Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO600.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 05:00:22
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #600
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 21 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 600

Today's Topics:
                      About the mercury program
                           Armstrong's line
             Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) (2 msgs)
                  Detecting planets in other system
               Early Bacteria & Cometary Origin of Life
                                 help
                Liberal President murders spaceflight?
                  Measurement of Solar Noon (2 msgs)
        Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones) (2 msgs)
                  Shuttle and the decline of nations
                    Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
                      Space Marketing -- Boycott
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs)
                    Yet Another Irrelevant Thread

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:07:56 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: About the mercury program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:

   [sea urchins ...]

   The reason the experiment was done is that when sea urchin eggs are
   fertilized on Earth, they differentiate in a manner which depends on
   gravity. At some stage in development (I think it was at the 8-, 16- or
   32-cell blastula stage) differentiation can be seen in the embryo,
   oriented vertically in the Earth's field. If the embryo is turned over
   after each cell division it does not differentiate properly, and giant,
   undifferentiated embryos result. If some of the less radical of these are
   allowed to develop they produce viable, if outsized, sea urchins. The
   reason for looking at development in zero-gee is then obvious, if not
   compelling. The conclusion might be that, if interstellar expeditions
   want to take along sea urchins as a renewable food source, they'd better
   provide centrifuges for them.

Or let them grow into _huge_ undifferentiated sea urchin embryos, then
eat those. Or allow some of these biggies to develop, then eat them,
or use them as your interstellar space-craft. :-)

Nick Haines [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 00:22:58 GMT
From: Robin Kenny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Armstrong's line
Newsgroups: sci.space

Tom ([e-mail]) wrote:
: >> Robin Kenny (quoting N Armstrong), writes;
: >>"That's one small step for (a) man, one damn leap for mankind!"

: Dave corrects;
: >"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind"

: Whichever way he actually said it, it always struck me as backwards.  Shouldn't
: the giant leap be for the individual, and the small step for the species?

: -Tommy Mac
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
: [e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Tom for the "giant" correction. I have decided to devote my
life to thanking all the people who caught that error - my ONLY excuse
is some head cold / virus and a loud three year old son. When I posted
the line with "damn" a little alarm bell in my head said something was
wrong; I just thought it was my curious son who had discovered how many
feet of magnetic tape are inside a DDS data tape...
Regards
Robin Kenny - (I still hear the line as "damn", not "giant")

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:02:30 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Interesting enough, the article mentions DC-X by saying, "Although Boeing
>would like to participate in a Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) vehicle shuch
>as McDonnell Douglas's DC-X Delta Clipper, internal feasibility studies
>indicate SSTO is not technically viable for near-term implementation,
>including routine operations, according to John H. Sandvig, manager
>preliminary design, Boeing Military Airplane Div."

Strangely enough, when Boeing was bidding for the SDIO SSRT contract they
concluded the exact opposite. In fact, I believe it was the same John
Sandvig who says it can't be done above who told SDIO it could be done.

Now I think the Boeing vehicle is a viable option and I hope they
proceed; but not at the expense of DC. I agree with Jeff's assessment
that the use of SSME prevents low cost operations but over time, that
problem can be fixed.

At the same time, it's a shame that Boeing is being so heavy handed
about this. SSTO was viable when they wanted the contract but became
impossible when they lost? Come on now Boeing, your better than that!

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------27 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:15:28 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (jeff
findley) gives us information about Boeing's TSTO proposal.

Didn't Boeing participate in the technical studies for SSRT, and come
up with an SSTO design of their own? This line:

   the article mentions DC-X by saying, "Although Boeing would like to
   participate in a Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) vehicle shuch as
   McDonnell Douglas's DC-X Delta Clipper, internal feasibility
   studies indicate SSTO is not technically viable for near-term
   implementation, including routine operations, according to John H.
   Sandvig, manager preliminary design, Boeing Military Airplane Div."

sounds bogus to me. The big players seem pretty much agreed on the
feasibility of SSTO.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 93 18:07:39 GMT
From: Larry Brader - contractor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

What type of technology is required to detect planets in other
solar systems? I'm thinking earth size, within 30 light years.

Will the Keck or one of the new observatories coming online be
capable of detecting one?  The Hubble?

I remember reading about the detection of a possible planet
jupiter size a couple years ago by the permutations it had upon
the star orbit.

