Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO611.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Sat, 22 May 93 05:39:34
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #611
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 22 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 611

Today's Topics:
                      About the mercury program
                  Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
              Detecting planets in other system (2 msgs)
                            Life on Mars.
                              Moon Base
           Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space) (2 msgs)
                         Optical vs other EM
                 Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (3 msgs)
                   SSF Termination *RUMOR* (2 msgs)
         Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
                     Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
               Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    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: Fri, 21 May 1993 23:57:41 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: About the mercury program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
>>Which brings us back to the fellow with the plastic box. At the appointed
>>time our hero turned the crank. Unfortunately he turned it too hard, and
>>it broke!
>
>Hadn't heard of that one, but it does sound possible.  Such things don't
>get much publicity, but apparently it is not that uncommon for an experiment
>to be messed up because the astronaut(s) goofed.  (A lot of those guys are
>not the type of people you would pick if you wanted careful compliance with
>procedures laid down in advance -- you don't get to be an astronaut by
>being humble and obedient.)

A quick check of the Gemini Mid-Program Conference Proc. (NASA SP-121)
shows that the sea urchin egg growth experiment was carried aboard
Gemini III and experienced "mechanical failure" during the flight.
The PI was R.S. Young of NASA Ames.

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: 21 May 93 22:17:43 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tji5f$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> First Stage, or Host Aircraft (modified SST)
>> o Doesn't specify what SST would be modified, but it doesn't look off
>>   the shelf
>
>The High-Speed Civil Transport (HSCT), currently in the conceptual development
>phase by industry and NASA.  It could enter the market as early as 2005.

My last recollection of HSCT -- although it's admittedly an area that I
don't follow closely -- was that it wasn't a Mach 3+ design, as the Boeing
first stage would have to be.

This is not a trivial matter of just souping up the engines.  Somewhere
around Mach 2.2-2.5, friction heating gets up into the temperature range
where aluminum alloys lose most of their strength.  A Mach 2.8 SST is
*much* more expensive than a Mach 2.2 one, because titanium and stainless
steel are much harder to work with than aluminum.

I suppose you could modify an aluminum SST for a short sprint to Mach 3+,
with active cooling for leading edges and limits on high-speed flight time
so the rest of the structure wouldn't get too hot, but it sounds a little
marginal to me.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 May 93 14:34:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry Brader - contractor) writes:
> 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

For Earthlike planets you'll need something along the lines of a 16m telescope
of the moon. Jovian planets are rather easier and advanced Adaptive Optics
systems on 4 or 8 metre class ground based telescopes may manage to detect
them. For a full assessment you could do worse than refering to the AIP
conference proceedings 'Astrophysics from the Moon'.


--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 02:39:05 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry Brader - contractor) writes:

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

> For Earthlike planets you'll need something along the lines of a 16m
> telescope of the moon.


We could probably detect the presence of such planets with a more
modest orbital astrometric telescope, say like the one that at one
point was to be put on the space station (ha!).

    Paul

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

Date: 22 May 1993 00:11:35 GMT
From: Robert Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Frank Crary) says:


>
>They were designed to detect life in different ways, not different
>kinds of life. _If_ you assume any hypothetical Martian life was
>radically different from terrestrial life, then this might be a
>valid point, but that isn't a trivial assumption.
>
   I'm only quoting what Dr. Levin said in the interview. According to
him a NASA report made before the Viking mission concluded that if there
were life on Mars then probably only one of the detectors would be able
to detect since they were based on different kinds of life. For example,
one of the detectors was meant to detect organisms using photosynthesis and
this experiment was carried out under a lamp simulating sunlight. Dr.
Levin's experiment on the other hand was carried out in the dark.


