Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 05:02:56 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #242 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 24 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 242 Today's Topics: 21 cm rights ? about SETI ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission (2 msgs) Ethics Getting Ion Thrusters off the Ground (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct) No More Ethics! overpopulation Phobos/Deimos observer? Practicing comet mining aboard Fred (was Re: what use is Freedom?) Property rights? Radio and property rights Radio rights satellite construction question Sayonara, Mariner Mark II Self-genociding space colonies & the Fermi Paradox (2 msgs) space news from Aug 17 AW&ST (Hermes project) what use is Freedom? 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, 23 Sep 92 17:26:58 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: 21 cm rights > If someone wanted to do that, they'd be high, as the only intrinsic > value of that frequency is it's use for astronomy. (Or super-long > By any legal definition one would care to use, radio astronomy has homesteading rights, squatters rights, possession is nine points of the law, etc over 21cm. If Andre Marrou and a libertarian majority were magically to take office in January, the only frequencies up for sale would be the ones that are currently "unallocated" within territories under jurisdication of the USA, or those that the current users decide to sell because they can suddenly make a profit on them instead of hoarding them. > Also, with strict property rights, you own whatever is over your > land. So, radio emmissions are, technically, pollution. Anyone > could sue for quiet in the 21cm band...in their neighborhood. > Not an entirely true statement. Property rights are defined in law, and whether you own the "aether" over you physical property is a matter of title and homesteading. Absolute property rights simply means that what it says on your title can not be changed by anyone's fiat, it can only be changed by what you buy or sell. Water rights are a similar sort of property, since water doesn't tend to stay put on one physical peice of land. In practice property rights have to be defined in such a way as to account for pragmatics. If you did title searches, you would find that most people (possibly to their surprise) do not hold title to mineral rights under their own homes because the mineral rights were sold separately when large tracts of land changed hands decades or even a century ago. The interaction between property rights of different sorts is a case where Stein's comment about legal complexity and ambiguity are indeed correct. It would probably be necessary for you to prove that my utilization of my existing property right at x MHz interferes with your existing property right to the land surface at Earth coordinates . That is indeed a long and drawn out civil case unless it is a clear cut matter, ie if I build a giant microwave oven transmitter and fry your pussycat, the case is pretty clear. But if you claim that my private backyard dynamo at 60Hz has increased your possibility of contracting cancer by .0000000000000000000000000001%, then you might need a good lawyer :-) There also may be a tad of difference in our definitions. When I speak of absolute property rights, I mean property that is only transferable by the title holder, and that can be used in any way the title holder desires in so long as it does not damage other property. Your use of strict property rights seems to imply a situation that is probably impractical because physical property is divided into many different sub categories of rights which are split among multiple owners. Do you know which coal company owns the vein under YOUR house? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 16:03:07 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: ? about SETI Newsgroups: sci.space The current technique is to look for a period signal from the sky that has a doppler shift. The doppler shift is caused by the rotation and motion of the earth and the other body. This means you have to examine a set of nearby frequencies at given moment. For if you look at a single narrow-band signal, it will doppler shift out of that frequency band and be lost. The technique for looking for periodic signals is to compute a power spectrum by autocorrelation and see if there are any peaks. NASA and Stanford built special spectral analysers that will no this computation for millions of frequency bands at once. If you make a plot of frequency band versus autocorrelated frequency, doppler shifted signals appear as diagonal streaks. NASA and Stanford built a large spectral analyser. I think it cost about $40M per year to built and run. Every year the past few years it gets eliminated in the preliminary Congressional budget (large enougth to be a line-item budget) and every year until this year it has been partially restored. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 10:22:41 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission Newsgroups: sci.space > [Heretofore unsuspected startling top-secret Russian tech! > CIA lawyer reveals all!] That was a fun read. You gotta admit, it's refreshing to see comets as the target of choice, instead of the usual astronaut travelogue to That Which is Closest or Most Resembles Earth. Comets, besides being the most primordial objects in the solar system and therefore quite scientifically interesting, have a vast potential for providing nearly all the mass needed for large-scale space activities: propellant, shielding, industrial inputs, life support, etc. -- from native sources. Comet sample returns should play a strategic, central role in SEI. Gee, _two months_ to get to a comet, that'll be the day... :-) :-) For the record, Jupiter-family comets, the proposed targets for such missions, have a period of 3.5 to 7 years, and the round-trip times are typically 6 years for a direct (electric rocket) mission, 8 using chemical and earth gravity assist. Here is hopefully a more practical alternative -- how about substituting the Artemis lunar lander from SEI for the Mariner Mk. II derivative, and a plasma thruster for the chemical upper stage? Here is a comparative breakdown: Rosetta/Artemis Rosetta/Mariner Mk. II --------------- ---------------------- Ariane 4 $120m Titan 4 $270m electric stage $100m Centaur $30m Artemis $150m Mariner Mk. II $1,000m misc./ops $200m $200m TOTAL COST $570m $1,500m time til return 6 yrs 8 yrs For more info on the Rosetta/MMII proposal, see Atzei, Hechler, Coste, "ESA Preparatory Programme for the Rosetta/CNSR Mission", in Space Technology, v11, n1, pp1-13, 1991 -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 12:48:15 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep23.102241.13308@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >> [Heretofore unsuspected startling top-secret Russian tech! >> CIA lawyer reveals all!] > > That was a fun read. You gotta admit, it's refreshing to see comets > as the target of choice, instead of the usual astronaut travelogue > to That Which is Closest or Most Resembles Earth. Nick, I can't REALLY believe that your life will be BETTER if the SAUCER PEOPLE get interested in your favorite TARGETS. Soon we will be reading CLAIMS that the U.S. Government has STASHED the FROZEN bodies of ALIENS in the nucleus of COMET TEMPEL or someplace. Interesting proposal for Rosetta-type mission, though. It's worth noting that *ESA Bulletin* and *ESA Journal* have had some articles on Rosetta. Bill Higgins | In the distant future, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | nuns will be bartenders Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | aboard starships Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | and Sternbach paintings SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | will hang on every wall. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 06:20:04 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Ethics Newsgroups: sci.space In article bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes: > >But if we terrafo0rm Mars KNOWING that there is life there, then we become >a race of mass-murderers that Hitler and Stalin would be proud of... > >Or does the word "genocide" not burn your ears with shame? The only sucessful *planned* genocide ever committed was against the smallpox virus. I guess that you consider the WHO compatriots of Hitler and Stalin, eh? Gary ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 08:29:18 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Getting Ion Thrusters off the Ground (was Re: Ion for Pluto Direct) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <22SEP199208361568@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, spgreg@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Greg Macrae) writes: [good remarks on electrode erosion and chamber erosion deleted] > > Funding continues at a low level for research along these lines. I believe > we have made great advancements since the last American ion thruster flight. > The technology is mature, and for some applications, flight qualified > thrusters and power processors exist as 'off the shelf' items. Greg, what are the steps needed before ion thrusters, or other electric propulsion gadgets, are competing on an equal footing with chemical rockets for deep-space missions? I shot off my mouth about engineering test missions the other day, but I would like to hear what a real expert thinks. I presume there is a consensus on the appropriate development path, but I'm not very familiar with the field. Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | "Treat your password like Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | your toothbrush. Don't let Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | anybody else use it-- Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | and get a new one every SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | six months." --Cliff Stoll ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 20:07:32 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: No More Ethics! >It's obvious that Tom and I will never agree, so I'm dropping the debate. I would have dropped it while ago. But, being in a minority of one, what would I have heard had I not responded? Here's a clue: >I haven't been "out-logiced", just have more things to do than I have time >for... For those still interested, I've gotten a bunch of requests (as though it was all my doing) to get it off the