Curious,
Larry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These thoughts are mine and no others.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 1993 03:51:27 -0700
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Early Bacteria & Cometary Origin of Life
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,sci.bio

This "new discovery" of primitive bacteria was indeed overhyped.  It's
been known for a long time that bacteria, probably as complex as those
that exist today (eg some could do photosynthesis) date back to the very
end of the period of intense bombardment -- ie no more than 200 million
years from the end of the bombardment, vs. over 3,500 million years since
then, and most of the complexity of life, the highly improbable
structure of 1000's of proteins, metabolic pathways, etc. already
existed at that time.

This doesn't tell us much about the probability of life
appearing.  It does tell us one of two things:

(1) the first 200 million years of evolution, much of which may have
involved freefloating autocatalytic sets rather than centralized
genetic reproduction, must have been orders of magnitude more rapid
than the succeeding genetic evolution of the next 3,500+ million
years, or

(2) Life originated in comets, which are now starting to look
like very freindly environments for autocatalytic "primordial
soups" -- start with highly complex interstellar and radiation-created
organics, mix in periodic solar warming events, and the
complex organics form chemical cycles that catalyze the transformation
of more primitive molecules into their own more complex forms --
freestanding metabolisms, or "autocatalytic sets".  By this theory
genes appeared later, providing a dense, stable coding for efficient
metabolisms which outcompeted the freestanding autocatalytic sets.

According to recent calculation, substantial chunks of a large comets
that struck Earth during the heavy bombardment period could have survived
reentry, so that RN, DNA, and perhaps even chunks of "frozen
soup" could have survived to seed the earth with early forms of
life (which might still exist today in comet(s), but more likely
were extinguished since the lifetime of comets is small).

If life only appeared once on one comet, what is the probability
that the comet calved off pieces that hit both Mars and Earth?
I note that calving itself is a common occurence among
comets, but either Earth and Mars would have had to line up
fortuitously along the comet's orbit, or the calved pieces would
have had to have been long-lived.  During the period of heavy
bombardment, comets might have been extremely large, so that
calving into thousands of long-lived, Halley-sized pieces is
not out of the question.

More importantly for the evolution of early life, a heavy
density of calving comets may have provided many opportunities
for autocatalytic sets on one comet to seed another comet, so
that the evolution of life on comets could span the lifetime
of many individual comets.  Comet lifetimes are often very short
once they enter the inner solar system and become active, usually
less than 1 million years.  Larger comets would last longer,
but higher solar radiation flux, eg during the period which
"dried out" the inner asteroid belt, might offset that.

Nick Szabo                    [e-mail]
--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 93 12:51:42 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Gunnar Berge )
Subject: help

help

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:07:24 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>As I recall, Reagan payed great lip service to manned-space
>exploration, but his words spoke much louder than his actions.

You need to look closer. Reagan did more for space than any president
we have ever had (with the possible exception of Johnson). On the public
side Reagan gave us NASP, station, and the current commercial launch
policy. Dispite the flaws, these are good efforts.

On the classified side, there was a huge amount of work done for low
cost access to space. Science Dawn and Have Region developed lots of
technology now critical to any low cost launcher.

At the same time, I think it is a big mistake to equate right with
pro-space and left with anti-space. In my experience this issue
crosses those boundries. There are many people on the left and right
with excellent space credentials.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------27 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 12:58:52 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Measurement of Solar Noon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Lai) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (David Lai)
>Subject: Measurement of Solar Noon
>Date: 19 May 93 21:57:14 GMT
>Hi netters,
>
>    I wish to know what is the best method to measure solar noon (when
>the Sun is highest in the sky) using only naked-eye.  That is, how do you
>know when the Sun is highest in the sky???
>
>                        Regards,
>
>                            David.
>
If you are satified with a low precision result you can measure the length
of a shadow and local noon occurs when it is at minimum length. For higher
precision use a transit, projecting and image of the sun on a screen.
The altitude is a maximun at local noon. With practice you should be able
to determine the maximum altitude with an uncertainty of a tenth of an
arcminute by this method.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:58:28 GMT
From: John VanAntwerp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Measurement of Solar Noon
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (David Lai) writes:
>    I wish to know what is the best method to measure solar noon (when
>the Sun is highest in the sky) using only naked-eye.  That is, how do you
>know when the Sun is highest in the sky???

