Date: Fri, 28 May 93 14:08:58 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #638 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 28 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 638 Today's Topics: Billsats Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994 Detecting planets in other system FSU military space systems Galileo's HGA? (2 msgs) Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Hubble vs Keck Impediments to NASA productivity (long) Moon Base Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF (Russian books) Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan? 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: Wed, 26 May 93 23:55:38 CDT From: jim jaworski Subject: Billsats Newsgroups: sci.space jerry.laplante@filebank.cts.com (Jerry Laplante) writes: > TO: jim@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (jim jaworski) > JJ> > >I can see it now emblazened across the evening sky -- > JJ> > > THIS SPACE FOR RENT > > How about "GOOD YEAR, we're not just on Blimps anymore" > jim@inqmind.bison.mb.ca The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba 204 488-1607 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:18:56 GMT From: Phil Hays Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993May27.015322.1@vax1.tcd.ie>, apryan@vax1.tcd.ie writes... >> IAU Circular 5801 further discusses the orbital trajectory of the comet, >> and indicates that it is possible that half of the pieces of the comet may >> collide with Jupiter over a three day peroid in July 1994. The surviving >> pieces may remain as satellites to Jupiter or be thrown closer to the sun on >> short-period heliocentric orbits. > >Is there likely to be any visible effect on Jupiter? (My guess >is "no" - not even HST will see anything, nucleii prob less than >mile across=tiny compared to Jupiter). So how bright might the impact be? The size of the comet pieces can't be known very closely: for discussion take an estimate of about ten miles. The density might be rather low. The speed would be well known, but I don't know it yet. I assume 45,000 MPH. E = 1/2 M V^2 = 6*16000*16000*16000*20000*20000 = 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Kg*meters/sec^2 The depth at which this bang happens will determine how much of the energy is radiated promptly. Again, I don't know, but I assume 10% is radiated over a 10 second time. This gives a "light bulb" of about: P = 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 W I don't know the exact distance to Jupiter next July, so I assume 4 AU or about: 400 000 000 miles. Light follow the 1/r^2 rule, so take as a reference a light bulb a mile away: 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 Ratio to Reference light = ------------------------- = 600 W 400 000 000 ^2 (I know, I should work out magnitude) A 600 W light bulb a mile away would be very noticeable at night, and might be visible during the daytime. These numbers could very easily be off by a factor of 1000 or more. Might need a good telescope to see it. Might be naked eye visible. Phil Hays "Can't go back and can't stand still" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:08:56 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Detecting planets in other system Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May25.025458.2349@cc.ic.ac.uk> atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk writes: >Anyone considered using Kilometric radiation ? I know we're being bathed in >it but it shouldn't be too difficult to filter out the near-Earth stuff using >two sensors (since its coming from close by). Planets with magnetic fields would >likely be emitting coherent radiation at these wavelengths making the job a >little easier. What you need is an underwater detector to filter out some of the >noise, since Kilometric radiation penetrates water a long way down. This would be >a darn good use for all those nuclear submarines out there. BTW I think the >military use this wavelength of radiation for communicating with their subs. Underwater detectors don't seem like a good idea. The terrestrial sources are many orders of magnitude stronger than any extrasolar sources. The water would attenuate both equally, but the extrasolar sources, being many orders of magnitude weaker to begin with, would be lost in the noise. A better way of shielding against terrestrial emissions is to place the detectors above the ionosphere. The ionosphere is a good shield against such frequencies. There is currently a satellite in the works to monitor the ELF frequencies. It's from the Mexican chapter of AMSAT. It's intended to detect micrometeors entering the Earth's atmosphere by their plasma wave emissions. These can't be detected from the ground due to the shielding of the ionosphere. 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 93 06:28:53 PST From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com Subject: FSU military space systems Newsgroups: sci.space Here is an interesting item on FSU military space systems. For those who might wish to follow up, my local files show the address of TsNPO Kometa as Velozavodskaya ulitsa 5, Moscow, Federation of Russia, with fax numbers (7095) 274-7330 for Prof. d.t.n. Valeriy G. Bondur and a general fax number of (7095) 274-0870. The second one seems to be on only during business hours in Moscow. Allen Thomson SAIC, Inc. McLean, VA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Foreign Broadcast Information Service Central Eurasia Daily Report FBIS-SOV-93-093 17 May 1993 'Red Space' Program on Space Defense Systems (LD1505133093) [Editorial Report] Moscow Ostankino Television First Channel Network in Russian at 0750 GMT on 15 May broadcasts its 30-minute "Red Space" program entitled "Secret Space--Part 1," which is about space defense systems. The program begins in the Kometa Central Science Production Association, a