Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 05:00:05 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #083 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 28 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 083 Today's Topics: Alvan Clark telescope article in May 1990 EJASA DC-1 eventual construction question... (2 msgs) Handling Antimatter MIR AND SOLAR SAIL. COMBO Mir and Solar Sail Combo, more. Mir mission to Mars? Missions to Mars Nasa flight sim code/Simulator Game Nasa Select contact req ? (2 msgs) Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.) (3 msgs) Shuttle safety margins Space Education/News/Adds THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE (2 msgs) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jan 93 22:04:02 GMT From: Larry Klaes Subject: Alvan Clark telescope article in May 1990 EJASA Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Regarding the discussion on the Alvan Clark telescope: In the May 1990 issue of the Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic (EJASA), Volume 1, Number 10, there is an article by Alan Fleming on a 1988 visit to a 58-centimeter (23-inch) Alvan Clark refractor at the Roper Mountain Science Center's Charles E. Daniel Observatory in Greenville, South Carolina. The article is titled "A Living Legend: The Alvan Clark Refractor". The May 1990 EJASA is available (as are all other EJASAs up to January 1993) from the ASA anonymous FTP site at chara.gsu.edu (131.96.5.29). If you cannot access the site, please let me know and I will E-Mail the issue to you. Regards, Larry Klaes klaes@verga.enet.dec.com or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:09:09 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: DC-1 eventual construction question... Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >>If Uncle Sam doesn't pay for the initial development of the Y vehicle >>(and possibly DC1) it won't happen. Period. >That is by no means certain. For the forssable future, I think it is. >Lockheed was ready to proceed with an >SSTO using its own money, if the government was willing to get out >of the way. What do you mean by out of the way? >Grumman was prepared to go ahead with the development >of a smaller, commercial SSTO (Frequent Flyer) using its own funds, >if SDIO had selected its proposal for the suborbital demonstration That is news to me. Grumman was not one of the Phase I contractors. >Boeing is prepared to go ahead with an SSTO project, if it >can be shown what the markets are. Sure. The operative words are 'if it can be shown what the markets are'. They won't settle for expected space tourism or other applications which may or may not happen. >>One DC-1 would be enough for almost all of the current launch market. >That's because you're looking at the wrong market. I am looking at the existing launch market. There are no others. >Any vehicle that >can reach orbit, single-staged, can reach Japan or Tokyo as well. There >is a market for fast transportation, for people as well as cargo. Beyond >that, space tourism is a major market -- much more so than the satellite >launch market, according to G. Harry Stine. I agree. The problem is that this cannot be proven to the degree needed to justify the opportunity cost of funding development. If you don't agree, show us your buisness plan. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------140 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:03:45 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: DC-1 eventual construction question... Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan27.020909.11819@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >For the forssable future, I think it is. Fortunately, your opinions are not acts of God. :-) >>Lockheed was ready to proceed with an >>SSTO using its own money, if the government was willing to get out >>of the way. >What do you mean by out of the way? I'm only repeating what I heard, but I think it's fairly obvious they were talking about regulation (and maybe a guarantee that the government would not build something to compete with them). >>Grumman was prepared to go ahead with the development >>of a smaller, commercial SSTO (Frequent Flyer) using its own funds, >>if SDIO had selected its proposal for the suborbital demonstration >That is news to me. Grumman was not one of the Phase I contractors. Grumman's bid was declared ineligible because it was not technically single-stage-to-orbit. (It's air-launched from a 747.) >>Boeing is prepared to go ahead with an SSTO project, if it >>can be shown what the markets are. >Sure. The operative words are 'if it can be shown what the markets are'. >They won't settle for expected space tourism or other applications which >may or may not happen. Please tell me what else was said at the meeting, Allen. I don't recall hearing that. >>That's because you're looking at the wrong market. >I am looking at the existing launch market. There are no others. Oh? Really? I could have sworn I saw an ad in this morning's paper for flights to Australia. And that Society Expeditions collected quite a few reservations for LEO tourist flights, just a few years back. Guess the memory does play tricks at my age. >>There is a market for fast transportation, for people >>as well as cargo. >I agree. The problem is that this cannot be proven to the degree needed >to justify the opportunity cost of funding development. I can't prove Santa Claus exists. As for Federal Express... give me your address and I'll have the evidence on your desk at 10:00 tomorrow morning. >If you don't agree, show us your business plan. Sorry, it's not my plan. If you want to see it, you'll have to talk to the copyright holder. (Yes, I know, I'm a terrible fussbudget about these things. Comes from being a professional writer.