The generally accepted method in survival training is to determine when the
shadow cast by the sun is the shortest.  A stick and several observations
can fill the bill...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 23:52:37 GMT
From: Robin Kenny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ha Li ([e-mail]) wrote:
: > [e-mail] (Robin Kenny) writes:

: >"That's one small step for (a) man, one damn leap for mankind!"
:                                          ^^^^

: >Robin Kenny - who doesn't hear that as "big" and is curious who else doesn't...

: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind"
                                        !!!!! how could I forget THAT?!
: -Dave
Thank you very much, Dave. (My head was buzzing with some virus at the
time of the post. Honest)
Regards, Robin Kenny   (usual disclaimer about opinions & employment)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 23:58:21 GMT
From: Robin Kenny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neil Armstrong's first words (the real ones)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Mike Ross ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robin Kenny) writes:
: )
: )In a similar vein, would you agree that what Armstrong actually said
: )was: "That's one small step for (a) man, one damn leap for mankind!"
: )                                ^^^          ^^^^
: )Forever more it was reported as "big leap" - until many people ACTUALLY
: )REPORT HEARING it as "big" and not "damn". The (a) was more an intake
: )of breath than actually voiced.
: )
: )Robin Kenny - who doesn't hear that as "big" and is curious who else doesn't...
: Actually, I heard the first words as "... one GIANT leap for mankind."
                                                ***** (thank you Michael,
                                                please see my 'virus'
                                                excuse elsewhere...)
: No, sir, it doesn't sound at all like "big".
: -mike
: --
: * Michael L. Ross/C33 | Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.   *

Thanks again for the correction - but I still hear "damn" not "giant"
(can I go home now?)
Regards, Robin

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 12:35:47 GMT
From: Del Cotter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle and the decline of nations
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1teolo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Del Cotter) writes:
>
>>No reason you should have heard of it, it was built by foreigners (those
>>ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it, Pat).
>
>As if we should care about the problems of a Failed, second Rate
>Bankrupt Imperial Power,  that didn't know enough to Fight a
>Defensive Trench War?

Way to go, Pat!  That's the kind of thinking that will make the US failed,
second rate and bankrupt within half a century.

You should care.  The parallels between early 20thC Britain and late 20thC
America go far beyond R101 and shuttle to the very attitude you typify.

I repeat: Those ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it.

--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |      Del Cotter      [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                |      ','

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:10:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Geraghty) writes:

 >>I think it is better to look at overall space infrastructure. The
 >>Russians can't operate LDEF or Spacelab, true enough. On the other
 >>hand, they don't need to. Soyuz/Mir gives them far more capability
 >>for far less cost then Shuttle/LDEF or Shuttle/Spacelab.

>Hang on a minute, what happened [Energia and Buran]...

>(Note my emphasis above - Soyuz is *not* the Russian heavy lift vehicle)

Nobody said it was.

>I suspect that the answers to my questions consist mostly of "they can't
>afford to operate them"...

Close. They have found that they aren't cost effective to operate. There's
no problem operating very expensive systems *IF* they're cost effective.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------27 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 93 14:16:24 GMT
From: Sheaf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Well, I just got off the phone after talking to someone at
>Space Marketing.
>
>According to the person I talked to, the proposed "billboard"
>will be too small to resolve with the naked eye -- so small
>and visually unimportant that fairly accurate directions about
>where and when to look will be needed to observe it (for
>laymen; I assume you astronomers and space enthusiasts
>will know the exact ephemerides, and be painfully aware
>of the damn thing).
>
>  Anyway, he suggested that the
>visual impact would approximate that of a jumbo jet
>at 45k feet (12km) altitude.
>

Once more... if they are going to be so small and invisible, then why
would these guys want to build one ?  It doesn't make any sense...
Either they are are feeding you a real line or they're incredibly
stupid people...A billboard like what is decribed here  is pretty
much pointless for advertising, and even thought I think advertising
execs are alot of things, they aren't usually stupid.  If these are
supposed to be like "roadside" billboards for air travellers, they
still don't sound terribly effective.  Advertising inside the plane
would be better and cheaper.  Besides, I can't beleive that advertisers
could justify the development or cost of space advertising that
would be "...small and visually unimportant..." to all but a few people
who are at the right place at the right time, if any.

