------------------+

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

Date: 28 Dec 92 18:10:24 GMT
From: _Floor_ <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceleration
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
] Certainly electronics can be built to be flexible,  it's just what degree
] of flexibilty you desire.  Flex is a stress/strain relationship.
] Steel is flexible, rubber is rigid.  you just need to define these terms
] first.  besides, if you build with amorphous materials,  you can get
] quite a flex out of silicons.

And retain precisely the same semiconducting properties? Anyhow, I was
thinking more along the lines of welds and other connections. Stresses
would occur in bending electronic boards - everything would have to
be completely secured.

] and i believe the designers understnad the material characteristics
] of their probes quite well.

I expect so too. It isn't that I disbelieve they'll do this, but that
I find it astounding they could achieve such durability.

] >] But other than that, and factors such as prolonged stress on human hydraulic
] >] systems, the greater problem can be with rapid changes in acceleration, which
] >] are of course associated with short bursts of acceleration. (I believe the
] >] usual term for the time derivative of acceleration is "jerk".) These rapid
]
] Actually,  i think the term is Impulse.

No, impulse is equal to the change in momentum, which is equal to force*time.

] >You're joking me if you think the Galileo probe will experience constant
] >deceleration. There's going to be buffeting worse than we could imagine,
] >I imagine (:-). Especially at speeds many times that of sound (which I'm
] >sure will be different for the Jovian atmosphere)! So you're point is
] >very applicable. Experiencing this jolting for milliseconds (as per
] >a dropping watch) may not cause any damage. But if you dangled the watch
] >from the ceiling and proceeded to place a jackhammer at its face,
] >slamming into its face for a couple of minutes, liklihood is that
] >the watch will no longer function! Ditto for an atmospheric probe.
] >That thing is going to get one whale of a beating. You've helped me
] >emphasize my point even more! Thanks :-)
]
] Hopefully this kid will take a physics class.
]
] I think he is mistaking  Work with Force and energy.
]
] Work is force through a distance,  Energy is work*time, Force is mass*Accel
] ( boy i hope i got these right :-) )

Gee, thanks for the diminutive attitude towards me :-). Sorry, energy is
not work*time. Energy applied is _equal_ to the work. Energy and work,
however, are power*time.

] It takes energy to achieve a momentum change.

Sure, OK.

] A probe has high momentum hitting atmosphere.  it gets  a high acceleration,
] on a small mass.  not a lot of force,  exerted through several miles of
] atmosphere,  for a few minutes.

Small force? I think they said the probe would feel an acceleration of 350 g's.
It's receiving a force 350 times that of Earth's gravity at the surface of
the Earth. That's quite a bit of force if you ask most people.

] I think the kid is missing the fact that while the accelerations of dropping
] a watch and hitting it with a sledge are the same, the work products are significantly  different.

Huh? Me litle kid not udnersnad wy if force and disstence same, work difrent.
And _significantly_ at that!

] Try this.   drop a timex.  work out the acceleration.
]
] Now,  hang the timex from a string.   Let a pendular mass strike it, at low spe
] ed.  work out the acceleration.  keep increasing the mass and speed.
] continue until the timex dies.   I suspect you will be surprised at how
] high you can go.
]
] Halting a 5 lb sledge witha watch is a major momentum change, hence mucho
] work in a millisecond.
]
] Conducting momentum transfer via pendular masses, is much less work.
] you can simulate this with that desk toy, using  pendular ball.
] tape a timex on to one of the balls.  it should survive.

He he ha ha! What a joyous laugh you've given me this morning! This just
isn't the truth. Have a pleasant day! :-)

  _____    "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks
 /  ___\  ___  __ ___   ___      _____________   [e-mail]
 | / __  / _ \ | /   \ / _ \     |  physics  |   [e-mail]
 | \_\ \ | __/ |  /\ | | __/     |racquetball|   [e-mail]
 \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/     | volleyball|   [e-mail]
 Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:21:13 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Of course the SR-71 was a black program funded by clandestine government
>>agencies to the tune of we don't know how many billions of dollars.
>
>Well, we do know that Kelly Johnson had no more than 100 engineers
>working on the project.
>
>How many billions can 100 engineers manage to spend in just 18 months?