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:09:40 GMT From: "C. Taylor Sutherland III" Subject: Handling Antimatter Newsgroups: sci.space How do you handle anti-matter? Vewy carefuwy! uhuhuhuhuh. COME AND GET IT! FLAME MATERIAL!!!!!!! -- We're not hitchhiking anymore. We're riding! -The Immor(t)al Ren & Stimpy- The Fly Boy <| E-MAIL: taylors@hubcap.clemson.edu |> +--<| My life is a math question with one equation and 42 unknowns. |>--+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 21:04:26 GMT From: George Hastings Subject: MIR AND SOLAR SAIL. COMBO Newsgroups: sci.space (nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu) writes: > Imnot sure if this idea is feasible, but, its an idea..` > What about pre-positioning feul/food/gear packets along the route of the Mars > mission or maybe send a unmanned mission ahead maybe by Solar Sailer(s). > And pre-[.positioning the craft to be near na..mars when the Mir mission > arrives at Mars. > > Michael C. Adams > NSMCA@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Your first idea would be good on an arctic expedition, or even on a lunar traverse, but not on a trip to Mars, since everything bewteen here and there ALSO has to be revolving around the Sun: different distances from the Sun = different periods of revolution. You could drop stuff off evenly spaced between here and Mars, but when you got to that distance, they would no longer be lined up, having travelled along their orbital paths since they were left. The second idea of sending some sort of resupply craft ahead, and parking it in Martian orbit where you could find it, redezvous with it, dock and transfer from it, is a MUCH better suggestion! George Hastings ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:32:36 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Mir and Solar Sail Combo, more. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan26.210426.10853@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu>, ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings) writes: > (nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu) writes: >> Imnot sure if this idea is feasible, but, its an idea..` >> What about pre-positioning feul/food/gear packets along the route of the Mars >> mission or maybe send a unmanned mission ahead maybe by Solar Sailer(s). >> And pre-[.positioning the craft to be near na..mars when the Mir mission >> arrives at Mars. >> >> Michael C. Adams >> NSMCA@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU > Your first idea would be good on an arctic expedition, or > even on a lunar traverse, but not on a trip to Mars, since > everything bewteen here and there ALSO has to be revolving > around the Sun: different distances from the Sun = different > periods of revolution. You could drop stuff off evenly spaced > between here and Mars, but when you got to that distance, they > would no longer be lined up, having travelled along their > orbital paths since they were left. > The second idea of sending some sort of resupply craft ahead, > and parking it in Martian orbit where you could find it, > redezvous with it, dock and transfer from it, is a MUCH better > suggestion! > > George Hastings > ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu Your right George, the second is more fesible.. Maybe a multiple stage pre-positioning nission.. Why must the big stuff, the extra food/supplies be sent with the quick human mission.. The slow part can get there a year or two before the human mission, and maybe act as a sensor, launch probes and such and maybe act as a NAV bouy.. And maybe do other missions that would make the human mission easier..Do the things that humans don't need to do.. Question what would you use to get it there?? Automated Solar Sail would be nice.. Seems you only need rockets and such when you have to get someplace quick.. The auto-mission would do surveys of possibel landing/survey sights.. Any better ideas are expected.. Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:04:00 EST From: Paul Shawcross Subject: Mir mission to Mars? The major problem with using Mir for a manned Mars mission is that Mir is not designed to protect its crew from the interplanetary radiation environment. At most times in the solar cycle, there would be a near certainty that any unshielded astronauts on a two year mission to Mars would be killed by solar flares. (At the minimum of the cycle, the astronauts might make it --some years have no major flares) Adding a shielded "storm cellar" to Mir could greatly reduce the danger. Probably about 25 gm/cm^2 of shielding would be needed to allow the crew to survive a major flare in fairly good shape - extra mass would be roughly: 25 gm/cm^2 * 2*pi*200cm * 200 cm = somewhere around 6,500 kg for a 2meter long, 4 meter diameter "cellar". Of course, there's also the cosmic ray radiation dose, which is much more difficult to shield against and is about 20-40 REM/yr depending on the time in the solar cycle (more or less inverse to the flare probability) This is below, but close to, the annual limit allowed for shuttle astronauts (50 Rem/yr last I heard) For more details I recommend looking at the AIAA's report on assessment of technologies for the SEI -- it has a lengthy section on the need for shielding and the effect on total mission mass. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 13:54:46 EET From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube x554) Subject: Missions to Mars Marcus Lindroos INF > flb@flb.optiplan.fi > > does "flyby" mean not even properly *orbiting* > > Mars, perhaps to take a pick-axe to Phobos and > > Deimos, but rather merely sailing on by ? > Exactly. An orbital mission would require an additional 220 ton rocket stage > (=one more launch by Mir) and would prolong the mission by up to two years. Such a mission would hardly seem worth it from a scientific stand- point. Is there *any* science that could be done on such a mission that could not be done more cheaply and safely by a robotic craft ? (Bioscience sure, but can't that be done in Earth orbit ?) And BTW, does the data re. the long-term deleterious effects of weightlessness (such as loss of bone mass) point towards use of a tether to create 0.X G on a Mars mission ? What kind of elec- trical energy could such a tether generate by its rotation ? Enough to justify the added gear ? -- * Fred Baube ..when you think your Toys you hear Laughter * Optiplan O.Y. * have gone Berserk cracking through the Walls * baube@optiplan.fi * it's an illUsion you're sent Spinning * GU/MSFS * you Cannot Shirk you Have No Choice * #include * -- Sioux proverb * Where is the follow-on * Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some * to P.G.P. ?? * people abuse the privilege -- Josef Stalin ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 1993 10:53:57 -0700 (MST) From: Tony Wickersham 307-766-6832 Subject: Nasa flight sim code/Simulator Game > Date: 18 Jan 93 17:46:33 GMT > From: "joseph.l.nastasi" > Subject: Nasa flight sim code/Simulator Game > [...] > > I've tried writing to various factions of the govenment and have > gotten nowhere (big surprise, huh? :-). > > Someday, I'll get to finishing this thing! > > I wonder if anyone has data on the old Mercury hardware, possible > someone who worked on the project? I need _very_ techincal info, > not the usual P.R. stuff. I would be willing to pay for copying, > and mailing. [...] > Thanks, > Joe Nastasi > AT&T, Middletown, NJ I realize this is almost ten days old and I don't know if anyone has replied yet. Hey, it's tough keeping up with 100K of traffic per day! Have you tried the National Archives (NARA) yet? Perhaps some Mercury material has been moved there, by now. All government branches routinely deposit material of this type, including NASA. NARA publishes a periodic listing of new deposits. I try to post any new NASA-related deposits to this newsgroup. If I lived where you live, I would try contacting the New Jersey Regional Branch of NARA. For anyone else who wishes to pursue this type of research, I am including the address and phone of each of the Regional Branches. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA): _NATIONAL_ Reference Service Branch 7th St & Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20408 202-501-5400 _REGIONAL_ Anchorage AK 654 W 3d Ave, 99501 907-271-2441 San Bruno CA 1000 Commodore Dr, 94066 415-876-9009 Laguna Niguel CA 24000 Avila Rd, 92677 714-643-4241 Denver CO Denver Federal Center, 80225 303-236-0818 East Point GA 1557 St Joseph Ave, 30344 404-763-7477 Chicago IL 7358 S Pulaski Rd, 60629 312-581-7816 Waltham MA 380 Trapelo Rd, 02154 617-647-8100 Kansas City MO 2312 E Bannister Rd, 64131 816-926-6272 Bayonne NJ Military Ocean Terminal, 07002 201-823-7545 Philadelphia PA 9th & Market Sts, 19107 215-597-3000 Fort Worth TX 501 W Felix St, 76115 817-334-5525 Seattle WA 6125 Sand Point Way NE, 98115 206-526-6347 Source: The United States Goverment Manual, 1990/91; pp. 631-2 --- Tony Wickersham twick@corral.uwyo.edu Programmer/User Consultant University of Wyoming American Heritage Center Laramie, WY USA ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1993 21:38:02 GMT From: Jim Lawson Subject: Nasa Select contact req ? Newsgroups: sci.space My cable company is now under the impression that they need "permission" to broadcast Nasa Select. Do they ? Who can I contact at Nasa Select to straighten this out ? Thanks -- Jim Lawson Lawson%ssdvx1.decnet@lbgwy.mdc.com Alt: Lawson@netsun.mdc.com or Lawson@bbs.ug.eds.com Opinions/Comments expressed here are my own and no one elses !! ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 93 17:46:05 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Nasa Select contact req ? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1k4avqINNmt9@lynx.unm.edu>, lawson%ssdvax.decnet@lbgwy.mdc.com (Jim Lawson) writes: > My cable company is now under the impression that they need "permission" > to broadcast Nasa Select. > > Do they ? No. The government produces it and it's in the public domain. It *is* reasonable for the cable company to ask for written assurance of this. (From a source more authoritative than Bill Higgins, I mean.) > Who can I contact at Nasa Select to straighten this out ? This question has come up before-- should be in the FAQ-- but I don't have the answer handy. Call the Public Affairs Office at NASA Headquarters and try to find out. (202)453-8400. If you get the answer, post it! Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | Comet Swift-Tuttle is Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | Mama Nature's way of Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | saying it's time to Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | get off the planet. SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | --Dale Amon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:23:49 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan26.101810.