net. That's cool. If you still care, take it to private mail, as have several others. -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 18:59:54 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: overpopulation Newsgroups: sci.space In article tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes: Aren't you all missing the point that the growth of Earth's population will level off somewhere around three times the present population around the same time that cheap energy is getting scarce? Best guesses I've seen have been 8-10bn, actually. No serious demographers are talking about 16bn any more. Read some demography (I did, after the last time this went around here. I was a doomsayer before). Nick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 11:31:19 GMT From: Ian Taylor Subject: Phobos/Deimos observer? Newsgroups: sci.space Are there plans to use Mars Observer (MO) to investigate the Martian moons? There would seem to be an opportunity to get some new data while MO performs its orbit insertion maneuvers for the first four months. +-- I -------- fax +43 1 391452 --------------------- voice +43 1 391621 169 --+ | T a y l o r Alcatel-ELIN Research, 1-7 Ruthnergasse, Vienna A-1210 Austria | +-- n ---- ian@rcvie.co.at --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+ Current signature under review for ISO 9000 compliance. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 08:14:59 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Practicing comet mining aboard Fred (was Re: what use is Freedom?) Newsgroups: sci.space Gay, good to see you posting to the Net! In article , CANOUGH%BINGVAXA.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (USRNAME) writes: > Who will use the space > station when it is ready? The types of science mostly talked > about are life science and microgravity. Microgravity is > somewhat incompatible with people being on board and > jostling the station. Depends upon the details of the experiment, I suppose. Don't forget that, after the sixth assembly flight, there's a period of Man-Tended Capability from 1997 to 2000 with long periods of "low-jostling" flight between construction flights. This might be a good time to do more sensitive experiments, but good luck following up on your research-- especially with the Columbus free-flyer dead. > Are there plans now to have a module > floating free from the main station for that? Not as far as I know. > What I am curious to find out is, who wants to use the space > station Freedom and for what? There are probably scientists > who want to do basic research, but perhaps there are also > people in industry who have thought about using the ssF for > applied research. Saw a poster paper at WSC which detailed experiments to understand the formation of interplanetary or interstellar dust grains through experiments aboard SSF which would simulate them. Which got me thinking. I know somebody who says he's figuring out how to mine Jupiter-family comets. Processing cometary or asteroidal material in low gravity is a technical challenge that could benefit greatly from experiments in LEO. How do you make equipment that can remove material from the surface, or below the surface, of an icy or muddy body, and extract nice volatiles from it without gumming up the machinery? Oh, and we would prefer that this equipment be automated and not require a nearby operator... Let's throw together some simulated cometary material, and try out some ideas on it in free fall. Unfortunately, this sort of applied experiment would probably have a lot of trouble getting NASA approval, since NASA probably thinks that using cometary or asteroidal material is something we won't need to do for about a century and a half. But I know it will appeal to *you*, Gay, and maybe you can shake some people up with it. > e-mail(Internet): CANOUGH@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU > (GEnie) : G.CANOUGH > phone/fax= 607 785 6499 voice mail = 800 673 8265 > radio call sign: KB2OXA Uh-oh, everybody's getting a ham license but me, even *girls*. Peer pressure is mounting. "Do you know the asteroids, Mr.Kemp?... Bill Higgins Hundreds of thousands of them. All wandering around the Sun in strange Fermilab orbits. Some never named, never charted. The orphans of the Solar higgins@fnal.fnal.gov System, Mr. Kemp." higgins@fnal.bitnet "And you want to become a father." --*Moon Zero Two* SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 20:13:58 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Property rights? > A judge is supposed to make decisions based on natural law, et. al. > When he doesn't, he's called 'a felon', not 'judge'. >Incorrect. According to the constitution, a judge is supposed to make >decisions based upon _written_ law. Natural law is mentioned >_nowhere_ in the constitution. As far as the US is concerned, there >is no such thing as "natural law". Geez, I thought I was pedantic :-) The point is, the good judge is one who makes decisions based upon codified and accepted rules that the society which has empowered him have agreed to. The bad judge is one who makes decisions based on some other, ususally personal, interest, which go against the aforementioned codified rules, like a bribe or a political interest, for which, judges can face felony