space research center. A variety of unidentified equipment is shown. Academician Anatoliy Savin, the general designer and general director of the center, is interviewed and explains that for the past 30 years he has been working in the sphere of rocket guided weapons and space surveillance systems. These have now become most important from the point of view of supporting the strategic balance and thus preventing nuclear war, he said. The program flashes back briefly over the growth of the nuclear threat in recent decades. The scientists who are interviewed during the program are then flashed up in succession, together with captions. Some scientists are shown at work, more apparatus is shown. The program recaps the accumulation of weapons in the Cold War years, showing archive pictures. It says that in spite of the recent changes in strategy, the quantity and power of existing weapons is still great, and the nuclear danger remains. So surveillance and monitoring of all these matters is still very much on the agenda. Unique global surveillance systems have been developed in Russia to envisage all situations and enemy actions and warn of a nuclear strike. The narrator says that five global systems form the basis of resources for supporting the strategic balance: the first is a global system of constant surveillance over missile dangerous areas of the earth's surface. The video shows explanatory diagrams, and pictures of equipment for receiving satellite data. Chief designer Konstantin Vlasko-Vlasov explains the system in general terms, while the video shows aerial pictures and pictures of satellite equipment. The second system, the narrator continues, is a system for detecting falling warheads, guiding anti-ballistic missiles toward them and destroying them. An example is the American Patriot system, or Russia's S300 missiles. The video shows these systems in action. The narrator then describes various aspects of a single global surveillance system, designed to monitor surface, naval, and air sites. A system for monitoring the sea from space allows the world's oceans to be surveyed in all conditions, the narrator says. This is carried out by a remote control satellite apparatus. A second system monitors dangerous underwater areas. Chief designer of this system Sergey Mishukov explains the principle of this system, adding that it has great possibilities for peaceful application as well. The video shows aerial pictures and shots of equipment and personnel receiving satellite data, as well as various archive pictures of naval facilities. The narrator says that new methods for detecting anomalous underwater phenomena have important applications in oceanography and ecology as well. Professor Valeriy Bondur, a chief designer in the Kometa Association, shows the new equipment in action, and the video shows scientists studying computer data gathered by the new system. The narrator also adds that economic difficulties have prevented the underwater surveillance system from being properly implemented so far. A system for monitoring strategic aviation aircraft, the narrator says, is also being held back by economic difficulties. He explains briefly the use of detailed land surveillance systems, including photographic, optical, and electronic, and radio technical satellites. The video shows a variety of receiving equipment. A system for influencing space installations has been developed and is functioning, the narrator continues. Its purpose is to detect and strike [porazheniye] military installations in space. The video shows diagrams of how the system works. It is the first of its kind. The fifth and final system, the narrator says, is intended for action in conditions of war. It should monitor the consequences of the direct use of weapons of mass destruction. Its technical resources also allow the detection of radioactivity levels and effects of chemical and bacteriological weapons. In peacetime the system can be used to solve ecological problems and monitor emergencies. The video shows aerial pictures of craters and scientists analyzing radiation levels and working from computer data. Over archive military pictures and more pictures of scientists, the narrator poses the question of whether all this equipment is still needed in the new world situation. Chief system designer Leonid Legezov says the effective use of space systems during the war in Iraq indicated that it is. He says the role of space research would have to change. In particular there are interesting ideas connected with removal of dangerous debris from space. The narrator adds that ecological projects are already being developed under the Sirius Program. He goes on to outline a number of other conversion applications, and chief designer of the sea monitoring system Gleb Zotov explains other economic applications of this system. The program ends with reflections on Russia's changing role in the world, over assorted archive military pictures and news clips. The process of rapprochement with the West is irreversible, the narrator says, however, opposition to this remains on both sides, obstructing genuine legal parity. Ukraine refuses to ratify START I and give up its nuclear weapons. The present Russian Parliament will not ratify START II. However, moves toward consensus and peace continue, the program concludes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1993 12:15:14 GMT From: Chuck Shotton Subject: Galileo's HGA? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <27MAY199303132491@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) wrote: [Original questions] > At the present time, the Galileo mission is being planned using the Low Gain > Antenna. Attempts to open the High Gain Antenna (HGA) have not been abandoned, > and will continue though not as aggressively as in the past. The HGA is > partially open, and a High Gain uplink test was performed a couple of months > ago to characterize the HGA. The results of this test were, shall we > say, very interesting. What does "very interesting" mean? Were they able to transfer data? I would have thought a downlink test would have been more valuable to perform first, since it would give an idea if any useable bandwidth was available for science data return, etc. Was there some fear of cranking up transmitters on a partially deployed antenna? ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 93 10:36:57 EDT From: "John F. Woods" Subject: Galileo's HGA? Newsgroups: sci.space cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) writes: >In article <27MAY199303132491@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, >baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) wrote: >[Original questions] >>The HGA is >>partially open, and a High Gain uplink test was performed a couple of months >>ago to characterize the HGA. The results of this test were, shall we >>say, very interesting. >What does "very interesting" mean? Were they able to transfer data? I would >have thought a downlink test would have been more valuable to perform >first, since it would give an idea if any useable bandwidth was available >for science data return, etc. Was there some fear of cranking up >transmitters on a partially deployed antenna? Antennas have a property called "reciprocity"; they function exactly as well receiving as transmitting. Therefore, they could certainly obtain some characterization of the antenna by having it receive. Since Galileo's receivers are probably not as good as those on the ground, it would, indeed, be a less accurate test than transmitting, but they probably did fear damaging the transmitter with an antenna whose impedance could be any random value. If "very interesting" means something like "hey, it looks like it has a noticable major lobe in a useful direction (rather than pointing at a solar panel, say), and probably is open enough that it isn't too far off the design impedance", then they may figure it is safe and useful to use the transmitter to gain a more accurate characterization. Let's all keep our fingers crossed. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:28:30 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1u0p1g$7nk@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > >If i wanted to be very narrow in my estimate i could have said >128? LDEF trays, 50 Some SPaceLab Racks, and appx 100 GAS Cans. > >No matter what, it's ascathing condemnation of the SHuttles mass return >capacity. No, it's not a scathing condemnation of Shuttle's mass return capacity. If Eastern Airlines decided to dead head DC-10s from LA to Atlanta, would that be a condemnation of DC-10s, or would it be a condemnation of Eastern's lack of marketing skill? 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 93 14:34:36 BST From: clements@vax.ox.AC.UK Subject: Hubble vs Keck Newsgroups: sci.space Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620 Lines: 36 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >>it would probably be cheaper to build another Hubble. Or to simply >>write off the Hubble program entirely and build 2.5 more Keck >>Interferometers. (Which could be done for the cost of fixing >>Hubble). > > It wouldn't give you Hubble's UV or faint-object capabilities, even > assuming that the Keck Interferometer works as well as projected. The > extent to which the new ground-based telescopes can (probably) equal > or surpass Hubble is exaggerated; they do so in only one of several > dimensions. Henry, I'm not sure what you mean here by HSTs 'faint object capabilities'. A 10m telescope gathers an awful lot more light than a 2.5m, so can get fainter in that sense, whilst in the optical the background from the earth isn't too much of a problem, so the higher spatial resolution df HST doesn't win back this factor. The short integration times on one target (45 mins I think) necessetated by HSTs low oprbit also are a problem on faint sources as you have to cope with rather more read out noise than one 10 hour exposure, say, with Keck would. The FOC, I think, has low readout noise, but this has a very limited FoV. Dave > -- > SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry -- ================================================================================ Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department ================================================================================ clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain... ================================================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:54:32 GMT From: "joseph.l.nastasi" Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity (long) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space This a response to Ken Jenks tour de force on improving things at NASA. I am reading it a couple of weeks after it is written and I usually don't bother responding to something so dated, but this is different. The organization that Ken describes is very similar to many US corporations. I work, as a consultant, at AT&T. A few years ago your description of NASA applied to AT&T. I am not one for "being one of the gang" or "rah-rah company man", BUT I am amazed at the environment here. It has been totally transformed. AT&T management had to admit to itself that the status quo was not working. Part of the solution was to get rid of dead wood. And I am sure that AT&T lost a many good people as part of that process, but it *had* to be done. Then there was a definition of Vision, Mission and Values. This was started by the GBCS division (the PBX folks) and, at first glance, appears too good to be true, but I can assure you that it is really an daily way of life. I list these items below, each followed by a comment of how this relates to NASA. Vision: To