>>>   His detector is known as the Labeled Release Experiment. He claims
>> that in numerous tests of his detector on terrestrial soil samples
>> he never once got a false positive or false negative response.
>
>He never tested it on soil baked with UV light in a 7 mbar carbon
>diox

>
  Before the launch Dr. Levin tested his detector in a "Mars box"
used to simulate a Mars environment for the Viking missions at the
NASA Ames Research Center on a sample on which his detector was
successfully able to detect life. The microorganisms in the sample
survived the Mars-like environment and again gave positive life-signs
when subjected to Dr. Levin's experiment.




>The experiment basically gave positive results (i.e. the sugars
>added to the sample was converted into carbon dioxide and something, as
>they had been metabolized) for a short time but then ceased
>to do so. The general consensus is that the Martian soil contains
>highly oxidized, normally unstable, chemicals as a result of UV light,
>and if you add moist carbon compounds, it will react with them vigorously
>releasing carbon dioxide. Of course, this will only continue for
>a short time before all the oxides are consumed.
>
>                                                    Frank Crary
>                                                    CU Boulder


  To test the idea that oxidized compounds created by UV light were
causing false positives, the Viking lander was commanded to retrieve
a sample from under a rock that was presumed not to have moved for
thousands of years thus shielding the sample from UV light. The sample
again gave positive life-signs.


  Dr. Levin's presentation of his point of view is much more persuasive
than my paraphrasing. I encourage anyone who wants to see a different
conclusion from the "pre-vailing" wisdom, by someone more knowledgable
about this particular experiment than anyone else, I suggest they
read the article in the June, 1993 issue of _Final Frontier_.



                        - Bob C.

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 15:57:00 -0600
From: Les Kirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does NASA or any other private firm have plans to construct a moon base?

I for one would love to see a base constructed and inhabited by a wide
variety of people.  The technology exists today to make such an adventure
plausible I'm sure.

Could the shuttle be outfitted with the necessary oxygen to make a trip
back to the moon possible?  I certainly do not see why it couldnt be.

If missions are now lasting as much as 4 to 7 days, why could they not
last an extra 4 to 7 days and then return?

Anyone have any ideas on this subject?

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

Date: 21 May 1993 19:06:24 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I think the Endangered Species act may apply.  Also interfering with
Diplomatic relations, and violsating the nuetrality act.

pat

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

Date: 21 May 1993 19:02:22 -0700
From: Ben Delisle 02/15/93 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Killing an ET would be legal as current law only states people,
persons, men, women, children. An ET; however, is not classified or
mentioned. They could be considered as animals (possibility plants) as they
are non-human lifeforms and may be subject to animal protection laws, but
not the same protection as humans.
    Knowing the general human attitude to other people(s) and
even animals and their past behaviour, any contact with ET's will
probably end up with us exploiting the ET's irreguardless of any
technological advantage on their part. New levels of discrimination
will be seen.


--
[e-mail]
A man's reputation may take many years of work to build, and be lost with
a simple mistake.

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 18:57:51 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Optical vs other EM

Frank Crary sez;
>Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,
>visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less
>(down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
>to me...

Olaf Vancura sez;
>Look Frank, give it a rest.  A) Your ignorance is amazing.  B) This
>has nothing to do with investing.

I think the isssue of optical vs other EM observations is sort of
muddled by exactly how you measure it.  To be completely objective,

wouldn't you comapre optical to other EM based on number of
wavelengths?  Pretty small, then.  Maybe it should be based on
energy of the band, in which case Radio and IR lose out, wheras
X- and Gamma-ray should get priority.  But, then, all the wavelengths
are getting more attention then ever.  Since we haven't really
settled on a criteria for measuring 'importance', it's sort of
hard to say one measure is better than another.

>>The sign the office door says, "Astrophysical, Planetary and
>>Atmospheric Sciences." Although perhaps my degree in astrophysics
>>from Berkeley doesn't qualify me either...

>I find it hard to believe you have a degree in astrophysics.
>My opinion of Berkeley just plummeted.  Did your degree come as the
>prize in a CrackerJack box?!

