Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_4/v16no432.txt

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 40KB | 822 lines

Date: Thu,  8 Apr 93 05:06:59
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #432
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  8 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 432

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss: breathing fluids
             DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test (questions?)
                        Degrees vs. Experience
                 Flame Derby aka 20 KHz Power supply
                           Flame Derby Pool
          Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint US Archaisms)
                   Irish Re-entry or AURORA/DIPPER
                        Market or gov failures
                       More on converted SS-25
                                Vulcan

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 14:38:12 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
>In <1psghn$[e-mail]> Pat writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Achurist) writes:
>>|
>>|I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump
>>|the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes.
>>|So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on
>>|hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times
>>|as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas
>>|and liquid comparision of course!
>>
>>Could you use some sort of mechanical chest compression as an aid.
>>Sorta like the portable Iron Lung?   Put some sort of flex tubing
>>around the 'aquanauts' chest.  Cyclically compress it  and it will
>>push enough on the chest wall to support breathing?????
>>
>>You'd have to trust your breather,  but in space, you have to trust
>>your suit anyway.
>>
>>pat
>>
> The only reason you inhale and exhale is to exchange good air for
>bad. If you're breathing fluid, you could mechanically circulate the
>fluid through the lung-helmet-filter system. Provided you maintain
>the oxygen content of the fluid in the lung, you shouldn't need to
>inhale/exhale.

Pressure differential appears to be a major factor inrespiration.  I don't know
the details, I don't remember them as being well defined.  It goes something
like this:

When the pressure in the aveoli goes over a certain level, the hemoglobin
absorbs O2.  When it drops below a certain level, the hemoglobin gives up CO2.

This is fuzzy knowledge, so corrections/clarifications/"you don't know what
your talking about" are all apprciated.

I do know that at 125 ft (~5 ATM) breathing on SCUBA is hard, and I'm told that
at 300 ft (11 ATM) it's a real chore.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
[e-mail]          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 10:14:01 EDT
From: Joyce Tokar <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test (questions?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
Michael Adams writes:

    [ about his ignorance of the DC-X program ]

There is an excellent summary article about the Delta Clipper (DC-X)
in the June '93 issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, on the
newstands now.  I read it this morning at the breakfast table; got so
excited and scanned all boards containing 'space' in their names.
That is how I find this thread.

Regards,
David Jones (using my wife's account!)

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:41:23 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Degrees vs. Experience
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>>>Famous last words.  I'm curious, though, Pat.  How would you feel if
>>>>your doctor told you that he/she "didn't bother" with medical school
>>>>because they "already knew the field" or that the flight control
>>>>software for the airplane you were riding in was designed and built by
>>>>someone who "didn't bother" with training to learn about software
>>>>engineering because they "already knew the field"?

>>>  There's nothing so unreal about this. Possession of a piece of paper
>>>does not guarantee competence. After all <reminiscence on> when I started
>>>doing software there was no such thing as a computer science course.

>>While a hunk of sheepskin certainly is no guarantee of competence, the
>>lack of one in a complex field is potentially an indicator of some
>>holes in the requisite underlying knowledge.

>No kidding!  We really got burned once by our family economist!  We were
>going to sue him, but our checkbook was all out of whack by then, so we
>bounced the check on the lawyer...got real ugly before we straightened
>it all out :-)   Seriously, though, can economics be fairly compared to
>medicine?  What does an economist do, besides teach economics?  Sounds
>like progfessional inbreeding.

Banks, analysis firms, stock brokerages, CIA, quite a list, in fact,
Tommy.  What do doctors do other than teach other doctors?  Well, they
practice medicine, right?  But they are still taught by other doctors.
Sounds like more of that professional inbreeding to me, Tommy.  ;-)

>When you get right down to it, what is there
>in economics besides supply, demand, public goods and, what appears to
>dominate all upper-level classes in economics; intervention by people
>that think they know better?

Well, when you get right down to it, what is there in medicine besides
blood, some proteins, and what they teach in medical school -- how to
intervene by doctors who think they know better?  What is there to
electrical engineering but 'trons and how they act?  Oh, and what is
taught in all those upper division courses; outside intervention to
make them act the way we'd like them to.

>I took a few classes in econ, and decided
>if I wanted to go further, that I'd best spend my time learning tax-law,
>where at least I could get a job in my field after I graduated.  Thank
>God I *didn't* want to go further.

And just what *have* you gone further with, Tommy?