be Partners with Customers and be Dedicated to their Success. The American people are, as Ken put it, NASA's customers. For NASA to succeed, that fact must be pounded into everyone's head. Mission: To be the World-Wide Leader in providing the Highest Quality Business Communications Solutions. As Ken stated, just what the hell is NASA's mission? I, a long- time admirer of the space program, haven't a flaming clue! Values: Respect for Individuals Dedication to helping Customers Highest standards of Integrity Innovation Teamwork Accountability Excellence These values must be internalized and LIVED by all in the organization. All of these values are drilled into our hearts and heads. And the buy-in to this is amazing. Of all the Values stated above, NASA, IMHO, is severely lacking in Accounability. Accountability, is a two-way street. It means that 1. the decision making process is pushed down to all levels in an organization and 2. the person making that decision is held accountable for it. It's called empowerment. AT&T is constantly enabling ALL associates to make 100% of the decisions required in their job. What do the managers do? They make sure that the environment is correct for the associates to do their job, they orchestrate, they coach. The Civil Servant/Contractor situation at NASA is a joke. I have been a consultant here for almost seven years and I am treated as an associate of the company. I even attend meetings where benefits and company confidential items are discussed. Training!!! Ken's one day a month is a very good approach. GBCS had a stated policy that all associates receive two weeks of training per year. That just changed to three weeks! GBCS uses the PQMI method of management. Quality (effeciency, etc) has to be MEASURED before it can be improved. Ken's list of steps is basically correct. PQMI states: 1. Establish associate responsibilities 2. Define the current process and customer requirements 3. Define and establish metrics 4. Access conformance to customer requirements 5. Investigate improvement opportunities 6. Prioritize opportunities based on max-potential for improvement 7. Modify the process You then go to step 4 and repeat the cycle FOREVER! It never stops. None of this fire-fighting, tiger team crap. Actually, PQMI states that you do visit steps 2 and 3 at regular intervals because customer requirements can change and better metric methods do surface. And Ken again nails a BIG issue: Multi-year funding is the ONLY way to go. Just think how much time and effort is required to kiss rear in Washington every year to make sure funding is at the required levels! The money spent on that effort could be spent on actual work. I am just as skeptical as Ken Jenks as to how much NASA can change. However, I never thought I would see the day when an organization like GBCS and AT&T could turn so completely around. I watch IBM flounder and sputter and say "Hmm... that was us five years ago". When I first discovered this news group, I was sooo excited. I thought I would get all sorts of technical info; stuff I used to fly down to Washington for a day to look up in the Air and Space museum's library! I wade through scores of posts that have one common theme: NASA stinks! But, until Ken's posting, there was NEVER any real attempt to outline the basic change in thinking that is REQUIRED to turn NASA (or any other large organization) around. Things like DC-X and Pegasus are very cool, BUT the chances of getting these to real day-in, day-out operational status are very slim, unless there is a clear national Vison, Mission and Values ideology for space exploration and utilization. This space stuff is not very exciting anymore. Sad. God, I'm depressed. NASA, either stand your ground and do it right or get the flying hell out of the business! Congress, figure out what the rank and file American wants out of NASA and fund it seriously or put the money to work someplace else (like less than 1% of the budget is gonna make a difference someplace else). I'm sick of political discussions! I wanna talk about EVA, hardware, technical procedures, etc. I want to design a Get-Away Special... Oh well, Joe Nastasi Consultant for AT&T Middletown, NJ nastasi@mtgpfs1.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 12:37:26 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May26.210909.395@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: > > I think Mr. Coffman may have forgotten one cost of long >transit times. *Someone* will have money tied up for the duration >of delivery. That money had better pay back at better than bank >interest rates would or the investors are potentially losing >money. That is going to effect pricing. A naive calculation >indicates that if the bank rate is 5%, and the cargo takes >14 months to arrive (from the asteroid belt), then the banks >would have paid about $1.06 for every dollar tied up in the >cargo for that time. If someone else can deliver the same >product in less time, that aspect of costs will be less. James, *any* product delivered in space with only a 6% markup for transit is a major improvement over the current state of the art. Transport costs are the dominant factor in materials cost in space. If longer transit times yield sharply lowered transport costs, then the time cost of money is overwhelmed by the savings. If time costs were dominant, we'd fly oil back from the Middle East instead of using slow tankers. Note that I understand that these costs can't be ignored, but you have to treat them properly. This time cost is not incurred by *every* shipment, only by the first. It's like a pipeline with it's long lead time before a return is seen. Once the product is flowing, the material is fungible with product entering the pipeline indistinguishable from product exiting. This means that time of transit cost no longer exists under ordinary accounting