Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 05:07:12 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #018 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 8 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 018 Today's Topics: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet (2 msgs) Fabrication (was fast track failures) Great stuff at NASA (was Re: Latest Pegasus news?) Justification for the Space Program Keeping ramjet stoked (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***) Latest Pegasus news? Man rating again (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Overly "success" oriented program causes failure Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization question about SETI RTG's on the Lunar Module russian solar sail?+ Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) (2 msgs) Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating) (2 msgs) Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) 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: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:23:33 GMT From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet Newsgroups: sci.space >Unnecessarily, if so, since the solutions developed for Skylab actually >worked pretty well. (Notably, the Skylab toilet worked.) For rather >longer than a week, too. Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle? One gets the impression that the number of competent people at NASA fell below critical mass quite some time ago... ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 10:34:41 GMT From: Matthew DeLuca Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet Newsgroups: sci.space In article schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle? Probably because nobody wanted to go to Australia and pick up all the pieces. :-) -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 19:13:43 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan7.060559.805@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >You'll notice that after Saturn achieved it's Cold War objective of >oneupmanship against the USSR, it was promptly dropped because no other >missions could justify it's expense and there was never a hope of >recouping it's development costs. With your talent for rewriting history, it's too bad the Soviet Union is no longer in business. :-) In fact, there were plenty of missions that could have justified its expense: the follow-on Apollo missions, additional Skylabs, Space Base, nuclear-powered space tugs, and the manned Mars mission, to name a few. The Saturn was cancelled because Congress didn't want to do those missions and NASA didn't want anything to compete with Shuttle. >We should never again make the mistake of killing our only operational >system in favor of a paper spacecraft that hasn't established a solid >track record of meeting it's performance and cost goals. Instead, we should make the new mistake of funding a system whose managers seek to crush any potential competition? >Thus I champion continuing to fly Shuttle until there are proven >systems on line to replace it. And, like the Shuttle managers, bad-mouth any potential systems that *might* replace it. (Or seek keep them limited to research programs only.) >Neither the paper DC-1 nor the proposed Soyuz on Titan have that >track record yet. Why did you avoid mentioning Soyuz on Soviet launchers? >Meanwhile Shuttle continues to maintain a presence in space for >the USA that does worthwhile missions. At the cost of how many worthwhile missions we can't do with the Shuttle but could with a true space-transportation system? Since you talk about the opportunity costs that would be incurred by cancelling the Shuttle, why do you fail to consider the opportunity costs involved in continuing it? >Unlike Allen, I am completely convinced that killing Shuttle now will >not cause any money to be reprogrammed to his pet schemes. So am I. I am also completely convinced it would wipe out a major political base opposed to alternative launchers. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 13:00:53 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Great stuff at NASA (was Re: Latest Pegasus news?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <72528@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: [responding to Allen Sherzer's question:] >>This is not the case. There is lots of great stuff going on at NASA. I >>criticize the unproductive things NASA does so that we can have more of >>the good stuff. Why does that bother you so much? > > Because very seldom does anyone ever mention the great stuff > going on at NASA. Emphatically *not* true. That's why God made Dennis Wingo. Bill Higgins | Favorite carol around Higgins house: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory| Glooooooooooooooria Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | In excelsis Deo Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | Deo SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | Daylight come and me wanna go home ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 18:20:09 GMT From: "James L. Felder" Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space O.K., I just started following this group today, and already I see one of my favorite topics up for vorciferous debate, so I'll just wade in here. I didn't get in on the beginning of this thread, so I'll not put any quotation here, just some of my ideas. If I am repeating previous aurguments, then flame away if it make you feel better. Premise 1. We live on a finite planet with finite resources. Premise 2. Our technological society is highly dependent on resources that are being used up faster than they can be replaced. Premise 3. Economists seem to insist that we must continue to grow to increase our standard of living, and the public and politicians seemed to have bought into this premise. For proof one only has to look at the last election to see cries that we are "loosing the American Dream" because we are not better off than our parents held up as worthy compaign issues. The strong implication is that an ever increasing, I would hazard materialistic, standard of living is something we must all strive for. Premise 4. We will not stumble across some unlimited sources of energy (fusion) or materials (say a way to mine the earths core) here on earth. Conclusions. Energy and materials will become increasingly hard to obtain, and that eventually the net energy and material production