>I don't need an economist to balance my checkbook, decide what product
>is cheaper, pick a good job, or any of the things that make up economics,
>so it seems lambasting someone for talking economics without a degree
>is like lambasting someone for gossipping without a psych degree.

Gee, I don't need a doctor to put on a Bandaid, decide when I'm sick,
or any of those.  Lambasting someone for talking medicine without
knowing anything about it (no degree required -- just some knowledge,
which you don't appear to have) is rather like, well, like lambasting
someone for talking economics without knowing what they're talking
about -- or talking anything else without knowing what they're talking
about.  Hey, I don't need an astronomer or planetary scientist to find
the sun or the moon.  What do we need them for?

>>>  I think you'd be amazed (particularly in software) at the number of
>>>truly competent people who've never bothered with degrees, because they
>>>were too busy doing real work :-)

>>Well, no, I don't think I would.  I got a degree in that, too, and I
>>frankly find the number of not so competenet people with credentials a
>>lot more surprising than I do competence in people without them.  Kind
>>of leaves me wondering what some schools are teaching these days.
>>However, unless they spent a lot of time learning a lot of things
>>people without that academic background are going to be missing some
>>of the underpinnings, no matter how good they might be at developing
>>specific applications.  Sort of the difference between being able to
>>build a house and being able to design one and being able to use those
>>same skills to design a ship.

>Again, do economics and computer science really compare?  I can install
>and use software on most computers, but I can't design and simulate an
>operating system using COBOL on a Commodore 64 :-)  My use of computers does
>require objects and knowledge that I can only get from others, usually who
>havea degree in the field.

>Now consider the case in economics:  I can balance a checkbook (I don't,
>but I can.  I don't sweat it though, since economists advise congress :-)
>buy products, pay my taxes, usually finding more ways to increase my
>refund than my friends, who hate the hassle more, and get a job.  If you
>include garage sales and swap meets, I really function quite well
>in the world of economics without a degree, or the skills or people
>that a degree in economics represents.

>What does an economist have to offer to a reasonably intelligent person
>that they can't learn without a degree?  Or, what do economists offer
>anyone, that they can't get from one of those debt-consolidation firms?

You appear to not even understand what economics *is*, Tommy.  You
seem to have it confused with financial accounting.  However, to put
things in perspective, I can change light bulbs and turn on switches
without an electrician; what do we need those for?  I can bandage a
sprain without a doctor; what do we need those for?  You 'need'
economists for the same reason that you 'need' any specialist, Tommy.

>>Of course, there are also folks to whom reasonable software
>>engineering practices come 'natural' as the result of the application
>>of good sense and experience.  However, at the bottom line, economics
>>ain't programming.  Good sense, experience, and how they 'think' it
>>works just don't correspond real well to how things actually work.

>Well, that's just it, economists, unlike CPScientists, Doctors, and several
>other fields (not including cosmologists, of course :-) can't agree on how
>their field works, even though just-plain-folks usually do.  So what value
>an economist or his degree?

They can, however, agree on a number of things that those
just-plain-folks just happen to agree on WRONG.  It's rather like
physics, Tommy.  The 'man in the street' is generally one or two
SYSTEMS of physics behind.  Even the well-informed layman is generally
ONE FULL SYSTEM behind.  Most people think Newtonian physics; some
think Einsteinian physics; the physicists, though, are out there doing
stuff that 'just-plain-folks' would think is counter-intuitive,
because the physicist is somewhere out in (or beyond) quantum
mechanical physics.

>Or do you mean, the way things work are how the gov decides, and, since
>economists advise Congress, the IRS, the Prez, and anyone else who will
>listen, how an economist thinks is how economies run?  (i.e., badly :-)

Not even close, Tommy.

>In other words, how much of the reality that is 'economic events' consists
>of things that can only be understood by economists, and how much of it is
>affected, and made unintelliglble-to-anyone, by economists?

Say the same about any other speciality and perhaps you will see the
fallacy of your previous statements.  However, I rather doubt it;
libertarian ideologues (like most other political ideologues)
generally can't see what they don't agree with.

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

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

From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flame Derby aka 20 KHz Power supply
Newsgroups: sci.space

Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 12:51:26 GMT
Lines: 85
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

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

>Fred sez;  (In the midst of a flame derby w/ Pat)
>>>|And solid state is always more reliable than anything involving moving
>>>|parts, as well as easier to repair/replace.  The equipment I used to

>Pat responds;
>>>Not neccesarily.  Depends on the quality of the Electronics,
>>>and the mechanicals.