Jeez, Olaf, take it easy.  Frank said he's mostly radio.  From the
degree, it sounds like he also has a focus in geology and fluids, too.

On thing I tell people that have an interest in astronomy, but are
afraid to tackle it, due to the volume and comlexity of the material
is "No one can know the whole Universe."

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 20:57:51 GMT
From: Loren Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
>
>>Another question is whats the NEED for "live video" from space?  The primary
>>job for these sats is to produce high resolution images (i.e. stills) of
>>areas for detailed analysis, to build up various maps and datasets, and to
>>be able to compare images of the same region from multiple satellite passes
>>in order to highlight any changes and such.  None of these missions would
>>be particularly enhanced by "video"...
>
>[Since most of the real work is done by lots of people doing boring
>work with stereo lenses in back rooms, there's actually no need for
>'real-time imagery' at all -- store and forward would be plenty good
>enough, since the time consumer is going to be the analysis on the
>ground, anyway.]
>

    2 assumptions in the above paragraph:

    a) Store and forward is practical.  (How many gigabytes can you
        reliably cram in a satellite?  Those pictures are BIG.)

    b) Everybody is real patient and nobody wants to see a picture NOW.


        Loren Carpenter
        [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 May 93 14:25:09 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Olaf Vancura) writes:
>>>Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,
>>>visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less
>>>(down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
>>>to me...

Frank and I just started up a debate on this in email, but I thought a few
comments in public might be useful for the others on the list. I hopeyou don't
mind Frank.

>
>>Optical telescopes were probably 70% about 25 years ago, with most of
>>the rest radio, but that's because of a lack of technology back
>>then.  The advance of cryogenics, X-ray and UV reflective coatings and shell
>>mirror assemblies, etc. has advanced IR, X-ray, and UV astronomy.
>>Of course these new "windows" have advanced greatly, and optical has
>>taken its place as a subset of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
>>It certainly has not died, nor will it ever.  It contains information
>>about 10^4 to 10^5 K gas not obtainable elsewhere.

X-ray and UV are only useful outside the atnmosphere, and so the use of these
wavebands is tied to multi-megabuck projects that are the constant victims of
politics. Some of us don't want to waste half a career wating for satellites to
fly to get their data. This si a good reason to work on the ground, in the
optical and near-IR.

>
> If you care about 10^4 to 10^5 K gases. Some of us don't consider
> stars the be all and end all of astronomy. Planets, nebulas,
> molecular clouds, etc... are equally important parts of astronomy,
> which only occasionally use optical astronomy. While optical
> astronomy may be a valuable technique, it is no longer the
> heart and blood of the field.

The majority of extragalactic astronomy is concerned with objects emitting oin
the optical and near-IR. This is where we do redshift surveys of thousands of
galaxies, positional surveys of millions, quasar searches for the most distant
objects in the universe etc etc. The optical is the main driving force behind
all of extragalactic work, because the other wavebands have major problems
withbackgrounds, collecting area, or sensitivity, so faint objects cannot be
easily detected. The VLA goes some way to sorting out these problems in the
radio band, but its really only applicable to radio loud objects at great
distances.

>>>That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.
>>>But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything
>>>up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most
         ^^^ he meant 10
>>>people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are
>
> I was refering to the proposals for new adaptive optics telescopes:
> They talk about "optical" systems (implying visible light) and
> then refer to the potential resolving capability as many tens of
> microns. While they don't directly call 100 microns "visible"
> they imply that the mid-IR is part of the "optical" spectrum.
> In effect they are exagerating the abilities of adaptive optics,
> and making it appear as if these abilities applied to the
> visible.

AO is much easier at longer wavelengths (see other posting under the AO title).
This doesn't, though, mean that it doesn't work in the visible. On the
contrary, the few systems that have been set up to use the limited capabilities
of the technology in the visible (HRCAM at CFHT for example or MARTINI and
TRIFFID at the WHT, or the NTT at ESO) have all performed very well. More
advanced computers and correcting devices like deformable mirrors are needed to
go the whole way in the visible. The results from the Starfire military project
suggest that these will eventually work well.