rules. Normally, the first item cost is smoothed over all succeeding product via depreciation, but that smoothing interval only starts once, at project startup, not at the instant of each bit of product insertion into the system. > Also, turning *off* the pipeline (In the event that >the market for the product crashes, for example) takes time. >If product x is arriving every week in the 14 month example, >that means there are 56 cargos of product x that *will* arrive, >after production stops. There's a certain inflexibility to >'Leinster-style' pipe-lines, which may worry investors. Pipeline style shipping is only suitable for large volume commodities. A collapse of the market would mean a collapse of large scale space activities. This would be similar to the case if everyone stopped driving cars tommorrow. There'd be a similar collapse in the oil market, but bankers and investors would have more serious problems to worry about than some oil in the pipe. The entire financial structure would collapse due to the lack of economic activity. Or, as another analogy, suppose the demand for drinking water in NYC stopped tommorrow. The holders of water bonds would be unhappy, but the fact that everyone in NYC would be dead would take overwhelming priority on the stock market. 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:17:54 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >Get this: a man murdered a Japanese exchange student in BR and >was acquitted. A great miscarriage of justice. But he got away >with it, and the student wasn't even shooting at a Martian. Get this: a man responded with deadly force to a percieved attacker who refused to halt his advance when warned. A jury found he had acted the way a reasonable person would in interptreting the victim's actions as placing him in fear of his life. That the victim wasn't really attacking him is irrelevant under law. Hindsight is 20/20. It should be equally sad if the perceived attacker had really intended to harm him and *had* because he didn't fire in time. The man had been victimized four times previously. 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1993 10:01:54 -0400 From: Peter Webb Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Newsgroups: sci.space : The route to intelligence used by humans is still hotly debated by : anthropologists. : 1) expanded brain required to maintain social structures. : 2) expanded brain required for speech and cooperation : 3) expanded brain driven by increasing tool use requirements for fine : manipulation : 4) large brain required for primate binocular color vision : Another explaination appears in William Calvin's wonderful book _The River that Flows Uphill_. He postulates that the primates with larger brains could hurl projectiles (spears, rocks) more accurately, and were thus better able to kill prey animals for food. His is the first argument I've seen that places a strong survival value on a larger brain. -- Peter Webb webb@hks.com Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. Voice: 401-727-4200 1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860 FAX: 401-727-4208 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 12:51:10 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space In article <1993May27.001733.4890@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes: >ellert@nu1.uh.cwru.edu () writes: >: >: logically cool one at that. Initially, I think space advertising will >: appeal to a lot of people simply due to its novelty. Maybe it will >: proliferate, but I think it will go the way of Burma-Shave signs and >: highway billboards. Who really reads billboards anyways? > >Unfortunately, the only place highway billboards have gone away is where >they have been legislated out of existance. Even then, the advertisers >try to find ways around the bans. I miss the Burma Shave signs. They broke the monotony of long trips between interminable boring stretches of featureless pine forests. No more counting the "See Rock City" signs, no more "Visit the Jungle" signs. The highways are now bland and boring affairs crawling along under artificially reduced speed limits. Now we are reduced to playing trolling for tailights with our radar detector testers to stay alert. 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1993 10:36:58 GMT From: Ted B Samsel Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF (Russian books) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books John Calvin Batchelor (great name..author of THE RISE AND FALL OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF ANTARCTICA, AMERICAN FALLS, and the 2 "CAT" books) has recently come out with a fictional account of the "first" Soviet moon landing. Should be entertaining. -- Ted.... ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1993 10:30:20 GMT From: Ted B Samsel Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books A friend of mine's father was a NASA engineer until the early shuttle trials and his opinion was that Wolfe was right on the money in his portrayal of those times. (At least from his vantage point). -- Ted.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 93 15:25:39 BST From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan? Newsgroups: sci.space In Henry Spencer writes: >The way I read Sagan is that maybe ten years ago, he decided that >prevent nuclear war was his *highest* priority and everything else >was secondary. Out of that flowed most everything he's done since >(well, in the popular eye anyway -- he is still doing planetary science >now and then). So what we are saying here, is like every other charlatan, faker or fanatic, he sacrificed truth at the altar of belief .. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Nicholls ... : Vidi nicho@vnet.ibm.com or : Vici nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 638 ------------------------------