>Fred replies
>>Ceteris paribus, you stupid git.  Of course if the solid state stuff
>>is made out of Cheetos and string it probably won't be as reliable as
>>a moving part!  Basic rule #1 of engineering:  If it has to work for a
>>long time with minimal maintence, minimize the number of moving parts.

>Fred, I know how much you have a problem with people commenting on your
>manners, despite your constantly insulting them and others, but I just had
>to commend you for the remark about Cheetos and thread.  This is very
>encouraging.  If you must get your emotional gratification by insulting
>people, at least if it's funny you will not only have it read more often,
>which must have some meaning for you, since you don't keep it in private,
>where it belongs, but it will also be more gratifying for the people
>trying to find actual points hidden among the personal stuff.

>Oh, just to keep on the thread;  If Pat was stupid for suggesting the
>(presumably obvious) fact that some solid state is less reliable than
>mechanicals, then aren't you stupid for incorrectly stating that solid
>state is ALWAYS better?

We're talking GENERAL RULES, Tommy.  You know, like if you need to do
X and you have $Y to spend, which are you going to use, moving parts
or non-moving parts?

>No, I'm not talking about those famous Cheeto/thread IC's that used to
>come out of some of the near-asian countries :-)  I'm thinking more along
>the lines of what I know, computer electronics, where bumps (rare on a
>micro-grav space station) cause infrequent mechanical problems despite
>clumsy techs and normal wear and tear here on Earth, but very little
>static (prevelant in plasma environments, like space) can trash IC's
>easier than you can insult people for talking back to you.

Yes, and of course moving parts (with their moments of inertia) are
great in a weightless environment.  And lets not even talk about
lubrication (and since you postulate a 'high plasma' environment, I
assume you're just going to shove these chips unconnected out into a
plasma field -- so what about lubricant properties in vacuum and the
temperature cycles they would be exposed to?), repair, replacement,
weights, etc.  SEU isn't that major a problem, nor is your 'plasma
environment'.  If it was that big a problem, we'd still be using Echo
satellites instead of all those birds with the solid-state widgetry in
them.  There are some ham satellites that use OFF THE SHELF
electronics for things.  Seem to work ok in this terrible environment
you postulate.

>Also, presumably for a power plant on a space station, despite the scaling
>back of the (design for) Fred, we're talking heavy voltages and/or
>currents, and I know for a fact that solid state's reliability has an
>inverse relationship with power.  Ever fix a TV or stero?  Know what's
>bad 80% of the time?  Output transitors on the steros and the high-
>frequency SS components (horizontal and power) on the TV.  These are
>the components that see the highest power and temeratures.  (I'm ignoring
>the problems caused by lightning, since they are ususally caused by
>ungrouded antennae and lightning doesn't occur (much?) in space)

Tommy, I used to work on a few tens of millions of dollars of the
taxpayers electronic equipment.  One of the parts was a thing called
LIPS, which stood for Litton Industries Power Supply.  It was an
inverter power supply that handled well over a quarter of a million
watts.  So I have just a bit more experience than your "working on a
TV".

>The case is certainly the same for high power/temp. mechanicals, but
>I think blanket statements about which is better are a bit premature,
>expecially for a design that isn't even being prototyped yet.

Go study some engineering, Tommy.  Or is that another one of those
disciplines that you think you don't need to know anything about in
order to pass judgements, like economics?

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

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:11:12 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flame Derby Pool
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>[Bill asking George about the Flame Derby contestants]
>[Tom offers his opinion, putting Fred above Stienn]

>>>Fred Responds;
>>>>But I don't remember you being asked, Tommy (unless you changed your
>>>>name to George when nobody was looking).  Given what I've seen from
>>>>you over the years, I think you're more a candidate than a voter.

>>>Oh my God!  I'm really sorry.  I know how frowned upon it is to offer an
>>>opinion on someone elses thread, especially one so serious as, uh, let
>>>me look here, oh yeah, "Flame Derby".  Please, Fred and everyone, accept
>>>my humble apology for being so blatantly out of line.

>>Well, son, if you want to jump into the middle of things you can
>>hardly complain about being hit, now can you?

>I apologized, I was obsequious, I even asked you to please stop, but you
>just couldn't let it go.