charges. Or, to bring it back to the original thread, which, I beleive was about property rights, in particular, radio frequency rights; A judge does not determine a lawsuit to determine the law, but, rather, to see how the law applies in that particular situation. Since we were talking about systems of law, the situations should be left to the judge, or whatever power fills his role, in whatever system is under consideration. -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 13:36:21 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Radio and property rights > If you know of a way to construct an unambigious legal system than > there are some mathematicians who would really like to talk to you. > I won't claim you can remove all ambiguity. There are cases when it is in fact necessary. I stated that many problems are due to very roundabout techniques used to provide a legal framework which could be much more simply defined in a different paradeigm. That is not to say that there are not things which would not be ambiguous in the other paradeigm. I only assert that it would be less. To attempt to prove it would require an unending discussion ala Tommy :-) >> ... would not be just a civil matter, but one of criminal theft >> and trespass ... > Irrespective of the flat assertion that law suits will somehow be > cheaper and reulst in more consistently just outcome in a > neoLibertarian society, As you can see, that is not what I said. Criminal trespass is a different matter and tends to be dealt with more expeditiously than civil suit. > how do you compensate that loss of use while to suit is in progress? There is no compensation today, so it is at least not worst. Look at all the suits, lobbying, injunctions and such that are going on TODAY over the LEO systems frequency allocations. See Wales' recent posting. > How do you enforce your settlement? > And, why do you expect the rest of the world to follow along??? > What happens today when someone is convicted of criminal mischief? They go to jail. In a minimalist state, the policeman still comes and takes them away. In a fully private society there are also means, but I really don't want to start THAT discussion here. If you are interested, read Murray Rothbard's "Towards a New Liberty" (or an approximation of that title) > What was this about never initiating use of force? Or is this a > convenient redefinition of "force"? > Initiation means you are not the one to start it. The force was initiated by the trespassers with the bulldozer. A libertarian jurisprudence would recognize a very large difference between actions taken against simple trespass and the actions taken when your home is about to be knocked down. You have a right to deny entry to your property, and to use the requisite amount of force to prevent said entry. The question which would have to be asked is, "Was there a lower level of force that could have been used by the property owner to prevent the imminent destruction of his home?" If the answer is yes, then he is guilty of using excessive force. In my opinion, there was NO level of force available to him that could have prevented the state-initiated vandalism. Yes, the fellow was quite foolish. He couldn't possibly win. I won't argue that point, but the action, in and of itself was justifiable as a response against state initiated force. And in another post you said: > guy up and taking whatever he wanted. It only slowed down when the > little guys realised that if they grouped together and laid down > some rules this sort of behaviour could be moderated - this evolved > into social structure and governments - I'm sorry neoLibertarians > don't like the particular social compromise that they were born into, > and I applaud their efforts to change it, but don't pretend that > This issue is not unattended to. It is dealt with via a different form of social contract, not the law of the jungle. Again, I can best suggest you read the Rothbard book. You will probably still disagree, but at least you'll know where I'm coming from. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 20:28:16 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Radio rights >>For that matter, what's wrong with suing, based on the infringement of >>radio waves upon my peacful, quiet EM field? Solar power has already >>brought up the question of 'solar rights'. >Try this one: "If those people are going to beam signals into my backyard, I >have a right to use them". Just let me know what prison they assign you to, >I'll write. Well, that's a nice thought, sarcastic as it seems to be :-), but thanks anyway. It is just this *correct* logic that is used, and is now considered precedent, when cable companies sue Sat-dish owners. You don't want them to get your signal? Stop sending it to them! >>The FCC is supposed to make decisions based on...what? I guess I don't >>really know. I imagine it's something really vague and unenforcable like, >>'public welfare' or some such gov agency double-talk. >By the empowering law. Not that that tells us much :-( Indeed. "The common heritage of all electro-chemical beings..." >>And now, the FCC is 'the big guy'. Between taxes, licensing, and the >>disposal of frequencies, the FCC is the de facto owner of the entire >>EM spectrum in the US. >By international treaty and US law, they ARE the owner. And, since they are a >wing of the US government, and since WE are the US government, we own the >spectrum. Yeah, right. But when me an' my roomate set up that illegal R-rated AM radio X-mitter in our dorm building (using the electrical system as an antenna), it wasn't the students that busted us :-) >Gosh Tommy, I would have expected you to be more cynical by now :-) Gee, I feel kind of stupid, but I missed the joke. Why? -Tommy Mac . " + .