Date: Thu, 13 May 93 05:11:06 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #558 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 13 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 558 Today's Topics: Addr: Ace Reporter in Space (was Re: Popular books (Re: Life on M Life on Earth (3 msgs) Location Devices for RVs, also SARSATs Over zealous shuttle critics Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_) Vandalizing the Sky (2 msgs) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 May 93 09:57:50 EST From: KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU Subject: Addr: Ace Reporter in Space (was Re: Popular books (Re: Life on M FROM: Kevin In artice <1993May10.192055.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>(Bill Higgins) writes: >> Articles atributed to Ron Baalke and Larry Zibilske deleted >I realize Larry is looking for professional papers. However, for the >benefit of everybody else, it's worth mentioning that there are two >pop-level books which go into the Viking results in detail: *The >Search for Life on Mars* by Henry S.F. Cooper, the *New Yorker's* ace >reporter in outer space; and *To Utopia and Back* by Dr. Horowitz, who ***** >Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | Bartlett's Bill, how did the *New Yorker* manage to keep this secret for so long, and does he get paid mileage :-) *************************************************************************** Kevin R. Cain, Applications Support Florida A&M, Tallahassee Fl Phone (904) 599-3685 Fax (904) 561-2410 KEVIN @ VM.CC.FAMU.EDU NAUI #1378 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:17:52 GMT From: Doug Page Subject: Life on Earth Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1soqc3$64h@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: |> In article <1993May11.151709.353@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: |> > Evolution isn't a directed process and doesn't proceed towards |> >a specific goal. |> |> |> IT is directed, but not at one particular endpoint. |> |> The direction is to out compete all other life forms |> in your niche, and all other entities for resources, for reproduction. |> |> pat |> Then why are so many people trying to protect endangered species? Isn't letting them die just another victory in the competition for resources? Aren't they interfering with 'survival of the fittest' just because it is humans that are "winning"? Why don't we just let "nature" take its course? Doesn't this competition include the battle for the resources in places like rain forests and wilderness areas around the world? Why do we attempt to rescue beached whales? Are we stepping in the way of their evolution just because we think we know what is best for them? Perhaps these are forward thinking whales who are attempting to compete on land. Could it be that if humans had been there when the first animals were attempting to come out of the sea to live on land that land animals would never have evolved. Man might have been there throwing them back into the ocean for their own good. Just food for thought. dp :) *** The opinions are mine (maybe) and do not necessarilu represent those *** *** of my employer - or any other sane person, for that matter. *** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 19:44:50 GMT From: Michael Murphy 462- Subject: Life on Earth Newsgroups: sci.space jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >> >>Sorry. The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where >>life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well. And we're it. > Evolution isn't a directed process and doesn't proceed towards >a specific goal. Darwin's non-directed evolution is just one of twenty or more theories of evolution. There are a few theories(no, not creationism) that are based on organisms evolving towards a specific end result; even if brainy" humans might not know what that goal is. Boy, this thread that started with Coke commercials on the Moon is gettin' fun. Michael Murphy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 21:25:57 GMT From: James Davis Nicoll Subject: Life on Earth Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.origins In article <1993May11.194450.19484@mksol.dseg.ti.com> a193522@dseg.ti.com writes: > jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: > >>In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >>> >>>Sorry. The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where >>>life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well. And we're it. > >> Evolution isn't a directed process and doesn't proceed towards >>a specific goal. > >Darwin's non-directed evolution is just one of twenty or more theories of >evolution. There are a few theories(no, not creationism) that are based on >organisms evolving towards a specific end result; even if brainy" humans >might not know what that goal is. > >Boy, this thread that started with Coke commercials on the Moon is >gettin' fun. Perhaps you could be more specific: which models