>>>The sign the office door says, "Astrophysical, Planetary and
>>>Atmospheric Sciences." Although perhaps my degree in astrophysics
>>>from Berkeley doesn't qualify me either...

The problem Frank has is that he's extrapolating from his own field, Planetary
astronomy, to the rest of astrophysics, and he's doing it wrong.

--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 00:27:26 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

[e-mail] (OPIRG) writes:


>A bit of an overstatement. Just as most of Michigan is much nicer than
>Detroit, I gather much of Russia is much nicer than its industrial
>wastelands. A friend of mine visited Kiev a few months ago; he said it
>was quite nice.

Only because on a fateful day back in '86 the wind was blowing
the other way.

>Reid Cooper
--

Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 00:36:27 GMT
From: David Nash <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>If you care about 10^4 to 10^5 K gases. Some of us don't consider
>stars the be all and end all of astronomy. Planets, nebulas,
>molecular clouds, etc... are equally important parts of astronomy,
>which only occasionally use optical astronomy. While optical
>astronomy may be a valuable technique, it is no longer the
>heart and blood of the field.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the idea that
visual-light astronomy is less dominant than it used to be.  No one here,
as far as I can tell, is seriously claiming that "stars [are] the be all
and end all of astronomy." What's at issue is your idea that visible-light
astronomy is, as you put it earlier, a "dying field".

To borrow an example closer to my field, synthetic chemistry is less dominant
now than it was a century ago, thanks to a plethora of new analytical and
physical approaches devised since then.  Nevertheless, synthesis remains an
active and important area of research in chemistry, and doubtlessly will for
years to come.

So, given that "less dominant" != "dying" or "unimportant", which applies
here?

>In effect they are exagerating the abilities of adaptive optics,
>and making it appear as if these abilities applied to the
>visible.

As several other posts on this topic -- some by your professional peers --
have pointed out, AO is useful in the visible.  It does not work as well
there as it does in the IR, but examples do exist and research
continues on applying AO to the visible.

While you're looking those over, you might want to check out a fun little
gadget reviewed in the May, 1993 _Sky_and_Telescope_, called (I think)
the AO-2.  It's not the same as the "adaptive optics" most of the
professionals here are used to, but the basic idea is similar --
it adds an extra set of optical elements into the light path that (a)
can detect changes in an image and (b) correct accordingly.  Granted, it
only works on relatively large image distortions (like vibrations in the
telescope tube), and then only on fairly large, bright objects like
planets, but this is a device being aimed at the advanced-amateur market.
Several other people have pointed out professional applications of AO in
the visible that are far more advanced.


>                                                Frank Crary
>                                                CU Boulder
--
David Nash                  | University of Illinois (Urbana)
([e-mail])    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
([e-mail])   | No binary trees were killed to make it.

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

Date: 21 May 1993 22:29:06 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Termination *RUMOR*
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) wrote:

>
> Also, don't you think it would be a just a little peculiar for
> NASA to terminate any contracts *now*, just 3 weeks before
> NASA presents their recommendation to the Dr. Vest Advisory
> Panel (scheduled for June 7), who then presents his conclusions
> to the White House on June 10, who then picks the option they
> want to support?

A good question..... here's a good answer....
Due to the law that requires the govt to give at least 90 days notice to
any cancellation which could close a facility (our Houston facility).

According to my source the termination notice HAS been received by all of
the prime contractors.

What it means is that in 90 (-4) days and without a rescind on the notice,
all contracts are terminated....i.e., no more funds will be exchanged in
support of the Equivalent Personnel employed by the contract.....

If someone ....up there... on the hill is looking to squash the program by
selecting an option which will actually cost more since the development is
falsely depicted as "off-the-shelf" (sorry about the bias) then it is
prudent to save the $ by sending the notice....

