Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 14 Jul 1990 01:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 14 Jul 1990 01:46:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #64 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Re: Titan boosters shout! get your heels up and...shout!... Lobbying on the Net Re: NASA's lobbying on the net Recent Traffic... Re: HST higher orbit? Re: UFO notes group??? space weapons Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jul 90 17:30:49 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3.iti.org!aws@ucsd.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Titan boosters In article <25304@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@cellar.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes: >In light of the problems the shuttle has with crew escape while >the SRBs are burning, I'm curious what the escape plans were for >a human-rated Titan IIIM. I assume that would depend on the capsule design. The point I want to make however, is that moderm commercial aircraft have very few mechanisms for either crew or passengers. Sometimes you pay your money and take your chances. Allen | | In War: Resolution | | Allen W. Sherzer | In Defeat: Defiance | | aws@iti.org | In Victory: Magnanimity | | | In Peace: Good Will | ------------------------------ From: bwebber@NMSU.Edu Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 17:35:40 MDT Subject: shout! get your heels up and...shout!... Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: BRIGHT TIDINGS FOR THE FUTURE Summary: Expires: References: <90193.112904GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> Sender: Reply-To: bwebber@charon.UUCP (Bill Webber) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: New Mexico State University Keywords: In article <90193.112904GIPP@GECRDVM1.BITNET> GIPP@gecrdvm1.crd.ge.com writes: > > BOY, WHAT A BUNCH OF PESSIMISTS YOU GUYS ARE: HST IS DEAD! >NASA IS WASHED UP! SHUTTLE IS TRASH THAT SHOULD BE JUNKED! >YOU READ LIKE A BAD SUPERMARKET TABLOID (WHICH I ADMIT HAS ITS >ENTERTAINMENT VALUE). MAYBE IT'S JUST MY OPINION, BUT I DON'T ..... but you don't know how to use the small letters? I hate to pick, but it really is annoying, no matter what the content to see all caps. As to the content, do the words "sweet lemons" (as opposed to sour grapes) mean anything to you? People are griping about the system because we really want a better one. Until that system comes along, the net will be a source of mostly negative commentary to try and get changes made. It doesn't mean that there aren't SOME positive postings. Some are very good, and some are just posting of boring (to some) data on some project. It isn't just a big flame session for NASA, although I can see why you may think so if you've only read the last few postings. Mellow out and hit that caps-lock key. Korac MacArthur (not bwebber) currently at NMSU.edu working for a cosmic ray researcher +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Who watches the watchers?" +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Disclaimer? I don't need no stinnnking disclaimer! via condios! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ b-b-d-d-d-dat's all, folks. ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 1990 13:10 CST Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 13:02:26 CDT From: ROsman%ASS%SwRI05@15VS178A.SPACE.SwRI.EDU Subject: Lobbying on the Net DON'T touch that dial. (I'm copying you directly, in the event you've already reached over and pulled the big switch.) I've read, with some distress, the bickering going on about use of the net for "lobbying". I will avoid expressing my views on that particular subject. To Mary, Lee, and other offendees... ... PUHLEEZ don't go away, mad or otherwise. If you DO go away, bullheadedness (is that a REAL word?) has won without any reason. Filter, or ignore the issue. There's a lot of us out here who listen with great interest, but don't say much. To ALL... ... can we drop the subject. It really doesn't belong here anyway. At least give it a rest for two weeks or so. | Oz (Rich Osman) | (Pay no Attention to | | (ARS WB0HUQ) | the man behind the | |ROsman%ASS%SwRI05@15VS178A.SPACE.SwRI.EDU| curtain) | | - or - Osman@Jules.DataSys.SwRI.EDU | | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 18:38:30 GMT From: mephisto!prism!ccoprmd@rutgers.edu (Matthew DeLuca) Subject: Re: NASA's lobbying on the net In article <9007121952.AA26953@ibmpa.paloalto.ibm.com> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nicholas J. Szabo) writes: > >In article <11244@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) wr >ites: [Deleted for brevity...check it out in a previous article.] >This is utter tripe. > >(1) Censorship applies to individuals and private organizations, not > government agencies. This issue has nothing to do with censorship. It most certainly does. You are saying that people who work for NASA should not post their opinions to this network. Despite the fact that they work for a government agency, they are private individuals and their opinion has every right to be posted to this net. And I might point out that this is a silly place to lobby...since we don't have anything to do with the money that NASA will or won't get in their budget. So your crusade really has nothing to do about lobbying. >(2) The political posts in question were not responses to my posts. What political posts are you referring to? >(3) My views are often in the majority, not minority in this forum. > I have no need or desire to limit any sort of criticism of my views. > I am quite happy when I receive intelligent critical feedback, since > that lets me improve my understanding of the world. Whether or not you are in the majority most of the time, you are a definite minority on wanting to get NASA off the net, and are acting as such. Most of this article I am replying to reminds me of the tactics I see on talk.politics.mideast when someone starts getting cornered. You may not feel the need to limit criticism of your views, but I'm sure that you've noticed that 'intelligent critical feedback' of your posts will drop way down if NASA is forced off. >(4) There is a very good reason for the laws, regulations and ethics > preventing a government agency from using its equipment for > political action. Involuntarily obtained money was used to make > the postings in question. (As for the NASA employee who responded > "I'm a taxpayer too", all your tax money comes out of tax money, and > you get to vote just like I do). Again, there is no political lobbying on this newsgroup. Where are the politicians? Unless you define political lobbying as a few NASA people posting factual information to a few hundred readers of a newsgroup, many of whom aren't even U.S. citizens. Incidentally, why aren't you trying to get *all* taxpayer-funded posters off? The machine I am on is largely funded my the State of Georgia. Any particular reason to pick on NASA? >(5) There is a large audience not able to participate in this discussion > because they lack taxpayer-funded equipment. Some people like myself > are fortunate enough to have access to private equipment and we need > to speak up for the others. So your solution is to ban the people on the taxpayer-funded equipment. Why don't you start a drive to get the rest of the people *on* the net, instead of some people *off* the net? The only result of your 'speaking up' will be to reduce the amount of information on this net. Are you planning to assume the functions of the people who post updates on what our taxpayer-funded space probes are doing? >> [Me talking about avoiding politicians on this net] >I queried about legal issues so that we don't get another alt.sex >case out of this. So far, government agencies have refrained from >politicking for themselves on the net. NASA violated that unwritten rule >and I'm pointing it out. I have no intention of taking any sort of >legal action, writing my Congressman, or such nonsense. You're making the mistake of associating posters with the organization they work for, again. Why do you think many of the NASA people hae those little disclaimers ('Of course I don't speak for NASA') on the bottom of their posts? The posters are individuals. NASA has never officially gotten on this net and 'politicked' for themselves. Individuals have gotten on and supported their employer. So what? I'm generally happy with my employer, and I'll support them. I've also been critical of them before, on a public newsgroup, using their machine. It can be done. Nobody's standing over these people making them say nice things. Try reading what they say, instead of where they say it from. >I am simply trying to raise consiousness about this problem. For some >reason, some people like yourself have been misreading my postings and >flaming me instead of thinking clearly about the issue and discussing >it intelligently, like Dave McKissock's excellent post. If anything >will destroy the net, it is people with no sense of ethics or etiquette. There is no problem, and the issue is one of your own making. As for flames, I flame you because I *don't* misread your postings and I *have* thought clearly about it. The end result, if you had your way, would result in a near-total loss of information from the people who know the most. Whatever you may think about the people posting from NASA, do you deny that they contribute useful information to the group? As for destroying the net, there is already almost a complete lack of etiquette on it, and ethics isn't in abundance, either. What will destroy it is cutting it off from groups of people, one group at a time. >I got e-mail saying "I wish this thread would die". I agree. After this >post I will only respond to intelligent posts that add information to this >topic. Stupid flames, insults, and people responding to things I didn't >say >/dev/null. I got the same mail. However, I felt the need to respond to this. What say you stop trying to knock NASA posters off the net, and the rest of us will stop flaming you. >These opinions are not related to those of any organization I am >affiliated with. See? This is called a disclaimer. NASA people have them too, in the hopes that people like you won't get confused and think that they are spokesmen for NASA. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, Office of Information Technology for they are subtle, and quick to anger. Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 20:49:46 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!bcars8!bnrgate!bwdls58!hwt@ucsd.edu (Henry Troup) Subject: Recent Traffic... A large part of recent traffic in this group makes me want to lobby for two new mandatory headers: Age: IQ: I suspect that several of the hot heads around are about seventeen... others are 45 with an IQ of 90 ... or maybe 90 with an IQ of 45. I don't want to put 'NASA' in my kill file - for obvious reasons. But I'd love to be able to kill the NASA-bashing. Remark to Nasa-bashers - you have put a payload in orbit recently???? -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | Not one of 100% of ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 | Americans ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 15:14:57 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: HST higher orbit? >From: psuvm!wtu@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu >Subject: Re: HST >Can somebody tell me why the HST is not shoot to the geostationary >orbit? Other than political reasons that NASA want to use shuttle >for HST, so they get two birds with one stone. Is there any >fundemental scientific reasons that the HST should be at the orbit >it is right now rather than a higher one? >Thanks :-) This was discussed on *Nightline* before HST was launched. HST was not built to withstand the radiation levels at geostationary orbit. In fact, one memory subsection (more sensitive than the main memory) is having trouble with the South Atlantic Anomaly even at the current orbit. The problem would presumably be worse at even a slightly higher orbit. To some extent, electronics can be hardened for use in high-radiation environments. Apparently this is fairly difficult for some of the optical components of HST. If there are more space telescopes in the future (i.e. on the moon), the radiation problem will have to be solved. In addition, HST is much easier to fix in an orbit the Shuttle can reach than in a higher orbit. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 90 22:50:35 GMT From: tristan!loren@lll-winken.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) Subject: Re: UFO notes group??? In article <1500001@hpvcfs1.HP.COM> miked@hpvcfs1.HP.COM (Mike Dobbs) writes: >Is there a notes group for discussing UFOs? >: There is. Sci.skeptic They discuss other "borderline science" there, also. ^ Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster \ ^ / loren@sunlight.llnl.gov \ ^ / One may need to route through any of: \^/ <<<<<<<<+>>>>>>>> lll-lcc.llnl.gov /v\ lll-crg.llnl.gov / v \ star.stanford.edu / v \ v For example, use: loren%sunlight.llnl.gov@star.stanford.edu My sister is a Communist for Reagan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 19:36:16 EDT From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: space weapons wshb!clarence@uunet.uu.net ( WSHB employee) writes: > Why are lasers and similar weapons the preferred armament of > most space vessels? Why not solid-projectile-type weapons? Is ------------------- (most science-fiction space vessels) > there some simple physics involved here? > A few years ago I watched a SF movie where a spaceship cruising > at just under the speed of light fired nuclear missiles at it's > enemy.....what would happen to the ship firing these solid missiles? There's a pretty good chance that conventional firearms would work in space. Adjusting for gravitational gradients, you could hit targets many miles away with full muzzle velocity. To what extent are conventional lubricants usable in space? John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #64 *******************