------------------------ + * + | Tom McWilliams; scrub , . " + | astronomy undergrad, at * +;. . ' There is | Michigan State University ' . " no Gosh! | 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu ' , * | (517) 355-2178 ; + ' * '----------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 08:39:25 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: satellite construction question Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1992Sep20.181113.13434@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> kca@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.c.archie) writes: >>Over dinner last night, a friend wondered if satellites had air in them. > >Other than the manned ones :-), generally not, for Western-built satellites. >Typically they aren't even vaguely airtight; if they turn out to be nearly >so, vents must be added to depressurize them on the way up. (For example, >there are vents for all parts of the shuttle-orbiter interior except the >cabin.) Soviet/Russian satellites often are pressurized; my understanding >is that the main reason for this is so circulating air can be used for >cooling. Thermal design of Western-style unpressurized satellites is >non-trivial if you've got electronic (etc) equipment that runs hot and >has to be cooled. Thermal control is a strong reason, but not the only one. In AMSAT Oscar 10, outgassing is suspected to have contaminated an antenna changeover relay to the point that a 10 db degradation in signal occurred. This rendered a major payload virtually worthless. Extensive, and expensive, vacuum chamber testing of satellite components is required to anticipate and compensate for these effects. With the Soviet approach, if it worked on the ground, odds are it will work in orbit since the atmosphere remains the same. Other problems, such as vacuum welding, and bearing grease evaporation can be a nuisance in a unsealed satellite. The major benefits to unsealed operation are that leaks aren't a problem and mass is lower. If a sealed satellite leaks, you're left with an unsealed satellite that hasn't been tested or prepared for vacuum operations. Building a satellite to contain 14 PSI internal pressure raises it's mass, as does the atmosphere itself. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 11:36:33 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Sayonara, Mariner Mark II Newsgroups: sci.space History says it was the automated project Sputnik that caused the big inrush of space funds, and the astronaut project Apollo that ended it. It's a long, long way between children's dreams and space program funding, but the shortest cut seems to be the self-fulfilling prophecy -- we can't fund planetary exploration, 'cuz it's not popular, and lo and behold it doesn't get funded because you spoke out against it. BTW, the "camel's nose under the tent" is another big example of astronaut missions being a politically liability to cheaper/faster/better exploration like Lunar Scout and Artemis. How many examples do we need? Tom Wolfe's quote "No Bucks, No Buck Rogers" is still quite true; the reversal of his quote is one of the most destructive myths to have swept across the space program in a long time. It has no basis in historical reality; just in too many people's minds as a self-fulfilling prophecy. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 11:16:20 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Self-genociding space colonies & the Fermi Paradox Newsgroups: sci.space >>[Self-genociding space colonies] In article <1992Sep22.095155.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov> doctorj@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes: >This is somewhat off the topic, but do you realize that you have just >rebutted one of the main arguments against the existence of extraterrestrial >civilization, namely "If they exist, why haven't they visited us?" I hadn't thought of that, but it is a fascinating and quite disturbing idea. The demographics hold for all highly educated human societies, from Hungary to Italy to Germany to Japan, but I have a hard time extrapolating that to all possible ETI societies. If ETI life is common by the Drake Equation, a civilization somewhere should value fertility over wealth, have achieved immortality, have built Von Neumann machines that would clue us in even if they had failed themselves to expand, or some such. On the other hand, it may be possible that technologically blocking the effects of evolved reproductive behaviors has a self-genocidal impact on every alien civilization, across a wide variety of possible biologies and cultures, and thus plays an important role in the ability of ETI civilizations to expand. Keep in mind, the self-genociding space colony implies more than just some ZPG or stasis. Given the human