How many billions have you got? It takes almost no time at all to add
zeros to a check. Engineers can spend money faster than a woman with
a gold card in Saks if you let them.

>Like most government reformers, you refuse to recognize that
>the conditions you decry are the *results* of your reforms.
>You simply ascribe the worsening conditions to the fact that
>your reforms have not been implemented thoroughly enough.

That's rich. Not only am I not a government reformer, I'm enough
of a practicing engineering manager to know that projects only come
in on time and on budget when you've throughly done your homework
and made allowances for the contingencies that always come up during
development. This has nothing to do with government, as incompetent
an exercise in mismanagement as I've ever seen. This has to do with
sound engineering management of high risk development programs with
real schedules and real budgets. Cutting corners up front on the
assumption that everything that works on paper will work in metal
usually bites you in the rear. How that affects your project's
schedule and budget depends entirely on how well you've planned
for such failures and how well you've developed alternative
strategies.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 15:51:09 EST
From: "S.K. Whiteman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo HGA

It seems to me that a lot of energy is being stored in the stuck HGA
ribs; kinda like loading a spring; isn't this going to give the whole
spacecraft quite a jolt when/if they release?
        \       /___________________          Sam
         \_____/                   |          IBM Systems Programmer
Chicago/ |                     *   |  O       Indiana University -
    I    |               Ft. Wayne |  H       Purdue University at Fort Wayne
    L    |               1794-1994 |          Fort Wayne, Indiana USA

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:39:40 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> Paul Dietz,
[e-mail] writes:
>The differences between the age of exploration and today are
>considerable.  The raw mineral and agricultural products (and slaves)
>that profited the explorers of that age are a much smaller fraction of
>GDPs today.

Since the whole arguement is based on unforeseen long-term benefits,
which may or may not be animal, mineral, or vegetable,
this "difference" is neither valid nor pertanent to Herman's point.
Furthermore, raw materials may be a smaller fraction of GDPs, but
they are not inconsequential to the health of an economy. Furthermore,
in some present-day economies, oil is most of the GDP. Finally, if
a naturally-occuring rare or unknown substance (or microgravity
manufactured substance) of great applicability
were found/produced in space (or on another body), it
could result in a shift in the
importance of raw materials to the GDP. I know that you are going
to now ask "what material?". However, since Herman's arguement
pertains to unknown benefits and the danger of lack of foresight,
it is a valid arguement.

Even as we speak, satellite weather/soil monitoring and satellite
communication and navigation, which not very long
ago were unforeseen applications, have changed our world. Some of
the benefits you claim will never come are already here, right under
your nose. Note too, that they are not animal, vegetable, or mineral.

>
>More generally, arguments by analogy are essentially circular.  You
>have to assume that the analogy is valid to believe the argument.  I
>don't see any reason to do that here.

That is because you are being really short-sighted. Paul, are you so
sure you can see our future well enough that you can discount this
arguement? Can you tell me any compelling reason to believe we
will gain nothing from aggressive space exploration and development
based on fact rather than speculation?

>There are contrary analogies:
>for example, exploration of Antarctica has been of little practical
>benefit to the exploring countries (although it has been of scientific
>benefit to humanity as a whole).

Very bad example. Antarctica has remained undeveloped for essentially
political reasons.  I can't remenber the treaty name off the top of my
head, but it has reserved Antarctica as a wildlife reserve and research
laboratory. There have been challenges to this treaty
recently because it is believed that there may be huge
caches of minerals to be found there.
Even if Antarctica were open to development, it may take
awhile for the benefits to become apparent. However, since the question
being debated here is long-term benefits, there is no reason to put
stringent time limits on those benefits coming to full fruition.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson

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

Date: 28 Dec 92 20:42:43 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:

> Since the whole arguement is based on unforeseen long-term benefits,
> which may or may not be animal, mineral, or vegetable,
> this "difference" is neither valid nor pertanent to Herman's point.


Since your reasoning seems inherently incapable of being disproved,
even if wrong, I don't see that it has any value.  Theories have to be
falsifiable to be useful.  In practice, you *will* have to argue that
a project has specific benefits or it will not be funded (or, rather,
you won't get funded for your *next* project, as with Apollo).

You mention comsats, etc.: yes, but that has little to do with the
Club of Rome/wild schemes of space resource exploitation that started
this thread.  Moreover, these benefits were not unpredicted: Clarke
forecast geostationary communication relays in 1947.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Dec 92 20:29:20 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
>taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft.