My source says it has happened before and that NASA always rescinded.;.....

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

Date: 21 May 1993 19:13:23 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Termination *RUMOR*
Newsgroups: sci.space

Given the massive design changes, i would expect termination notices
to be given out to the contractors.  wether new contracts will
be let to build Space staion ed,  i kind of doubt it.

either way,  the texas election will be over, by then.

pat

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 23:49:06 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>When was ABMA transferred to NASA?  Didn't that happen when NASA was
>>created?  Wasn't responsibility for JPL transferred at the same time?
>
>Nope, wrong twice. :-)  NASA was formed in the second half of 1958 --
>exactly when it happened depends on which milestone you pick, although
>1 October is the usual date.  Keith Glennan, its first head, wanted
>to acquire both JPL and ABMA, but started out with neither.  He ended
>up accepting a compromise in which NASA got JPL (in early December
>of that year) but not ABMA.  It wasn't until mid-1960 that most of
>ABMA turned into Marshall, after it became clear that the military
>didn't need Saturn and NASA did.

It was (relatively) clear from the start that the Army was going to
lose its missile program...  I hadn't realized that it took so long to
do the paperwork!  I guess things haven't changed much.   :-)  :-)

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 00:10:15 GMT
From: Tom Fitzgerald <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
Newsgroups: sci.space

> >Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions
> >about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything
> >going on in the space community, he seems to know it.

[e-mail] (Hans Kinwel) writes:

> Because, not only in sci.space
> his voice is heard, but also on sci.military, comp.lang.c and
> news.software.b (and maybe some other newsgroups I dont read).

Include the ethernet, TCP/IP and e-mail groups.....

A good rule of thumb is: If Henry Spencer says something you disagree with,
then you're wrong.

--
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       [e-mail]   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."

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

Date: 21 May 1993 22:36:16 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>So we see that Ken is pro-Defense and you are basically anti-Defense,
>and neither one of you is really looking at the objective picture.

Fred, I have never been so complimented before!  Thank you!

Actually, when it comes to people attacking the defense industry and
programs like the shuttle, I get kinda irked because usually the detractors
don't consider the tens of thousands of people and hundreds of communities
around the nation that are deeply committed to maintaining a world class
military force and science & technology base.

Don't get me wrong folks, I'm not a war monger.  I hate war.  I've stood
at the operating table watching 14 yr olds bleed to death from bullet wounds
on the streets of LA.  (We saved the kid on the table)

I take great offense from Pat's comment about minorities on welfare and
rich folk getting the benefits of government.  Under the Reagan Administration
our family did not get rich.  In fact, because I went to medical school,
we're more in debt than ever before.  Clinton, Bush, and Reagan appear
to be cutting scholarship funds and Pell Grants (anyone got other news?).

My dad grew up as a plantation worker in Hawaii.  My mom was interned as
a person of "Japanese Ancestry" at Manzanar.  I am not Republican.  I am
a democrat who voted (would have voted for Reagan but missed that election)
for Bush and then for Perot in 92.  I still can't in good conscience
support Clinton's cutting of station and cutting of defense jobs.

Those defense jobs are supporting people like me across this country.

I think a disservice is done if this nation's federal government ever
prioritizes anything above the preservation of the principles of the
US Constitution.  While some may argue that "general welfare" includes
the right to free housing, free food, and free medical care; I argue
that it does not.  Space is important because it provides for the
common defense, insuring access to space for sigint sats, keyholes, et al.
while also providing for the general welfare.  Welfare and social
programs cannot provide both services.  Jobs in the defense industry
and science/engineering R&D do provide both.

Now, going out on a further limb...8-)
I think B-2 is the coolest aircraft ever made.
P.S. I still am not convinced by shuttle critics that shuttle is
some how a poor project (pay

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 611
------------------------------