perfect-birth-control rate of -50%/generation over stellar timescales, our entire population would become extinct. Nobody knows how long this trend would really continue, but as far as I can tell going all the way to extinction can't be ruled out. I would certainly like to prevent that, or even going in that direction, of my own volition, because I am morally sickened by such a prospect, but I know few people who share strong pro-propagation values, or who act on them even if they do; such intellectual motivations may not be sufficient as a replacment for the sexual drive. -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 92 12:49:02 GMT From: Thomas Clarke Subject: Self-genociding space colonies & the Fermi Paradox Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep23.111620.24747@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: > > >>[Self-genociding space colonies] > > In article <1992Sep22.095155.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov> doctorj@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes: > > >This is somewhat off the topic, but do you realize that you have just > >rebutted one of the main arguments against the existence of extraterrestrial > >civilization, namely "If they exist, why haven't they visited us?" > > I hadn't thought of that, but it is a fascinating and quite disturbing > idea. The demographics hold for all highly educated human societies, > from Hungary to Italy to Germany to Japan, but I have a hard time > extrapolating that to all possible ETI societies. If ETI life is common > by the Drake Equation, a civilization somewhere should value fertility > over wealth, have achieved immortality, have built Von Neumann machines > that would clue us in even if they had failed themselves to expand, or > some such. But wouldn't the same demographic problem apply to the Von Neumann machines also? :-/ -- Thomas Clarke Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826 (407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 16:17:00 GMT From: IGOR Subject: space news from Aug 17 AW&ST (Hermes project) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... and also in the news... The European Hermes will NOT make as it is. The version that will be proposed to the ministries in Spain will have no wings and will look more like a capsule. Igor Texas A&M University ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- You heard it first here..... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 12:07:53 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: what use is Freedom? Newsgroups: sci.space In article CANOUGH%BINGVAXA.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (USRNAME) writes: >According to a reliable source, at a space station >utilization meeting of 1500 people earlier in the year, only >15 of the people in attendance considered >themselves to be space station users, as opposed to >contractors, NASA engineers, etc. The question comes to mind >"What's wrong with this picture?" _Now_ it's asked! The question that comes to my mind is, why wasn't this asked in early 80's when NASA was first pushing for it (and when people like me lobby for it, I take part of the blame). Why do we pursue this technology as a religious sacrament instead pursuing that which is useful to people? The human race has launched over half a dozen space stations, and planned many more, spending $10's of billions in the process. Surely if there was a use for them, we would have found it by now! Yet there are only _fifteen_ users for this $120 billion space station! Those following a religion, as opposed to a rational plan of space development, continue to ignore reality and pursue these obsolete, useless technological sacraments. _That_ is the question; why do we continue to pursue the same failed strategies, here in the last decade of the 20th century when so many of us want space development to happen so badly? Why, to take the next even more egregious example, do people continue to promote the "lunar base" as the "Next Logical Step" when it is so demostrably useless and, worse, diverts huge amounts of funds and attention from those projects which can advance our capabilities in space? Why do we continue to ignore the many commercial and military uses of space, and the exploration of the planets, when these are so demonstrably useful? Until we start answering these questions, we are stuck in the same groove, fated to repeat the same futile efforts over and over again, until we all mercifully die on Earth and make way for a newer generation, one that can ignore their parents and figure out how to accomplish this not-so-easy-as-dreaming task in the real world, instead of in the dream world. If we wait for our children, Allen and Herman and I can kiss goodbye to even making major new discoveries and advancing our capabilities in space, much less going there ourselves, before we ourselves hit the bit bucket. How about it guys & gals? Are we ready to retool our minds for the 21st century, or are we just going to make up more justifications for the same failures over and over again? What's it going to be? -- szabo@techbook.COM Tuesday, November third ## Libertarian $$ vote Tuesday ^^ Libertarian -- change ** choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 242 ------------------------------