OK Gary you win. I'll accept that there is nothing wrong with Governement
engaging in activities which would get you or I put in jail. It's OK for
NASA to spend $34 billion and then pretend they didn't.

Under these rules, let's look at the costs. The follwoing cost are
from a spreadsheet I put together to evaluate these costs. We get:


                                Shuttle       SSTO
1. Launches per year [1]:         10           10
2. Amortization years [2]:        30           10
3. Development costs [3]:          0         $3,000M
4. Production costs [4]:        $1,500M      $  333M
5. Amortization costs:          $   66M      $   58M
6. Launch costs [6]:            $  550M      $   20M
7. Total launch cost (5 + 6):   $  616M      $   78M
8. Cost per pound to LEO:       $10,272      $  1304

So even ignoring $34 billion in Shuttle costs AND doubling SSTO
costs, SSTO comes out ahead. Even if you doubled Shuttle flight
rates (which not even NASA pretends any more) and quadrupled
all SSTO costs, SSTO still wins.

[1] I used the number of Shuttle launches scheduled for this year and next.
    Doubling this number will not change the end result. For SSTO, I assume
    it takes 80% the domestic MLV market and that the market doesn't grow.
    I think both of these assumptions are unrealistic but it makes SSTO
    look worse.

[2] Amortization happens over 30 years for Shuttle vs 10 years for SSTO.
    SSTO must recoup costs faster since competitors can be expected. Allowing
    SSTO more time will greatly reduce its costs.

[3] Shuttle gets a free ride here. To keep Gary happy we won't worry about
    the $34 billion Shuttle development costs. To also keep Gary happy, we
    WILL amortize SSTO development costs and double those costs just in
    case.

[4] Again, we use Gary's number for the cost of an orbiter. I have doubled
    the cost of an SSTO to add margin for error.

[6] SSTO launch costs are again, double the estimated costs to add a margin.

    Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 28 Dec 92 16:33:39 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

From:
                  AUSROC II : A Post Mortem
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        Tzu-Pei Chen

"The  design  of  AUSROC II was in many ways too  "positive".
Much  thought  had  been put into each of the  systems,  but
little  thought had been allocated to possible failures  and
their  consequences.  Obviously,  greater  testing  of  each
component may have shown up some of these problems  earlier.
This simply highlights the very limited resources with which
the  group currently works. The six static firings  were  in
themselves,  major  system tests, but they  were  already  a
major strain on our resources. Hopefully AUSROC II-2 will be
able  to proceed in an environment where financial and  man-
hour   constraints  become  secondary  to  the  process   of
engineering."

Here is an example of what can go wrong with "fast track" programs
where too positive an outlook leads to overlooking simple, and
in 20/20 hindsight, obvious problem areas. The problems were
only obvious in hindsight, however, which is the main risk of
a success oriented program. Pegasus' teething problems stem
from a similar outlook. As Chen notes, financial and manpower
requirements for adequate engineering studies and testing for
the project were overly optimistic leading to complete vehicle
loss and a major financial and schedule loss to the project.

We hope they'll be able to muster the financial and manpower
requirements to do the job right the next time. It's an
engineering maxim that "There is always time to do it over,
but never time to do it right the first time."

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Dec 92 18:07:32 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> ssi![e-mail] ("Louis F. Adornato") writes:

>>>In military procurement, the development costs are charged against
>>>the prototypes, X, Y, etc, and the operational vehicles of the procurement
>>>are charged at "flyaway" cost.

>>Which I suspect is done largely to hide the true cost. I point out that if
>>the contractors in question ran their accounts this way they would all be
>>in jail and out of buisness.

>Wrong.  Many major corporations consider research and/or development a
>"sunk" cost - it's something that's considered part of the cost of
>staying in business,

Sure, but that is not what we are talking about here. Research and some
conceptual development are part of overhead. However, when a decision
is made to productize something, it always gets a separate account and
costs are charged to that. These costs are amortized over the expected
life of the product.

Boeing, for example, is currently designing the 777. There is a section
on it in the corporate budget and costs associated with it WILL be
specifically included in costing the product. If they didn't, then they
couldn't be sure they where recouping development costs and thus would
go out of buisness.