Oh, forgive me, Tommy, for not letting you have the last (snotty)
word.  And of course, if we assume that the rest of your postings are
as 'accurate' as the preceding comment (which is not, after all, quite
in 1:1 correspondence with reality), then we can see a lot of where
little Tommy is coming from.

>Oh, and you hit me so hard, too, Fred.  You really showed me how sensitive
>you are to being called a flamer, as well as your opinion that the
>"flame derby" really is serious, since you let that comment slip right
>by, as well as your continuing belief that these arguments belong on
>the net in the first place.  Oh, and with a normal helping of condescending
>language, huh, 'pops'.  How old are you, anyway?

Uh, excuse me, but YOU are the one who leaped in here, remember?  So
*whose* belief that these arguments belong on the net are we talking
about here?  I mean, let's take a look at the sequence of events here
that led to this flurry of assaults from little Tommy Mac, shall we?
He wrote me some private notes all about how I shouldn't flame Nick
just because he wants to call me things like 'Luddite'.  I explained
to him that as long as Nick elected to behave that way toward me, I
would continue to behave that way back, since Mr Szabo is certianly
not entitled to any special dispensation.  My only other 'sin' toward
young Tommy is to point out how shallow and unthought out his
libertarian politics are.  Suddenly there is a *flurry* of Tommy Mac
notes.  Yeah, sure sounds like I attacked you and provoked all this,
doesn't it, Tommy?

As for how old I am, older than you, I would suspect.  But I don't
call you "little boy" because of your age; I call you that because of
your decided lack of maturity.  Now, mine is nothing to brag on, but
I've got a 4 year old niece who displays more maturity than you do.

>>>Happy now Fred?  I hope so, since I'd like to help you keep your contentless,
>>>>personal, unfunny posts to a minimum, and apparently, I'm responsible for
>>>this one.  You got me, I overstepped bounds, but let's not rub my face in it,
>>>>OK?  I've got my pride, too, so please let me off easy this time.

>>>You're still laboring under this silly "Tommy as the Centre of the
>>>Universe" idea that anyone needs your help, not to mention how you
>>>fool yourself about having these 'higher motives' when you decide to
>>>get into it.  I think you need to examine your own motives on this
>>>one.

>Fred, you always take issue with people trying to read your motives from
>your actions, yet continue to do so yourself.  What gift have you got?

Gee, pardon me for telling you to examine your own motives.  I figured
you were the best person for that job.  Obviously I was wrong, though,
sinc eyou appear incapable of doing so.  Once again, look at your
decision to drag this into a nice little public fight after trying to
lecture me about flaming back at Nick.

>No, actually, I don't think I'm the center of the Universe.  I think
>you are, Fred.  I took my complaints with your baiting and insulting
>flames to private E-mail, where it belongs, yet you brought it back
>to the Net, even though you don't do 'ego-games'.

WHO brought it back to the net?  Reality check, Tommy.  If you think
back, I never said anything to you in the first place.  You started
the private flames.  You started the public flames.  Now you want to
cry and blame it on someone else.  Get a life, little boy!

>Here it will stay,
>until someone who is (understandably) tired of seeing it all the time
>says something to us about it.  Also, I decided that you were right
>about Nick:  People who insult and flame deserve the same treatment,
>so I'll be the biggest PITA to you I can, which is really pretty easy,
>considering your sensitivity to it.  My motives are actually the same
>as yours, Fred; to fill the Net with the most inappropriate, unintersting
>personal garbge that I can, now that I have found someone who is oh-so-
>cooperative about it, and self-righteous about his 'innocence' to boot.
>That alone provides a recursive basis for complaints that may prove to
>be unlimited.  Look, I've got a good 80 lines or so in just one post!
>And all we've done is flame about flames!  Isn't powerful, advanced
>communication technology great?  Like MTV.  I'm sure I can count on you
>for at least 40+ lines in response, not including attributions.  Don't
>be shy.

>Please, respond soon, and call me some more names or something, or someone
>might post some silly thing about, oh, I don't know, the space station,
>or NASA, or launch technology or something equally un-Fred-McCall-and-all-
>the-people-who-are-assholes-the-he-only-responds-to-in-kind oriented.

Oh, you mean like you do?

>C'mon, Pat and Nick, claim you didn't start it, and the four of us will be
>as famous as MacElwaine for wasting time and bandwidth!  Just remember to
>keep responding in kind to each other, just like Fred does.  He's always
>right, even-tempered, and has the best perspective on all issues, so
>he must be right when he says it's OK!  Wouldn't you agree, Fred?