S. Sheaffer
U of Pittsburgh

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 11:51:51 GMT
From: Jim Hart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,misc.legal

>[Another poster:  why use English common law]

If we are to resolve this dispute, we need a legal tradition that is
as common as possible among the major definable disputants, astronomers
and advertisers.  Much international law follows the English
model, most of both the astronomy and advertising communities
live in English-common-law countries, this is the de facto
common law of international business, etc.  The purpose here is
to resolve this particular dispute, not to set arights whatever
cultural injustice is implied by our current dominant legal traditions.

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>The law always required the used to improve the land in some way
>(building a house there, planting crops, etc...)

That's for settlement, physical ownership.  I'm not claiming
astronomers have that.  I'm claiming they have viewing rights,
ie the right to a sky free of light pollution, and furthermore
that these can be turned into tradeable property rights by
the method I described (or perhaps by other means).

>We have no such common law ownership since we: Are an unorganized group,
>not a single individual or chartered company;

This is indeed a problem; to resolve it we need a method that is,
most importantly, based on a clear objective measure, and secondarily
but as much as possible is fair.   In the followup post I suggested
distributing shares of "dark viewing sky" (defined by its diminishment,
ie megacandles of artificial lighting) among research
organizations, astronomy clubs, and individual astronomers proportional
to their investment in ground-based astronomy equipment.  This
seems reasonable enough, and there may be several other ways of
allocating the viewing property objectively and reasonably fairly to
its common-law owners.

> have made no improvements
>to the property;

The works of astronomy, eg the photographs, constitute an improvement
to the viewing property, but not to the physical property.

>If you really want to apply common law property rights, I think
>the Russians "own" the 65 deg. inclination orbits between 200 and
>300 km altitude and various nations and companies own parts of the
>geostationary orbit.

And indeed, this method would be far superior to the chaotic,
pretensions-of-omniscience method of central-planning bureaucracy
we use right now.  Orbital resources should be allocated by
usage.  Once these property rights are
objectively defined, they can easily be traded; eg Russian
companies could sell space in 65 degree low orbits in exchange
for GEO slots, or hard currency, or whatever else they like on
the free market.

>You could probably use the contested status of most orbits to
>oppose things like anti-satellite weapons tests which would
>produce dangerous orbital debris:

Indeed, orbital  property rights may provide a firm basis on which to
make the generators of orbital pollution liable for the
damage they cause.  The current international bureaucratic
monopoly, which pretends to know what's best for everybody
in terms of who should get what orbital slots, frequencies,
etc., has utterly failed to create a reasonable method of resolving
this tragedy of the orbital commons.

Jim Hart
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 13:00:56 GMT
From: Jim Hart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space,sci.econ

>[e-mail] (Len Evens) writes:

>Would Mr. Hart please explain how one could get every nation on
>earth and every corporation to agree that astronomers own the
>night sky without `coercion'.

The same way you get them to not commit armed robbery on each
other -- don't give them the weapons to do it (eg powerful
politicians).  Businesses need a reputation for respecting property
rights in order to stay in business.  This "reputation market"
ranges from bad credit ratings for businesses that renege on loan
contracts on a small scale, to bond ratings
and an implicit trustworthiness (will the company abide by
contracts signed?) on a large scale.

In this case the the cost of advertising is so steep, and the loss of
reputation from violating astronomers' property rights is so steep
(look at the boycotts that have alread been threatened),
that it is highly improbable any enforcement of the property rights
would be necessary.  Caveat: unlike companies, nations don't
need a respect for property rights to stay in business, alas.
On the other hand, nations seem to have smaller advertising budgets;
since people can't choose whether or not to "invest", they don't have
much selling to do.  As long as nations don't get involved in this
dispute, there is no need for coercion.

If companies want the property, they do what they expect to have
to do:  they try to  buy it.  In this case, they bid enough money
that some astronomers are willing to sell viewing shares (eg
NNN megacandles in the time just before sunrise, just after sunset,
full moon, etc.)  For example, enough money so that astronomers can buy
space telescopes, image processing filters, etc. to make up for the
extra light sources.