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >> Spacelab is an experiment carrier. It will tell us nothing about >> building large scale structures in space and cannot be considered a >> station precursor. >So what? You are wrong on this one, Allen. Fred is supposed to be >some kind of laboratory. It is to be a number of things. ONE of those things is a lab. >Therefore it's important to develop a >program of experiments and useful techniques, make mistakes, etc. Then >when experiments are flown aboard Fred, they won't be starting from >scratch and they will have a greater chance of success. I assert that if the station fails because Spacelab spent the $$ which should have gone to proper integration testing then they will have a lesser degree of success. Spacelab tells us something about one of the many uses a station may have but it doesn't tells us about building stations. It's like saying refrigerator research is an important precursor to house design because one of the things people do in houses is cook food. It's true that most people want refrigerators in their houses but houses can be built without them. I understand your point but I think you are bluring the distinction between an object and what it is used for. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------140 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:49 CST From: wingo%cspara@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan26.222349.29804@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes... >In article <1993Jan26.101810.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: > >>> Spacelab is an experiment carrier. It will tell us nothing about >>> building large scale structures in space and cannot be considered a >>> station precursor. > >>So what? You are wrong on this one, Allen. Fred is supposed to be >>some kind of laboratory. > >It is to be a number of things. ONE of those things is a lab. > Allan if you have looked at any of the information that has been put out about SSF in the last decade you will see that the PRIMARY mission of SSF is to be a laboratory in space. This applies to materials processing as well as biological sciences. The Astronauts will actually be in the role of highly paid and trained experiment tenders and guinea pigs for research that will help us understand how human beings adapt to long term weightlessness. >>Therefore it's important to develop a >>program of experiments and useful techniques, make mistakes, etc. Then >>when experiments are flown aboard Fred, they won't be starting from >>scratch and they will have a greater chance of success. > >I assert that if the station fails because Spacelab spent the $$ which >should have gone to proper integration testing then they will have a >lesser degree of success. > Assert all you want but this is not the case. Spacelab began over ten years before Ronnie made his call for the Space Station. All scientists and engineers agree that precursor testing is an absolute necessity in perfecting the methodology and proper engineering for the experiments to enable them to be successful on station. I assert that this is what we in the computer world call subsystem testing. This subsystem testing enhances the reliablity of the total system by allowing the testing of the individual components, methodologies, and processes that will be used for Space Station Freedom or any other manned orbiting outpost for that matter. >Spacelab tells us something about one of the many uses a station may >have but it doesn't tells us about building stations. It's like saying >refrigerator research is an important precursor to house design because >one of the things people do in houses is cook food. It's true that most >people want refrigerators in their houses but houses can be built >without them. > Allen building SSF or any other large structure in space is a mere engineering exercise that we learned long ago. There are no mysteries involved in the process. What the precursor missions of Spacelab, SpaceHab, COMET and CONSORT get us is a REASON for building these large structures in space. Without a reason for existence other than the mere effort of building the structure, we get yet another Apollo, and yet another boondoggle that is useless in helping to advance the knowledge, understanding, and welfare of the citizens of the United States and the world. >I understand your point but I think you are bluring the distinction >between an object and what it is used for. > > Allen > I think you misunderstand the point Allen and the point of the original post, which had to do with precursors to SSF. The point of the precursors as I have and Bill has laid out is that without proper testing at an early stage of the process, which we do have in the programs that I have mentioned, you have a great mass of expensive metal in the sky that is simply useless for anyone other than the mechanical engineers who design them. Your analogy of the house is an apt one. A house may keep you warm and dry, but if it is empty or the television does not work and the bed is broken and the lights don't work you only have an empty shell which does nothing for the occupants or the people in general. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:02:17 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26JAN199319493864@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >Allan if you have looked at any of the information that has been put out >about SSF in the last decade you will see that the PRIMARY mission of >SSF is to be a laboratory in space. Actually, if you look at the information that has been put out about SSF in the last decade you will see that the PRIMARY mission of SSF is... A. Life science (at least to the life science community). B. Microgravity (at least to the microgravity people) C. Assembly point for Moon/Mars (At least to the manned space crowd) D. A mechanism to teach us how to live and work in space (at least to the space colonization crwod) E. Well paying jobs for your district (at least to Congress). F. (insert your favoriet special interest here) In short, Fred was to be everything to everybody. Your belief that a particular one of these was actually (we mean it this time) the primary mission requires very very selective reading of history. >Allen building SSF or any other large structure in space is a mere engineering >exercise that we learned long ago. So why is the truss work package over a billion over budget and still out of control? No Denis, since nothing like this has ever been build in space before it cannot be called 'mere engineering'. >There are no mysteries involved in the process. Except for why in hell it takes twice as long and costs three times what it is supposed to. (Although given NASA's poor performance in almost every aspect of cost estimating and management maybe this isn't that strange). >Your analogy of the >house is an apt one. A house may keep you warm and dry, but if it is empty >or the television does not work and the bed is broken and the lights don't >work you only have an empty shell which does nothing for the occupants or >the people in general. You mean aside from keeping them warm and dry? Most would consider a house which keeps you warm and dry a resounding success. I myself would prefer the above to a house which is cold and wet but has a working television. Especially when you realize that the TV won't last long in the wet house. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------140 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:23:41 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Shuttle safety margins Newsgroups: sci.space I know one thing a military arcraft will not fly (routine flights) in many conditions that a commerical airctaft will fly.. I actually think that Kennedy is a bad place for a Space Port and that the Shuttle could fly alot more times that what is has. They are just to cautious due to the fact that the Shuttle is just to expensive, also it is under more scruteny than the normal 747. Also the Commerical liner has a schedule to meet, also it just migth have better I think that if the DC-X flys, it will quickly become commercialized. Nice to see scheduled airline flights into orbit.... Other thing is that Military Aircraft are also dependent public and also congressional views/needs.. REF: 747 versus C5 competition, 747 was competing with the what is now called the C5, the C5 won and 747 became a major airliner with a good record. One of the standard possible reasons for the C5 getting picked was more due to the fact that the Congressmember who had the finger on the ppurse strings was from the home state of Lockheed, which was going thru a hard times job wise.. So maybe the Shuttle is here because of more than need for space but of economics?? and power plays.. Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:06:40 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Space Education/News/Adds Newsgroups: sci.space Sounds liek what is needed is to convince the US population that Space is where we need to go.. Sounds like NASA needs to spend more on Public Relations. Maybe get a news network involved. maybe have them do some mnor sponsorship of some space related high profile TV programs/Cable to. Such as Star Trek (TNG/DS9). I am finding that if a major news netowrk is on your side, you can do alot of things.. REF: Clinton.. and somewhat Perot.. I know of other third party candidates who can't get to square one, but Perot comes out of obscurity to where people want to know what he ate for breakfast.. Maybe also try to have some space/science programs on mainlien TV.. Also start or help local quality TV organizations, namely cause of what I have seen the basic bent for modern TV is a prime help for the lack of science in the current crop of students.. Im not talking violence, Im talking about who is cool and who is not.. Scientists many times are not cool, they are egghead, nerds, geeks and such.. Bumbling social idiots.. (I might be wrong).. == Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad2.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:06:03 GMT From: shanleyl@ducvax.auburn.edu Subject: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE Newsgroups: sci.space oh... ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 1993 22:36 PST From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" Subject: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan26.230603.1@ducvax.auburn.edu>, shanleyl@ducvax.auburn.edu writes... >oh... > Come now, Paul...isn't it a relief to have the secrets of the universe revealed in this way by Mr. McElwaine, whose prose possesses such clarity of thought, such an enlightened vision, such...such... BULLSHIT! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Irwin Horowitz | Astronomy Department |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?" California Institute of Technology |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs" irwin@iago.caltech.edu | ih@deimos.caltech.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 083 ------------------------------