did you have in mind? James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 93 09:58:44 EDT From: Bob Mills 609-490-3211 Subject: Location Devices for RVs, also SARSATs > > THe Russian side of the Sarsat system was up > years before the american side. I don't remember if > we built the flight packages or if it was just a > joint co-ordination office. > > pat Well, make that 0.74 years. First Russion Cospas payload was launched on Cosmos-1383 on June 29, 1982, first American Sarsat payload on NOAA-8 on March 28, 1983. Cospas-Sarsat is a joint effort of Canada, France, USA, and USSR (membership now assumed by Russia). The flight hardware flown on the US TIROS spacecraft (these are renamed NOAA after launch) is designed/manufactured by some combination of CNES, Dassault, & Aerospatiale. The Russian payloads are built in Russia (or other republic?) to the French design. Recent Russian payloads fly on Nadezhda spacecraft. -- Bob Mills Mills@Astro.dnet.ge.com Not speaking for past, present, or future owners of Astro Space Division ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 1993 13:41:13 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics Newsgroups: sci.space Recently, I posted a letter defending the space shuttle program, saying: >Space Shuttle is certainly the most successful spacecraft series in >the history of mankind... Due to the volume of traffic generated by this post. I am spliting rebuttals into several posts, so those of you who aren't interested can pass them by. This first post is meant to deal with the arguments posted which were critical of my above comment. Later posts will deal with the issues of "zero-defects operation", "bizarre flying characteristics", and my opinion on DC-X. This post tries to deal with comparisions between shuttle and other space programs. I find it disappointing that some would detract from the performance of tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of Canadians in perfecting the operational abilities of the only reusable space transportation system. Henry Spencer replied to my original post saying: >This is very much a matter of opinion. It certainly hasn't met *any* >of its specifications; that is not normally considered a success. >I don't deny that it's a useful craft, and that cries to scrap it are >premature, but illusions about it are counterproductive. Henry, my statement is not illusion. I am pleased that you understand the importance of maintaining the shuttle program as is. (or am I misinterpreting your post?). Yet, I am concerned about your assertion; how can you honestly say that the shuttle hasn't met "any" of its specifications? What specs are you talking about? Rockwell International in Downey, California, in conjunction with the other shuttle contractors delivered the world's most important and most revolutionary space vehicle. One cannot argue with the fact that it flies, lands, and is reusable. In my opinion, these were the only appropriate specifications for this program. It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow to the X-15 program and the later X-series lifting bodies. The engineering specs that the guys in the trenches had were to develop a system which was man-ratable, could land reliably, and could be reflown. These goals were quite visionary for the 1970's, and I would argue that they are challenging even today, including for the DC-X program. I do not recall a 1 flight/week specification in the final NASA specs for the space shuttle program. If you have such documents, I would find them most revealing and interesting. As far as I can tell, the only people touting a 1 flight per week flight rate were people on Capitol Hill or selling books to the general public. IMHO, political statements in the halls of the US Congress are not admissable as engineering specs because specs should be determined by NASA/DOD and contractors, not by Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents. Missions are defined by political leaders, but not the engineering specs. The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle. This automatically qualifies it as an unparalleled engineering success. You could argue about its political success. But engineering wise, it is clearly the most advanced machine ever flown. I argue that engineering and technical data for hypersonic flight is valuable in and of itself. Shuttle should be justified or criticized on the basis of economics. I had posted: >... I hope that the shuttle program receives your >unwavering support as well. Henry replied: >Sorry, support that I can arrange for launchers all goes to launchers >that I have some hope of riding some day. At the moment, that's >DC-X's hoped-for successors. I was disappointed by this and other similar statements from those vocal in support of the DC-X program . Your support of DC-X is based on hopes. My support for the shuttle program is based on record. I think that it is also important to note that I do not object to DC-X. It is visionary. I originally posted: > I