Right.  Do what Tommy does and lie about who started this particular
little string.  No ego there, except that I wasn't inclined to take a
private lecture from Mr Tommy about giving Nick 'The Lip' Szabo a
special dispensation to be abusive because Tommy likes his politics.
This, of course, naturally led to Tommy 'Want My Mommy' Mac going into
public attack mode with his much-(self)vaunted lack of ego.

>Yes, Fred, this is an ego-game now.  Prove to me that you'd like to end it.
>Stop posting about it.  You got all the insults and condescending comments
>on me.  Give me the last word.  It won't mean I'm right, it will mean that
>we're both right, since we can both recognize the waste of time it represents.

Ah, yes.  Give the child the last word.  Children don't bother you if
you just give them what they want and always agree with them.  Get
stuffed, Tommy.  YOU elect to make it an ego game.  I just don't care
for letting flaming assholes (check a mirror) run things with the
'last word'.

>This is our chance for redemption:  Through a co-operative effort, Tom
>suggests that we end it, and Fred generously agrees, letting it die a
>painless death, to the joyous applause of everyone that wants to read and
>discuss issues dealing with space.

Knock yourself out, little boy.  You fired the first shot of this
thread, so since it's yours you should feel free to keep it going just
as long as you like.  But I'll let you in on a little secret that I've
explained to you before.  When you don't flame me, you generally don't
get flamed in return.  Funny how that works, huh, Tommy?

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

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

Date: 7 Apr 93 09:39:44 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hoosier eccentricity (was Re: Quaint US Archaisms)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
[Converting to metric would be good but...]
>
>           Don't get me wrong, coming from the land without daylight savings
>           time, I understand the need to hold on to what always was even if
>           it does not make much sense.  The Indiana Senate recently
>           defeated yet another attempt to drag us into 20 century time, to
>           the collective sigh of Hoosiers everywhere.  If we are to be
>           stereotyped as rubes we want it to at least be eccentric rubes.

Don't worry, Tom.  I think "Indiana Pi" secured that reputation firmly
and forever, back in the last century.

>           Tom Freebairn     | What do the Frogs say on the planet Szabo?
>                             | (all together now!)
>                             | Luddite.  Luddite.

chortlechortle...

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Captain's Log, Stardate 46682.4.
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | The *Enterprise* is docked at the
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | Remlar Array, where it will undergo
Internet:       [e-mail]  | a routine procedure to eliminate
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | accumulated baryon particles."
                                       | Hmm, my apartment needs this too.

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

Date: Wed, 07 Apr 93 16:32:30 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Irish Re-entry or AURORA/DIPPER

>Secondly, a sighting was made from Glastonbury, Somerset (U.K.) which
>puts the object heading out across the English channel - BUT AT 0:40UT
>which is 300 miles in 30 minutes i.e. 600mph roughly. Leo Enright
>suggests that this in particular shows it must have been a craft of some
>description. He hypothesises that a military craft like Aurora/Dipper
>possibly got into trouble in the Atlantic and headed toward Shannon
>airport as a possible landing site, was told not to land such a craft
>in a neutral country and possibly continued on to the base in Spain?
>Tony Ryan (Wed, 31 Mar 1993 23:04:19 GMT)

1. Was it the same kind of sighting (two bright lights followed by
   four faint ones) ?
2. 600mph: why Aurora ? why not ordinary planes, civilian or military ?

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Wed, 07 Apr 93 11:29:09 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Market or gov failures

>[Fred saying that gov coercive poser is necessary for any space program]

T>>BTW, Fred, you've really crossed the border, since you admit that the ideas
T>>you support can only be carried out with coercive power.  Now that's really
T>>f***in' intolerant, so get off yer high horse about tolerance.

F>No, Tommy, I "admit" that there are such things as 'market failures'
F>which necessitate intervention by other than capitalist forces to
F>correct.

T>I guess your understanding of this 'market failure' should be classified
T>under Phil's 'economics on the level of 19th century medicine', since you
T>apparently completely ignored that this 'market failure' can as easily,
T>or even much more easily, be attributed to "government intervention
T>failure".  So, in addition to a strong moral argument against what you
T>propose, there is also a strong utilitarian argument, namely that gov's
T>destruction of wealth through confiscastory taxation and redistribution
T>on a major scale has made significant private capital investments harder
T>to make.