Your coercive alternative suffers from the problem Phil Fraering pointed
out: only one equatorial nation with a good launch site, allied with
a few transnational companies has to defect.  They have no alternative
but to defect, since you have issued a blanket, centrally planned judgement
that leaves no room for maneuver.  A good solution allows for a
decentralized decision making process that could find compromise in
several not so obvious areas (morning, evening, full moon, confined to
wavelengths not so important to astronomy, trade which gives astronomy
resources to build space telescopes, etc.).

History tells us that nations are much better at causing pollution
than at preventing it.  The Soviets, the ultimate central planners,
ravaged their land in a way no capitalist has ever approached.  The
U.S. federal government appproached it though, from the nuclear weapons
plants and tests to the massive subsidized lumbering, mining, etc.  And you
expect those kinds of systems to keep space pollution free?  Good luck!
If megacorps can't purchase ad space from astronomers in a decentralized,
efficient, fashion that provides astronomers with compensation for
the lost viewing rights, they will purchase it from politicians in a
centralized, grossly inefficient, and destructive fashion, and the more
environmentalists try to stop that route the more destructive it will
be.  I point you to the massive destruction of forests here in Oregon,
*combined* with obscenely high lumber prices, as one of many sad
current examples where a ham-handed, centrally planned solution has
wreaked havoc on *both* sides.  The forests need not have been
destroyed, and the lumber prices need not have gone through the
roof, if the forests had been allocated by a decentralized,
market method of peaceful consensus instead of from Washington
D.C.

In the case of mirrors vs. astronomers, the problem is beyond
national borders in space, the disputants are international (astronomers
across the planet and transnational corporations), and quite frankly it
would be best for all parties concerned if the nations just butted
out.  This isssue is none of their business, and they have nothing
useful to bring to the bargaining table that would help solve this
problem.

Jim Hart
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 May 93 15:01:50 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: Yet Another Irrelevant Thread

(Since when did 90% of this newsgroup's material relate to space ?)

From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Billboards in Space
>
> > 3) Mao Tse Tung said: "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun."

Let us not forget that this aphorism applies to *US*, too !

It is not some rabid commie rhetoric irrelevant to a free society.

Let us say you get a parking ticket.

If you refuse to pay your parking ticket, you get a summons.

If you do not answer the summons, they send a bill.

If you do not pay the bill (and they know where to
find you), they start getting nasty.

A some point, they will try to arrest you and toss you in jail,
and if you resist with the force necessary to keep your freedom,
they will shoot you.

Or in extreme cases, they will go after your house, and if you
resist with the force necessary to keep your house, they will
shoot you.

This might be an exaggeration, but the principle is there:

    >> Even mundane parking tickets too are enforced
       at the point of a gun.

It doesn't ever work out that way because either people pay
or they can't be found or the agency does not follow though.

But Mao was describing government in general.

They have the monopoly on force, and if you challenge it
they use it.  Pick your fight, resist "lawful authority",
try to keep your freedom, and see what happens.

--
* Fred Baube (tm)    * "Government had broken down.
* [e-mail]  *  I found the experience invigorating."
* 60 28' N  22 18' E *  -- Maurice Grimaud, Paris prefect of
* #include <disclaimer.h>                 police in May 1968

------------------------------


From: Rob Reilly <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines,misc.invest,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,k12.chat.teacher
Subject: Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Date: 20 May 1993 13:43:17 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 25
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <1t9b8j$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <1tdpk5$[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: e40-008-11.mit.edu
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

Hello All,

I regret having to post this message to so many newsgroups however the
folks involved in this thread have seen fit to cross-post it to 11
newsgroups.

The moderator of k12.chat.teacher (which is a part of K12net) has,
on several occassions, indicated that this thread is 'off topic' and
should be dropped.  As the folks involved in this thread do not seem
to read the k12.chat.teacher newsgroup or are ignoring the message
(I suspect the former) it is necessary to post this message to all
the newsgroups from whence the thread is originating.  The moderator
does not have Internet access (she is on FidoNet and cannot post
directly to USENET) so I am posting this message.

Please do not crosspost the "Space Marketing" thread to
k12.chat.teacher.  Actually it is not a good idea to blindly cross
post to so many newsgroups.

Thanks you for your consideration.

-Rob-

K12net Council of Coordinators
(and I'm on a diet)

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 600
------------------------------