like the DC-X idea... and I am really hopeful that it'll be a stunning success Unfortunately, DC-X'ers are not willing to return that support the proven Shuttle program. Explain why you folks criticize shuttle when shuttle is exactly what you guys need in order to learn how to operate DC-X on-orbit. Pawel Moskalik replied to my original post >?????? that is a matter of opinion. Compare today's launch schedule >with the schedule given in, say, 1984. Compare them both with the schedule >evisioned in 1978. I enjoyed your later postings regarding the comparisons between the shuttle and the Soyuz project. Although, I may disagree with your method of analysis. You probably will disagree with mine. 8-) I think that the total impact of the shuttle program must be judged on the scientific and technical merit, not on timelines and schedules (do you agree?) Dan Newman replied: >Presumably you are restricting this argument to manned USA space vehicles. >If not, a brief review of AW&ST 's annual summaries of USSR/Russian >launch activity over the last decade might modify the above. >I'm all in favour of both STS and DC-X, but neither should be treated as >a holy grail, which is how it reads from here. Both systems are only >steps along the way. I agree Dan. Let's hope those space advocates will enjoy the capabilities and the triumphs of all parties. The comparison to the Soyuz project was something that was interesting, as I have never seen anyone attempt to compare the scientific and engineering results from the two projects. I am full of admiration and a bit of envy of those Russian M.D.'s involved with their program, and I would love to talk with them. It is clear that their data concerning the long duration effects of spaceflight (beyond 2 weeks) is superior to the US dataset. I hope that with the upcoming joint flights, better comparisons will be drawn between Russian and shuttle data. As for now, we need to stop thinking of DC-X and shuttle as mutually exclusive. Thanks for your time. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 1993 14:15:15 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space This post is to discuss the idea that the shuttle is unique in its "zero-defects operation" and "bizarre flight characteristics" when compared to other systems. Henry Spencer writes: >... makes the landing a zero-defects operation, with no ability to go around >for another try if the first approach isn't right. This in itself is a >big black mark against anything that tries to be an operational transport >system, although it is acceptable for low-duty-cycle research aircraft like >the X-15. >The bizarre flying characteristics are well known. Even experienced pilots, >trying the shuttle landing simulator for the first time, > "invariably" crash it. Well, Spenz...what can I say? 8-) You've attacked my beloved vehicle! ;-) Actually, I'm not sure what all the hoopla has been regarding the shuttle's "zero-defects operation." We see "zero-defects operation" in many area|s of life. Calling shuttle flight characteristics *bizarre* in the same post as touting DC-X is interesting. Just because an untrained pilot crashes a simulator, doesn't mean that the whole bird is "bizarre." I'm sure that the CDR's and PLT's of the STS would not call it *bizarre* to fly the orbiter. I think that its pretty obvious that pilots need a great deal of training to fly any plane. Do you have different impressions? DC-X will also have similar "zero-defects" issues (am I wrong?). I am thinking of how DC-X will deploy a chute or reverse orientation at supersonic speeds. How much in DC-X is redundant? That's the real question. Everything we do in life has zero-defects issues at times (agree?). As a doctor, I can not error in my diagnosis and treatment recommendations. An error could cause injury or even death. I see each shuttle mission as a flight with similar inherent risks. DC-X will be no different (agree? probably not 8-) ). In medicine, relative risks are always weighed when deciding on diagnostic tests and treatments. So, the main issue in medicine is the person making the decision. The inherent characteristics of the drug or test need to be understood by the physician, but its really up to the user to know how to use the technology. I argue that in spaceflight, the central issue is the person making the decision. In fact, this is the whole lesson of the Rogers Commission report on the Challenger accident. The risk of loss of shuttle is dependent on the failure mode, dependent on the administrators making flight readiness decisions, dependent on the engineers and technicians working on each mission, and dependent on the highly trained astronauts who fly the vehicle. (I'm not counting passenger-astronauts). If all is good, then no problem. If someone messes up, oops! DC-X will be the same, just as subject to human frailties as the orbiter is. I encourage NASA personnel or contractors to pipe up in this discussion! While DC-X's R&D program makes good sense, I am less optimistic about DC-X as you (and apparently others) are. I understand your enthusiasm and I share that hope. But, DC-X will still have failures. It is the nature of aerospace R&D. It's successors are not slated to be passenger carrying. The impression I had when I visited MacDac Huntington Beach's Open House was that the payload space was limited and the man-ratable version was decades away. Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences and medical related packages. As for now, it is our only ticket into space and has my support. I am hopeful that DC-X, or whatever the follow-on is eventually called, will perform as you state. But right now, I must admit that I am more skeptical than ever. This is due to discussions with engineers who are skeptical about the developmental timeline, and they work at MacDac. DC-X has my support, but it is checked by the same realities that confront the shuttle program. You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following: 1 the number failures projected for DC-X are less than the current number of failures or potential failures in the shuttle program. 2 that the payload delivery and return will surpass orbiter operations in terms of cost per pound 3 that the shuttle need not go on hiatus to allow development of a man-ratable DC-X successor 4 Most importantly, that the DC-X will open up LEO to more scientific and technical payloads. Please keep this discussion technical, not based on wishful thinking (like what some engaged in during the beginning of the shuttle program). Thanks for reading. I'll be looking forward to more comment! This completes this long-winded reply, sorry about the bandwidth folks! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:00:39 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1seuk9$6ta@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >In article <1993May7.190509.25532@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >> >>>I guess fred, you never heard of guidance navigation and control >>>thrusters. as long as the tug, can balance the expected forces, >>>it will cope. >> >>Gee, now *that* sounds like a prime example of 'good engineering >>analysis'. "It will cope." This tug is starting to sound a lot >>bigger than something you're going to 'cobble together'. >> >Gee fred, that sounds like real good critical analysis, too. You're the one who wants to justify this 'cobble', Pat. You can't justify risking a $1G instrument by waving your hands and saying, "It will cope." >Considering that Bus1 already has a full set of GNC hardware, >I somehow doubt that it lacks the basic capacity. Of course, >i am still waiting for the basic specs to be de-classified. Well, except for more tankage, more engines, a spatter shield, explosive connection devices, maybe a couple of arms so it can attach the bolts, ... >Of course, fred McCall hates the concept. Would you like it >any better if a PE signed off on it? Gee, mindreading now, Pat? I certainly 'hate' your approach to it, which is that you like it and flame down anyone who questions you on it or points out problems. I don't care if you have your cat sign off on it. Either explain how you adjust for the flaws (or at least show that you bothered to think about them) or don't expect anyone to give your idea any credibility. >>>You have heard of explosive bolts? >> >>Oh yes. Not exactly the sort of thing I'd want to use for detaching a >>tug from service points on a $1G instrument. They are, after all, >>*explosive* bolts. They're not named that for the fun of it. >> >Let me know when terrorists start using these to blow up the >world trade center. Cute, but stupid. This seems to be the tone for most of your remarks. >My understanding from talking to one of the lockheed people >is that the shock from firing their patented contamination >free explosive bolt the super zip seperator, is that the >g-shock is under 1 gee. Yes, but I question whether any explosive bolt is 'contamination free', any more than you're going to find a watch that is truly 'shock proof' or 'water proof'. I think you can expect both small metal particles and residue from combusted explosive when those bolts go. You mgith also want to consider what a 1g jolt does to the solar panels. I don't know if they will take it or not -- do you? Or have you just 'assumed' once again that everything will work and that anything that doesn't will fail in benign ways? >But I forget these are *explosive* bolts. and of course >you know more then I do. Well, so far it seems so, judging by your inability or unwillingness to seriously discuss any of the shortcomings of your proposal, or even behave as if they had occurred to you. >> >>Well, as opposed to the Pat Plan of certain contamination from all >>sorts of firings trying to correct off-center thrust and explosive >>bolt disconnects that leave crap all over the vicinity, I think a >>remote possibility is to be favored. I also think you may be mistaken >>as to where it will be, judging by the manifest for the current >>mission, which includes