>I note that you make no such case as you claim can be 'even more
>easily made'.

Well, of course not, Fred!  I assume you know them, and were merely ignoring
them, and I don't want to raise your ire by making reference to free-mark...
oops, I mean 'libertopian' thinking.  I can spell them out if my first
assumption is incorrect, and if you will refrain from your vehement
emotionalisms.

>Yes, the argument can (and has) been made that current
>government policy creates even larger market barriers than there were
>in the first place, but there is no such term as 'government failure',
>since the government can change policies whenever it pleases.

Actually, it's just the opposite.  Because it can change the rules whenever
it pleases, it fails.  "Market failure", broadly interpreted, means that
situation where the market mechanism fails to meet the needs and desires
of the people that make up and are served by the market.

To get back to space, NASA, or at least, some parts of it, fails to meet
the needs of the people for whom it was dedicated.  SSF is a great
example.  NASA was entrusted to build a space station, with some
abilites or another, for X dollars.  Now, we have spent far more than
intended, and don't have a space station, and will soon not even have
that expensive design, since they are essentially starting over.

If you don't think there is a government failure here, then you must be
way too high to drive home safely.  It's warm out, so take a walk first :-)

>The
>market doesn't do that and is governed by (relatively) well-understood
>forces.  This libertopican bilge about 'moral arguments' about
>taxation, etc., is, at bottom, so much simplistic economic thinking.

Since economic value comes from the valuings of human beings, then morals,
i.e. principles based on human valuings, are an integral part of
economics.  To ignore it is just so much simplistic, intentional ignorance
of something you (apparently) don't like.   Besides, as I said, the moral
argument is supplemented by the utilitarian argument, WRT efficiency,
best use of resources, land and labor, et. al.  Like I said, I'll spell
them out, if you think they belong here, and you haven't heard them
before.

<<< Tom & Fred blowing air, ON >>>

[another of Fred's insults deleted to save *some* space]

F>>Get a clue, little boy, and go salve your wounded pride in my not
F>>considering you infallible in some other fashion.  I'm not interested
F>>in your ego games.

T>Puh-leese, Fred.  This, besides being simply an attempt to be insulting,
T>really belongs on private mail.  If 'ego-games' are so unimportatnt to
T>you, why the insults and this strange negative attatchment for me?

F>Wherever do you get this inflated idea of your own importance?

Oh, this is good.  I refer to your attatchment to me, which I deduce from
your perpetual emotionalisms about me, and you interpret that as
referring to my importance.   No Fred, I'm not important because you
expend energy on me, I am tired of you because you expend energy on
me.  Please, Fred.  Stop.  I'm not important, so give it a rest.

<<< Tom & Fred blowing air, OFF, permanently, God & Fred be willing >>>

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 7 Apr 93 07:03:08 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: More on converted SS-25
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here's a bit more on the recent launch of a satellite by a converted
SS-25 road-mobile ICBM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

TV Reports on Launch of Converted SS-25
Moscow Russian Television in Russian 1700 GMT 25 Mar 93
[Report by A. Shiryayev and S. Teplov; from the "Vesti" newscast]
Reported in FBIS-SOV-93-058 29 March 1993 [p. 86]
    An experimental Start rocket carrying a spacecraft was launched from
Plesetsk today. The Start rocket is a conversion rocket. It is based on
the Topol missile system's ballistic missile in service with the armed
forces.
     [Shiryayev] This will be the first experiment to dispose of an SS-
25 strategic missile naturally, so to speak. In order to avoid having to
blow it up--which is disadvantageous from an economic, environmental,
and even commercial viewpoint--the strategic launch vehicle has been
converted, and this hangar was built specifically for the launch.
     Tribute must be paid to the authors of this project, which will not
only help to save many material resources but will also provide an
opportunity to earn good money on launches like this one. Many companies
in various countries of the world have expressed interest in placing
advertisements aboard the carrier. There are also proposals to use the
Start-1 launcher to place artificial earth satellites in orbit.