will decline below what is required to maintain some existing standard of living.Unless we find a way to circumvent the limited resources of our planet, we as a technologically advanced society will cease to exist. People will continue to exist, but society will not be as we know it. I do not know the time frame, nor care to hazard a guess, but the end seems to me to be unavoidable. I agree that we can postpone it through careful husbandry of our resources, but not escape it. In fact we must learn to take better care of our planet (control pollution, DECREASE population globally, etc.), if it is going to be somewhere worth living. However, I see no earthbound solution to the untimate problem of limited resources. That lead to only one conclusion, IMHO, we must look elsewhere besides earth. We must, therefore, continue to explore and learn to utilize resources off of our planet, and the only way to do that is a space program. Further, we must have a vigorous space program now because I think we are near a cusp point in history. That point is where we have the techological where with all to undertake such a program and still have plentiful and cheap enough energy and materials to allow society to "afford" it. If we wait any significant amount of time before beginning our space exploration, the sources of very cheap energy, (mid-east oil, shallow coal fields and the like) will begin to be exhausted. New sources will be in harder to get at places like the antarctic, deep water, and deep mines, making them more expensive to produce. This will cause costs of everything to rise, placing an ever greater strain on society. If the arguments against the space program being a waste of time and money are at all effective now, imagine how much more effective they will be energy and materials are several times as expensive, in constant terms, as they are now. Then a space program will then be a luxury that our children or grandchildren could ill afford in their ever greater struggles simple to stay afloat. The time for a space program is not in the future, it is now. Now while we still can. A space program is not an answer to the problems of the world. There are too many of us and we pollute too much, but hese are beyond the ability of the space program to fix. I see no other alternative besides expanding beyond the surface of this planet to escape the fate of an infinitely consuming society in a finite world. If anyone can see another approach to avoid this coffin corner we seem to be headed towards, I would love to hear about it. James L. Felder (216)891-4019 -My opinions are MINE- Sverdrup Technology, Inc. jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov I think that should NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland 44135 cover all bases, don't you. "Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge - other people gargle" ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 12:46:08 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Keeping ramjet stoked (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes: >>2) you won't have to carry >>around what I see as becoming GIGANTIC amounts of antimatter... > > The amounts of antimatter get huge only when you start trying to achieve > seriously relativistic velocities. Does a Bussard ramjet work *at all* below seriously relativistic velocities? Seems to me below some large speed, which I recall as something much bigger than .5c, you don't gather enough interstellar hydrogen to keep things stoked. Admittedly I remember details rather fuzzily, and don't know how to apply them to the "ram-augmented interstellar rocket" Henry is talking about. To learn more, by the way, consult articles by A.R. Martin and others concerning "ram-augmented interstellar rockets" (RAIR) in *Journal of the British Interplanetary Society* somewhere between 1975 and the present. Bob Forward did a bibliography of literature on interstellar flight in the same period, which a couple of Czech guys updated later, all in the pages of *JBIS*. This may be very helpful to Jason Cooper in his project. Good luck finding a library that has this journal, though! -- O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:09:16 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Latest Pegasus news? Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan7.080605.1770@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >Apollo came in on time, as crash military programs sometimes do, and >near budget, a budget more than double that of Shuttle in constant >dollars, but where is it now? You didn't say previous spacecraft were expensive to develop, or that, once developed, they might be cancelled for political reasons. You said that had 200% overruns. If you can't answer the question, change the subject. :-) >It's you who expouses your whole cloth failure-seeking strawman. I >expouse careful engineering planning for the inevitable developmental >setbacks in any new venture. There's a difference between careful engineering planning -- which is just what was done in Project Apollo and is being done with Delta Clipper and which you *hate* -- and spending three times as much as the cost of the project on feasiblity studies, management reviews, cost reviews, and redundant paperwork. That's what you espouse. (Even the Shuttle program did not have enough unnecessary overhead to please you.) >That's not failure seeking, that's failure avoiding by providing >alternatives to risky sections of a program. Yet Project Apollo, which you rail against, was a success. And the Shuttle program, which you consider much better (though not perfect) was a failure. I guess when it comes to pleasing you, nothing succeeds like failure. >There's a vast difference between the incremental improvements from >one aircraft to the next in the series and in a clean sheet of paper >design by a team who has never done any similar work. Name 5 vertical >takeoff and landing reusable spacecraft designed by the MacDD team. Name five jet airliners designed by Boeing before the model 707. Name five unducted fanjets flying today. Real engineers develop "clean sheet designs" all the time. The principles of engineering do not stop working just because a new design operates in 0 psi instead of 5 psi. I don't want to belabor the obvious, but since you seem to be oblivous to suc things.... There have been hundreds of vertical takeoff and landing vehicles built over the last 50 years. Most of them are called helicopters and, to best of my knowledge, every one of them was reuseable. A non-reuseable helicopter would have been too expensive to develop, let alone operate. Yet you don't claim that a helicopter is nearly impossible to build. It's the word "spacecraft" that makes you bug your eyes and wet your pants. >Knowledge of NACA airfoils and high >bypass turbofans just doesn't transfer to vertical takeoff and landing >rockets no matter how much you wave your hands about it. Gosh. It guess it's a good thing that spaceships don't need airfoils or high-bypass turbofans. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 17:32:54 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Man rating again (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan7.025746.2456@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1993Jan06.165148.9581@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: > >>YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who >>goes up on it IS going to disagree with you. > >Well after a successful test flight I would go up on it. I think lots of >others would as well. Anybody with brains enough to read a test report >and analyze risk wouldn't have any problem. I think most astronauts would >be included in this list. The ones who don't want to go can quit. Sure, but you aren't the funding source. Think about it. Was it you or someone else who suggested that there's a difference between Astronauts and test pilots? (The latter usually being "expendable.") >>I realize you'd like to treat people as another type of expendable, but it just >>ain't so in the Western World. > >Wake up guy! The value of a human life simply isn't infinite. Look at the >cost model for any large project. Part of it will include the costs associated >with the people killed on the project. In fact, I'll bet that at least one >person was killed building each of the 5 shuttle orbiters. People aren't >expendable but nither do they have infinite value. >If what you said where actually true then nobody woluld be flying >Shuttles anyway. So if you want perfect safety, then stay home and >leave the next frontier to the rest of us. There's no such thing as perfect safety, and I can see this is degenerating into a "I'm man enough to die, you wimp" discussion. I'm sure more people died across the United States in one day than on Challenger. However, when a good part of national treasure and pride go up with the vehicle, there IS a difference. I have talked to Ehud, and lived. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:40:02 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan7.080918.1849@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: No, NASA listened to Gary Coffman who said, "Don't be success- oriented like the airlines, who believe one man is capable of making a go/no-go decision on a flight. Set up a bureaucracy to make the decision instead." NASA required so many people to sign off that it was impossible to get them all to agree at the same time. If someone hadn't said, "fuck this requirement," no Shuttle flight would ever have got off the ground. The bureacracy was so large that no one person knew which requirements were safe to waive and which weren't. Yet each flight required multiple waivers. Somewhere along the line, someone made a mistake. Immediately the blame-fixers started their witch hunt. They never bothered to look too deeply, of course, for fear they would find themselves looking into the mirror. No bureaucrat is ever going to admit that Bureaucracy itself was at fault. Instead, they would take the Gary Coffman approach. If bureaucracy failed, it must be because there wasn't enough of it. Meanwhile, the airlines, who are "success-oriented" because they must make money, rely on a single man -- the Captain -- to decide if an aircraft is safe to fly, based on input from a very small ground and flight crew. And they fly thousands of planes every day, man-, woman-, and child-rated, in good and bad weather, with a very good safety record. But, by all means, let's not look at the airline model. Because we're about space and, as Gary tells us, Space is Different. Let's have more bureacracy, more paperwork, and more managers involved. Make sure every decision is made by a committee of at least eight people because a single person might make a mistake. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:43 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1ig234INNs78@agate.berkeley.edu> tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers) writes: >In response to this question, a group called the Lunar Society appears >to be interested funding space colonization. I would like to know >whether they are for real. Does anyone know if this group is >legitimate and whether they have any chance of reaching their stated >goals? The Lunar Society is for real, although I suppose you might call them the radical fringe of space colonization. (A characterization that would probably give Jerry Pournelle apoplexy. :-)) It's an ambitious program and their chances of success are hard to assess, but they are neither joking nor crazy. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:36:46 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: question about SETI Newsgroups: sci.space In article tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) writes: >Lots of money (I understand) is being spent on SETI... Actually very little, as these things go. The ongoing SETI efforts are quite small. >So, we are left with a civilisation that is probably very far ahead of ours, >but wants to contact us (for some reason). Now, how would they go about it ? >Surely they'd set beacons somewhere in space... >So, my question is, given that we ought to look for beacons that cannot be >missed: has anyone examined the immediate vicinity of pulsars ? I mean, >REALLY examined them ? Astronomers are very interested in the immediate vicinity of pulsars, because it's an excellent bet that you can find objects of great theoretical interest (accretion disks and such) there. Peculiar and conspicuous objects thereabouts would not be missed. And yes, astronomers take the possibility of finding an extraterrestrial beacon quite seriously -- the first pulsars caused a considerable stir until it was clear that they were just natural phenomena. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 07:43:02 GMT From: "Hoffman Eric J.SDO 5186 " Subject: RTG's on the Lunar Module Newsgroups: sci.space Those interested in RTGs on the Moon and elsewhere in space may want to chase down a copy of: "Atomic Power in Space: a History" U.S. Department of Energy DOE/NE/32117-H1 March 1987 This 180 pp paperback book deals with the entire history of nuclear powered spacecraft and experiments, beginning with the first nuclear-powered satellite, the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory's TRANSIT 4A for the Navy. The coverage is mostly U.S. history, with some Soviet information. The lunar ALSEP RTGs are discussed. Plutonium fuel took various forms over the years: metal, cermet, and oxide. I found my copy in a used book store, but it says inside that copies can be obtained from: National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce Springfield, Virginia 22161 -- Eric Hoffman JHU/APL Space Department ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:35:56 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: russian solar sail?+ Newsgroups: sci.space I'd just like to mention than the Russian "solar sail" is not a solar sail in the sense that people are discussing here. Its purpose is not propulsion. Rather, it is what Karft Ehricke called a "lunetta" -- an artificial moon or reflector designed to light up a spot on the surface of the Earth. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 17:16:14 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes: >But the airlines do not contract out their operations. They procure >planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them. Actually, it is not at all uncommon for airlines to lease planes complete with crews, or to contract with specialists for support services like maintenance. Leasing services are among the airliner companies' biggest customers. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:04:22 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan7.161638.6125@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes: >>Commercial launch services cost the government 30% to 50% less then when >>government buys and operates the system itself. It is therefore very clear >>that doing otherwise would be very beneficial. >This has never been demonstrated for manned spaceflight, but may very >well be. So what is so special about human space flight? Do you actually believe that Shuttle is the best that can be done? >But didn't I read not long ago that MacDD would not operate DC? Who would? I understand that American Airlines has indicated some interest. Why not them? Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:18:29 GMT From: Thomas Clarke Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics In article <1993Jan7.152456.25477@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes: > BTW, the STS [Space Transporation System/the Shuttle] > is the safest transportation system we have, based on fatalities > per passenger mile. But who would pay $1 billion apiece for a 747? (Please > attach a smiley to the safety record). The rating of transportation system safety by fatalities per passenger mile always struck me as bogus. Subjectively, what matters is the probability of exit. That is if I climb in and close the door, what are my chances of opening the door and climbing out. By this measure the STS is only about 1 in 50, although it probably isn't as dangerous as, say, a fighter in combat. Does anyone have any idea how various means of transport rate according to probability of exit. Is the private car better than a commerical airliner? {Lots of safe little trips would up the exit probability.} -- 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: 7 Jan 93 20:44:34 GMT From: Ken Arromdee Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics In article <1993Jan7.181829.13714@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: >The rating of transportation system safety by fatalities per >passenger mile always struck me as bogus. Subjectively, what >matters is the probability of exit. That is if I climb in and >close the door, what are my chances of opening the door and >climbing out. By this measure the STS is only about 1 in 50, >although it probably isn't as dangerous as, say, a fighter in combat. In that case, the probability of exit can be made as low as you want, for an automobile, by stopping along the way. (The risk of dying on the trip stays the same, of course. You just exit more times.) Unless you mean "for a given length trip, the probability of getting in the vehicle at the start and coming out at the end, no matter how many stops you make along the way". But _this_ measure is of course identical to safety-as- measured-by-passenger-mile.... -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait) Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:02:33 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: >>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions >>a bit anyway, don't you think? >Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the >attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them. Oh? Suppose you see two headlines in the New York Times. One says, "6000 sailors perish in sinking of US carrier group." The other says, "Nuclear weapon used to disable unmanned satellite." Which would set your blood to boiling more? >It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through >air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic >missile capability, on land and at sea. The US Navy considered coverting one Poseidon missile on each submarine to a satellite launcher, however this was never carried out. (Unless it was done in secret.) However, no US SLBM or ICBM has the payload capacity to replace a large communications or reconnaissance satelite. >Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of >force and thereby did so accordingly. No, the US voted to remove Iraqi troops and the United States did so accordingly. (With help from some of our allies, yes, but no serious observer suggests that we would have failed without that help.) Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would *prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts. >Ah. But for anything less than a full-scale nuclear exchange (which translates >to 99.987% of the possible conflicts which will occur in the next 20 years), >public opinion and what individual nations think DOES count. Keep saying that, and people like Saddam Hussein will keep showing you that you're wrong. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 018 ------------------------------