a repair stand, of sorts. >> >That assumes, fred, that a ESMT, has an off center mass that >cannot balance the HST masses. You have not demonstrated that you have even considered the problems. Nothing like "good engineering analysis". >My understanding is the HST is more or less axially symetric >on it's weight, and that therefore, it should easily accept >some thrust package attached aft. Assuming, of course, that there are attachment points aft. >Somehow, id imagine any ESMT would also be mostly axially >symetric, and given the space inside a BUS1, there should be >plenty of space for atttaching trim weights. You have heard >of trim weights. Yes, I have. Who's going to adjust them on orbit? Let's see what we're up to, now. We have bigger engines, more tankage, an attachment unit with explosive bolts (assuming you want to drill holes in the unit to be moved to attach them), and now we have a bunch of chunks of pig iron for trim weights. We also, presumably, have some mechanism for moving the weights around under remote control, unless this vehicle is supposed to be a one-shot and/or we assume that there are no changes in center of mass of the vehicle as you burn fuel and/or we assume that all payloads will have the same mass distribution around some axis (at the end of which they will all presumably have holes drilled for attachment of your explosive bolts). >You are still neglecting that any ESMT could alos have reaction wheels >to supplement thruster firing or even use Magneto-torquers. >Thrust until the Reaction wheels are near saturation, then cut thrust, >de-sat the wheels and continue. Ok, we're now up to: bigger tanks, bigger or more engines, a spatter shield, a system of explosive bolts for attachment, a dynamic ballasting system for mass distribution control, reaction wheels and/or magneto-torquers. Yep, sure sounds like we don't even need to test it, being as it's based on that good old reliable Bus1. Oh, and please settle on an acronym for what you want to call this cobbled-together 'thing' of yours. >And please cite, where you read that *explosive* bolts >Float contaminants all over the place? my understanding is they >are scored to neatly break up. and lockheed markets a contamination >free explosive seperator, but that just wouldn't fit your >view of the world. After all, it was designed by a PE. I wouldn't bet on it (being designed by a PE). Were I you, I would also check just how much contamination something can have and still be 'contamination free'. >and also, you have never explained, how a constantly accelerating >package, with the occasional thruster burn from the aft, would >have particles go forward and around into the optics. ASsume >that no RCS jets are pointed forward. all thrusters are perpendicular >to the direction of velocity or point aft. >i would be curious to see your explanation. Gee, Pat, at some point you have to do things like turn, circularize the new orbit, move your little cobbled-together 'thing' away from the HST, etc. Is that enough for you to work on, or do you need some more? >> >>>gee fred, i better let you do all the thinking for the world. >> >>Sounds like you need to get someone to do yours for you, at the very >>least. >> >So do you come up with original ideas, or just criticize everyone >else? Do you get paid to do this at work? What a job title. >staff kvetch. >:-) If you can't stand the criticism, I would suggest you think your ideas through better before you start touting them as 'the' solution to a problem we don't even have right now. >> >>>i chatted with a guy from lockheed missiles and space. he said that >>>actually most short chain molecules have a low condensed volatile >>>material quotient (CVM). even hydrazine is not really a big >>>problem for optical systems, and even though he couldn't >>>name birds (classified) he said, the use of hydrazine around >>>optical arrays was not considered a problem, at least for the >>>systems they worked on. >> >>Different birds, and those are designed to be moving about. I would >>bet some care was taken with their design -- which you aren't going to >>be able to duplicate with your 'cobbled together system'. >> >Doesn't have to be perfect fred, just good enough. >and every time i mention that something needs further analysis, >you launch into snide personal comments. So your criticism >is really groundless. Oh, I see. Now on top of simply assuming away problems and assuming in benign failure modes, Pat will just handwave away criticism as "groundless". Sure, Pat. *I* am realy impressed with this idea now! Yeah, it has to be good enough. You haven't demonstrated that it will be, or that you've even given any thought to potential problems. Nothing like that 'sound engineering analysis', is there, Pat? >And so what is so different from a KH-12 and a HST. they are both >in low orbit, they use 2.5 meter optics, and quality of optical, >IR and near UV collection is vital. A KH-12, like the HST is the maximum >size bird for the HST. Someone else already answered