Experimental 'Start' Rocket Launched
Moscow ITAR-TASS World Service in Russian 1537 GMT 25 Mar 93
[By ITAR-TASS correspondent Veronika Romanenkova]
Reported in FBIS-SOV-93-057 26 March 1993 [p. 61]
      Moscow, 25 March--Today, at 1615 hours, the launch of the "Start"
experimental rocket carrying a space apparatus was carried out. The
ITAR-TASS correspondent was told this at the press center of the
Military-Space Forces.
     The mass of the space apparatus is 260 kg. The operating height of
the orbit is 700 km.
     The "Start" rocket is a converted rocket. It has been created on
the basis of the "RS-12M" ballistic missile that is in service (known in
the West as SS-25). The new space complex has been created from extra-
budget funds (taking part in financing the complex were the "IVK" joint-
stock company, the "Kompleks" Scientific and Technical Center [NTTs],
and the "Bauman" State Technical College in Moscow. Thanks to this, the
producer of rockets of this class--the Votkinsk machine-building works
in Udmurtia--was given the opportunity to apply its state-of-the-art
output for peaceful purposes, too. Wide opportunities are opening up
here inasmuch as the "Start" can put into orbit space apparatuses with a
mass of up to one tonne, which it is inexpedient to do by means of other
carrier-rockets being operated today.
     The space apparatus will be controlled by the Flight Control Center
of apparatuses for scientific and national economy purposes, which is
part of the Military-Space Forces.


Orbit Parameters Given
Moscow ITAR-TASS World Service in Russian 0925 GMT 26 Mar 93
Reported in FBIS-SOV-93-057 26 March 1993 [pp. 61-62]
     Moscow, 26 Mar (ITAR-TASS)--Today the Flight Control Center
reported that on 25 March 1993 the first ever launch of a "Start-1"
experimental satellite was carried out with the help of a "Start- 1"
rocket carrier from Plesetsk cosmodrome.
     The "Start-1" rocket carrier was designed within the conversion
framework on the basis of the RS-12M intercontinental ballistic missile,
which is known abroad as the SS-25 missile. The modernization of this
missile fully meets the conditions of the START II Russian-U.S. Treaty
on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons.
     The "Start-1" satellite, which is a dummy of correct size and
weight for flying-design trials of the carrier rocket, has been placed
in orbit with the following parameters:
--initial period of revolution--101 minutes;
--apogee--966 km;
--perigee--695 km;
--orbital inclination--75.8 degrees

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 15:01:28 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vulcan
Newsgroups: sci.space

I think I forgot to say the L is the solar luminosity(in watts), that
r is in meters and s is in MKS units. Sorry for the omission. A more
practical form of the relation for the subsolar temperature is to
use r in astronomical units and the solar constant in watt/m^2.

    T(in K) = 392*(1 - A)^(1/4)/r^(1/2)

    where A is the Bond albedo and r is the heliocentric distance in AU.

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

Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 17:28:06 EST
From: [e-mail]

Press Release Nr.17-93
Paris, 7 April 1993

First European Space Debris Conference ends today

At the initiative of the European Space Agency (ESA), the
First European Space Debris Conference was held in
Darmstadt, Germany, from 5 to 7 April 1993 gathering
together 251 world experts from 17 countries including China,
India, Japan, Russia and the USA.

The main conclusions of the conference are:

- Ground based observations with radar and optical
facilities reveal the existence of about 7000 objects in
space, which do not represent an immediate danger.
However, adequate actions have to be taken in order to keep
the debris hazard for manned and unmanned missions within
safe limits. Of most concern are the long-term prospects of the
debris hazard, particularly in those regions in space which are
most heavily used, e.g. low Earth (900- 1500 km) and the
geostationary orbits (about 36.000 km).

- Clean up of debris is neither technically practical nor
economically feasible. The thrust of the action must be
towards preventing the creation of debris. Several
preventive measures have been identified and implemented in
space activities, such as releasing residual propellant in rocket
upper stages to preclude a subsequent explosion generating
many fragments, and the reorbiting at higher altitudes of
geostationary satellites at the end of their mission in order to
avoid collision with operational satellites. Further possibilities
include destructive re-entry into the atmosphere to burn up the
spacecraft or selection of orbital parameters to limit the
lifetime.

- The space debris problem can only effectively be solved
by international cooperation.

Bilateral discussions between space agencies on the debris
issue have taken place since 1987. Furthermore, on the
occasion of this First European Space Debris Conference, the
first multilateral discussions among representatives of NASA,
the Russian Space Agency, Japan and ESA took place in
Darmstadt (on 2-3 April) to present results of their research
activities, to identify possibilities for cooperation and to
discuss methods for debris reduction.




In view of the high interest this ESA initiative has stimulated,
it is envisaged to hold a second conference on the debris issue
in about 2-3 years from now.



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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 432
------------------------------