Can you name a product ever made by a successful company which DIDN'T
keep track of product development costs (as opposed to pure research)
and assign those costs to the product? Outside government, you won't.

>>But why should we follow that model?

>Because NASA paid for the design and development work (and precious
>little research) up front, and doesn't have to pay anyone back for
>those costs.

I wouldn't say nobody. There is after all, the taxpayers. I think they
would like to see their money spent wisely.

The other issue is what we want from space. If your happy with a few
Shuttle launches a year then your all set. On the other hand, if you
want an active space program you need commercial involvement which
you won't get by forcing them to amortize development costs when the
government competition doesn't need to.


>>                                     Hiding costs like you advocate only
>>encourages waste and inefficiency.

>On the contrary, by keeping development and operational costs separate,
>there's less opportunity for waste and inefficency in one phase to get
>buried in the lifecycle costs.

Of course, that 'waste and inefficiency' also tells you that you simply
can't build the product so it should be cancled. That is very useful
information which is suppressed under government procurement systems. It
also encourages designers to take the short view and minimize design
costs which tends to maximize operations cost.

I have worked on more than one project where the company decided that
development costs couldn't be made back with the product. In these cases
they cancel the project so they can invest it in other products which
CAN recoup costs.

>Besides, development and operations are
>two completely different kinds of costs, so drawing a clean line
>between the two also provides better historical information for
>budgeting, forecasting, and cost control on the next project.

Of course. Such a clean line is indeed drawn. There is a development
line item and an operations (or manufacturing) line item.

>Of course, amortizing the development costs does have one real
>advantage; it ensures that the shuttle's per-flight costs will always
>be astronomical,

The advantage sir, is the realization that we are spending too much for
a system which doesn't work very well. I consider realizing that fact
(helped by reasonable cost accounting) a good thing since it allows us
to spend our money more wisely.

Why doesn't it bother you that we are spending (in your words) 'astronomical'
amounts of money for launch services? Are you so carefree with your own
money? If not, why are you so carefree here?

>while allowing the DC program to hide it's own
>development costs behind a vaporware figure of useful lifespan.

If you have some specific technical justification for this, please post
it. If not then it must fall under Gary's 'is doesn't exsit so it won't
work' line of arguement.

I am happy to compare DC (or existing expendables) to Shuttle. No matter
what rules you pick, Shuttle looses.

We simply aren't going to get into space by shoveling money under a
SSME and waching it burn.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 28 Dec 92 16:46:45 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   I am happy to compare DC (or existing expendables) to Shuttle. No matter
   what rules you pick, Shuttle looses.

Pah. Assume the first and third manned DC flights crash and burn,
the first in a hard landing after abort-to-orbit due to two engines
failing. Guidance fails to correct the asymmetric thrust and it swipes
some structures, the fuel tanks and bay collapses completely after
unexpectedly high vibration weakens the crumple-zones and the crew
dies, two firefighters on the ground die when some trapped LH2 vapour
explodes. The second flight is successful but the third goes
drastically off course during ascent and nosedives into an apartment
building 600 miles from the launch site - investigation reveals a
subcontractor delivered sub-spec parts causing a foobar hardware
failure and software errors caused the thrust compensation to be
in the exact opposite direction, the pilots were knocked unconscious
when a piece of metal failed under the vibrations and hit them
on the head. McD goes bankrupt and the SSTO program is hit by
lawsuits from relatives of victims, Rifkin and Nader which are not
resolved (in McD's favour, less $800M compensation to victims) until
2017.
    Them's the rules... who wins?


|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:29:53 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>Really, did Boeing pay for the development of winglets (those little
>>dinky wingtip things the latest models have)? ...
>
>Look, if your trying to say that research has been done in the past and
>that research should be treated as a sunk cost, then you are partly
>correct. The concept is correct but the word is 'depreciated'.
>
>Sure there is lots of depreciated costs going into airliner development.
>Much of that does come from government funded research. I have no problem
>with that. You will note that I didn't say the money used to build the
>X-24, an important vehicle for Shuttle, should be charged to Shuttle.
>
>The fact remains however that we did spend $34 billion to develop Shuttle
>and that cost should be accounted for. If we are going to pick and choose
>what costs we include and which we don't then why not say Shuttle is
>free?
>
>>for the development costs of the basic jetliner airbody designs
>>or did they sink it to military contracts?
>
>To some extent I'm sure they did. This happens all the time however
>in the civilian world. The first signal processing chips where built
>for customers willing to pay development. They where then sold to
>whoever. The point is that unlike Shuttle, all costs where accounted
>for.

Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA
did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what
the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal. NASA's prime mission
is R&D. The customer wanted an operational vehicle, and NASA contracted
to have them built. NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business.
The Orbiters only cost the bent metal cost, administrative overhead,
and contractor profit, Rockwell says that's $1.5 billion per each.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 17:53:06 GMT
From: JKF <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,news.misc

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hugh Craig) writes:
> J> Which just goes to show that Mary Shafer is also a member of the
> J> conspiracy, else she would not go to such desperate lengths to
> J> try to explain away NASA's horrible LIES.
>
> J> Yes, Mary Shafer and all members of the

> J> NASA/Bolshevik/Krystal's/NACA conspiracy are in this together,
> J> controlled by their true masters...
>
> J> the lemurs.
>
> And more quote from The NET...
>I have LEARNED the TRUTH.  The TRUTH is that Heinlein, Simak, Asimov, and
>Leiber, famous science fiction and fantasy WRITERS who "died" in recent
>years, did not DIE at ALL but rather were TAKEN CAPTIVE by the lemur
>puppet masters and put to WORK generating these PREPOSTEROUS stories which
>you then promulgate as FACT.
>
>We are ON to you, Mr. Volkoff.  You are doing good work for your MASTERS
>but we have SEEN THROUGH YOU NOW.
>   quote off
>=====================================================================
>
>  You poor misguided fools. None of you has even come close
>to understanding the depth of this evil conspiracy.
>
> I'll attempt to shed some light for you.
>
> All the misinformation and evil tricks have been master minded
>by the Cooridinated Information Apparatus headquarted on the
>planet Voltar. The Voltarians are also working with the
>KSP (Korellian Secret Police) and The BLACK LENSMEN.
>Though at times they are at odds with each other.
>
>
> The Rockefellar Empire and The Illuminatus do the evil bidding
> of their EVIL MASTERS here on Earth.
>
>  This evil empire has many arms. SOME of the secondary
> organations and prominent individualsw are listed below.
>
>The Bilderbergers
>The Jewish Defence League
>MOSSAD
>The Trilateral Commission
>CIA and its subsidiaries: The MOB, DNC, RNC.
>NSA
>Matsushita Corporation (Current mission: Destroy Chrysler)
>The IMF
>Time Inc. and it's subsidarys.(Opinion Control)
>Bebe Rebozo and R. Nixon
>Proctor and Gamble
>Michael Gorbachav  (master illusionist)
>Jack Anderson (runs smokescreen missions)
>General Electric and NBC
>CBS,ABC and The Media. (See Time Inc.)
>The Capital Gang (spin control and misinformationists)
>THEM (frequently mis-blamed for far to much,an excellent smoke screen)
>The Sauds  (funding)
>The British Royal Family (run the drug running empires(great monymaker))
>Microsoft (mission: cripple Earth based computing systems
>           with crippled operating systems)

and the lemurs, of course, let's not forget them

>The Men In Black
>
>  It has been reported that the EVIL BLACK LENSMEN have a tendency
>to drive black Ford Galaxys. Their attire usually is a black,
>sinister looking, business suit. Hat is optional nowadays. But
>if worn is black. Black impenetrable sunglasses. They have
>an obnoxius, yet effective, habit of passing themselves off
>as U.S. Federal Agents when doing 'field work'.
>
>The entanglements are many. The plots extreme. The meaning is
>profound.  .... We are DOOMED...
>
>I shall post no more on this subject as I sense the evil
>moderator conspiracy will get me if I continue.

I wonder what Dr. Beter has to say on all this.

Too bad he's DEAD.  BWAH HA HA HA!

Joel "hmm, things seem to be getting a bit ridiculous" Furr
[e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Dec 92 19:46:52 GMT
From: Paul Fritschle <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,news.misc

Please take this thread off sci.astro.. it really doesn't go here.

--

Paul Fritschle                                         [e-mail]
                 Have you hugged YOUR shoggoth today?

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 605
------------------------------