this. If you don't think mission affects the design of the instrument, I don't know what anyone can do to convince you. >What do you think is the difference from the thruster packages on >a 12, from a possible strap on to the HST? And what major differences >drive the design? One big difference is that one is designed into the spacecraft from the start while the other is 'cobbled together' and then just pasted onto the instrument with explosive separators. Different instruments on HST, some of which are more sensitive to contamination than others. Because it was designed to have thrusters in it, KH-12 probably is built to minimize possibility of contamination of the optics (through use of isolation, doors, location of optics vice thrusters, or any number of other things). Was HST? One is an astronomical instrument, Pat. That leads to a somewhat different design than an earth surveillance package. >>>so somehow, i dount that stray CO2, or H2O would really wreck >>>up the HST. >> >>I don't consider "well, Pat doubts it will be a problem" to be >>particularly convincing. >> >>-- >>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live >> in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden >You should read your sig line. change safety to analysis, and we have >you. And you should try *understanding* my sig line. If you think it equates to the kind of 'kick the tires, light the fires' attitude you're apparently 'proposing' from, then you're stupider than you look (and don't know Mary's attitude at all). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:23:47 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Vandalizing the Sky Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993May8.032051.26340@uvm.edu> wollman@sadye.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes: >[I told myself I wasn't going to respond to Fred's inevitable response >to my posting, but it so fun to have these public flame-fests...] Ah, I see. So what you're now telling us is that all those things you said about me actually apply to you, instead. Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do' Usenetter. You know, when you first started sniping and I flamed back, I got a nasty letter from someone who knew you and said you were "much too nice" to deserve that. I told them that that wasn't visible from what I was seeing of you -- and it still isn't. Maybe you can succeed in changing *their* mind with this, because all you succeed in doing at this end is reinforcing the opinion you've already given. >In article <1993May7.192640.26308@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>Given your description, yes, I think I would be opposed to that sort >>of zoning. Seems if the area was zoned for the mall they could put >>their exit anyplace they wanted onto a public street. >Fred would not like to be a developer in Vermont, I can tell you. As >it happens, in Vermont this is not the purvey of local zoning boards, >but rather, the district Environmental Commission, which is the body >which enforces Act 250, our growth-control law. (Yes, I'm getting to >the point...) Here in Vermont, any development of any kind can be >rejected by the Commission on the basis of several criteria, including >traffic volumes, air quality, sewage capacity, and /aesthetics/ (if >sufficiently out-of-place). We never had the huge boom that >Massachusetts and New Hampshire had during the 1980s, but we never had >the bust that they had, either. Well, if you never go up, it doesn't seem like there'd be very far to fall. And you're right; I wouldn't like to be a developer there. I also wouldn't want to be in a lot of other businesses there. I've seen what 'growth control' does, since I went to school in Boulder, Colorado, which also has such laws. They make it, among other things, very difficult to build a new house or apartments, driving up rents and the cost of living without a commensurate increase in paycheck. Moderation makes more sense than 'growth-control'. Who gets to decide the 'aesthetics' questions (and how much do they get paid when someone really wants to change their 'taste' in buildings)? >The reason for the law---and a good reason to oppose orbiting >billboards, too---is that the second-largest industry in Vermont is >tourism. That industry depends on our reputation as a clean place >with attractive scenery and plentiful outdoor recreation. People do >NOT go to New Jersey for these reasons (Cape May excepted). One more time. Unless they can loft this thing *real* high, it would almost have to be quite low on the horizon. It would also probably only be visible for a brief time after sunset (or before sunrise, but that doesn't seem as good an 'advertising slot'). It just doesn't seem like this is going to wreck anyone's view that horribly, while putting scientific instruments on it and/or using it as a test bed for large inflatible structures seems to have a quite nice return value. You want to prohibit the advertising revenue (by prohibitting the advertising). Just what recompense do you propose to provide so that the science still gets done? This also raises the question of what you do when there are large structures that *don't* have advertising on them. Is it the advertising you oppose, or large structures that might potentially have people in them in orbit? >>Can you say >>'reductio ad absurdem' and 'inappropriate analogy'? Yeah, I thought >>you could. >Not only that, I can even spell it right! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Oh, gee. *Spelling* flames, now. I *am* impressed! Do yourself a favor and check out your local netiquette documents -- you'll probably find 'spelling flame' cross-indexed with 'clueless newbie tricks'. >>That's nice. Would you be happy to give up everything in your life >>that is produced by or developed with help from things that you would >>appear to me to disapprove of? After all, we must stand in the way of >>any advancement until we can achieve perfect safety and zero impact on >>the most recalcitrant luddite. >To quote Fred himself, ``Can you say `reductio ad absurdem [sic]' and >`inappropriate analogy'?'' >No, we must not stand in the way of any advancement until we can >achieve perfect safety and zero impact blah blah blah. Neither must >we permit /gratuitous/ destruction of a beautiful (and in some places >valuable(*)) outdoor sight just because some people are unable to get >funding for their research. (I've got news for you: we all have >trouble getting funding in this economy.) ``Millions for defense; not >a penny for tribute!'' comes to mind, although I'm sure that Fred will >try to reply ``inappropriate analogy'' to that as well. Figure out for yourself just when a billboard (which would presumably have to be sun-illuminated) would be visible and where it would appear in the sky; after all, you're at a place that should be full of the resources to do that. I guess the next question is whether you would agree to have your program defunded in order to fund the research that the 'advertising' part of this is supposed to fund? I'm sure it must have occurred to you at some point that by preventing 'innovative' funding you are simply stretching the funding budget that much tighter for the rest of you? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:30:20 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Vandalizing the sky Newsgroups: sci.space In <1sk7q4$sqe@hebron.connected.com> delisle@hebron.connected.com (Ben Delisle 02/15/93) writes: >I for one would go so far as donate part of my meger paycheck to someone >who can and will shoot it down some how. Maybe some sort of jet launched >missle or if the R&D progresses far enough to punch holes in it or carve it up >with some sort of laser. There would be little or no legal recourse of the >billboard owner since it is not in the (space) of any national entity. >Furthermore, an attack on such a structure would probably be best launched >from well beyond the boarders of any nation such as in international waters, >airspace or real space; thus helping to prevent governmental (most >likely American) action. I suspect such an action would fall under the piracy or hijacking laws, which are recognized by international agreement and treaty. You can't just go around destroying other peoples' property. I think it says a lot that this seems to be a popular answer among some of the 'pure skies' group. I think you would see a great deal of 'legal recourse', just as you would if someone attacked a ship on the high seas (which also is outside the ownership of any national entity). > The problems of this is that people could use this logic to >attack useful and good things in orbit such as communications or weather >sattilites. > There was a discussion of the idea of 'space billboards' to advertise >to the masses on a talk raido station recently. The general consicenous >was that putting several mile long milar ads into LEO was the greatest >concept of stupidity of all time. I agree. The man that wants to do this >is the greatest idiot in all of history. About on a par with those who don't stop to think about what the orbital limits and such would be, I suspect. > There are enough problems trying to see the night sky with all the >light and air pollution we currently experience. As it is now >one must travel many miles away from any town to see lots of stars >Such a thing would destory the bueaty and wonder of a stary night. Go back and 'wonder' about what part of the sky this thing would have to sit in and when. It is probably impractical for it to be self-illuminated (too much power dissipation, and who would change the light bulbs?) so it would be lit by reflection of sunlight. Now, you tell me, since you think this is so extreme as to warrant destroying things that don't belong to you, just what part of the sky it would sit in and when it would be visible. "Destory [sic] the bueaty [sic] and wonder of a stary [sic] night"? I don't think so. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 558 ------------------------------