HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: SEI Cancelled
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:44:07
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: weed@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov's message of Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:09:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.170912.13622@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> weed@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (daniel weed) writes:

>It appears NASA/JSC, at headquarters request, is summarily cancelling ALL
>Space Exploration Initiatives.  These are advanced projects, such
>as Artemis (a small, inexpensive, unmanned payload transporter
>to the lunar surface), FLO (First Lunar Outpost - concieved as the 
>next manned mission to the Moon), and all other lunar, Mars projects.
>JSC is expecting possibly thousands of layoffs late next year
>(thats a rumor only).

Any word on what's going to happen to Griffin's Office of Exploration?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: SEI Cancelled
Summary: Not really....
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:05:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.170912.13622@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> weed@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (daniel weed) writes:
>It appears NASA/JSC, at headquarters request, is summarily cancelling ALL
>Space Exploration Initiatives.  These are advanced projects, such
>as Artemis (a small, inexpensive, unmanned payload transporter
>to the lunar surface), FLO (First Lunar Outpost - concieved as the 
>next manned mission to the Moon), and all other lunar, Mars projects.

This is not all true according to my sources and co-workers in the SEI
area.  What has happened is that most of the civil service workers at
JSC are to be pulled off of SEI related activity to free them (or
others) to work on Freedom.  Due to budget cutbacks, many of the support
contractors helping oversee the Work Package 2 contract have been
eliminated and the work thrown back to civil service.  In order to do the
work for SSF, more bodies were needed.  Since most of the staff for SEI
was funded on JSC's dime and since SSF is seemingly over the hump, the
decision to reassign most of the SEI related staff to other areas was
made.  There will still be a SEI presence at JSC, supposedly about 50
civil servants, doing advanced studies, etc.

Artemis is dead, however.  Either JPL (or someone else) picks it up or it
will need funds to be sent out for bid.  The latter is unlikely.

>JSC is expecting possibly thousands of layoffs late next year
>(thats a rumor only).

This would happen only if SSF or shuttle was shut down.  Neither is
likely. It is clear that Congress thinks of both as jobs programs.
>
>The reason is the new Clinton/Gore administration will not support
>any advanced R&D space projects, other than shuttle and SSF.

This has no basis that I have heard of.  The pronouncements by Gore and
Clinton on space have been supportive, but specifics other than SSF and
STS will continue and that Mission to Planet Earth is important are
simply not available. Clinton did make comments about space being too
important to the future to not fund, supposedly on the Today show in
response to a call-in question.
-- 
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: daniels@ih-nxt07.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel Ray Sawyer)
Subject: Spy Satellite to Arab Emirates?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:26:31 GMT


Hello, everyone.

I'm a reader and not often poster here, but I would like to know what
people's opinions are on selling advanced space technology to other
nations.

The specific case involved is in today's (Nov 17) New York Times. It seems
that several months ago the United Arab Emirates approached the US gvt
about getting a license to buy an advanced spy satellite from a US firm.
According to the article, the satellite model would be able to pick out
objects one to two meters large.  This is supposedly much better than the
photographic satellites sold for "commercial" purposes.

Well, it seems as if the government is torn, with one agency saying yes
and the other saying no.  They are afraid that UAE use could endager our
national security by selling photos and info to other Arab/Third world
nations or use the satellite to look for more oil/natural resources to
invest in.

The case for selling it is that it will mean several hundred million
dollars for the US company and that the US could impose some sort of
controls on use or sale of information gained by the satellite. Also,
the US company fears that the UAE will just go elsewhere to buy a
satellite if the Gvt doesn't allow the sale.

The Emirates motive is supposedly to be the "first on the block" with
a spy satellite in the Arab world.

So, what do you think?  I'm in favor of selling the spy satellite with
an agreement on the use of information gained from it.

Daniel at University of Illinois    daniels@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Spy Satellite to Arab Emirates?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:21:09 GMT

whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) writes:

>SELL! SELL! SELL!

>But perhaps the NASA folks should try selling something like a seat on
>the space station instead. Being the first Arab nation with a citizen
>always up there, looking down, would seem better than just a camera.

Much to late to be the first.  A Saudi prince has been on the shuttle an I
believe a Syrian went up with the Russians.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

	"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 16:58:14 CST
From: Myself!!! <U57567@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Spy Satellite to Arab Emirates?
Distribution: usa

In article <BxvF49.5CJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@ih-nxt07.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel
Ray Sawyer) says:
>
>Hello, everyone.
>
>that several months ago the United Arab Emirates approached the US gvt
>about getting a license to buy an advanced spy satellite from a US firm.
>According to the article, the satellite model would be able to pick out
>objects one to two meters large.  This is supposedly much better than the
>photographic satellites sold for "commercial" purposes.
>
>Well, it seems as if the government is torn, with one agency saying yes
>and the other saying no.  They are afraid that UAE use could endager our
>national security by selling photos and info to other Arab/Third world
>nations or use the satellite to look for more oil/natural resources to
>invest in.
>
>The case for selling it is that it will mean several hundred million
>dollars for the US company and that the US could impose some sort of
>controls on use or sale of information gained by the satellite. Also,
>the US company fears that the UAE will just go elsewhere to buy a
>satellite if the Gvt doesn't allow the sale.
>
>The Emirates motive is supposedly to be the "first on the block" with
>a spy satellite in the Arab world.
>
>So, what do you think?  I'm in favor of selling the spy satellite with
>an agreement on the use of information gained from it.
>
>Daniel at University of Illinois    daniels@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu

Sure, sell it, but with the stipulation that it will ALSO send the images
to the USA so we can see what they are looking at.  Maybe even have a
clause in the contract that say something like, "If you use this to
observe the USA and xxx, yyy, zzz, then we have the right to turn this
product off.  With no penalty to us.  You still have to pay for it."

I also agree that they would just get one from somewhere else if we
don't, but they might buy our's because of the quality of pictures;
despite the "clause".

AL

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer)
Subject: Re: Spy Satellite to Arab Emirates?
Originator: whitmeye@surf
Organization: MMAG VAFB
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:55:39 GMT


In article <BxvF49.5CJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, daniels@ih-nxt07.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel Ray Sawyer) writes:
|> 
|> Hello, everyone.
|> 
|> I'm a reader and not often poster here, but I would like to know what
|> people's opinions are on selling advanced space technology to other
|> nations.
|> 
|> The specific case involved is in today's (Nov 17) New York Times. It seems
|> that several months ago the United Arab Emirates approached the US gvt
|> about getting a license to buy an advanced spy satellite from a US firm.
|> According to the article, the satellite model would be able to pick out
|> objects one to two meters large.  This is supposedly much better than the
|> photographic satellites sold for "commercial" purposes.
|> 
|> Well, it seems as if the government is torn, with one agency saying yes
|> and the other saying no.  They are afraid that UAE use could endager our
|> national security by selling photos and info to other Arab/Third world
|> nations or use the satellite to look for more oil/natural resources to
|> invest in.
|> 
|> The case for selling it is that it will mean several hundred million
|> dollars for the US company and that the US could impose some sort of
|> controls on use or sale of information gained by the satellite. Also,
|> the US company fears that the UAE will just go elsewhere to buy a
|> satellite if the Gvt doesn't allow the sale.
|> 
|> The Emirates motive is supposedly to be the "first on the block" with
|> a spy satellite in the Arab world.
|> 
|> So, what do you think?  I'm in favor of selling the spy satellite with
|> an agreement on the use of information gained from it.
|> 
|> Daniel at University of Illinois    daniels@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu

SELL! SELL! SELL!

But perhaps the NASA folks should try selling something like a seat on
the space station instead. Being the first Arab nation with a citizen
always up there, looking down, would seem better than just a camera.

As for restrictions on use. I'd promote no restrictions. They pay for
it, it's theirs. Our nation has been under intense Soviet satellite
observation for years. We're still here, and still in business.

SELL!

Rich Whitmeyer              Views expressed are soley my own.
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford TV Commercial
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:36:51 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalc.fnal.gov

In article <BxL6sr.41o@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
> wesley@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Wesley D Scott) writes:
> 
>>I saw a commercial with Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford advertising
>>the National Space Foundation last weekend.  Does anyone have
>>any more information?
> 
> I believe you mean the US Space Foundation.  They created some great commercials
> (IMHO) a while back 

Around 1988, if I recall correctly.

> I believe they are available on tape. I'll try to 
> track down the address.  

Through the Magic Of Computers, I happen to have this at my fingertips...

UNITED STATES SPACE FOUNDATION          (719)550-1000
P.O. Box 1838, Colorado Springs, CO 80901

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Back to the Moon Bill
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 19 Nov 92  10:20:06

        Since the initial proposal for a bill that would get America 
back to the Moon in this decade was announced, considerable momentum 
for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act (the "Back to the Moon" Bill) 
has been generated.  The Back to the Moon bill would authorize the NASA 
Administrator to purchase a geochemical map of the Moon from the lowest 
qualified U.S. bidder by December 31, 1996.
        Why is this important? The United States last launched a 
dedicated lunar mission in December of 1972, twenty years ago. Since 
that time, the government has spent millions on paper studies of lunar 
missions, but has spent no money on actually going there. The Back to 
the Moon bill would get America back to the Moon by 1996. All other 
initiatives have stalled in Congress, which is understandably leery of 
giving NASA money for lunar probes, and which sees a new start for lunar 
exploration as being the "nose of the camel in the tent", as a new start 
for solar system exploration may develop into a new Apollo program. 
        On the other hand, the Back to the Moon bill would stimulate the 
private sector to map the Moon. There may be valuable resources located 
in the areas of the Moon not explored by the Apollo astronauts or 
scientific probes, which focused on the equatorial belts of the Moon. 
Some theorize that water ice exists in deep craters at the lunar poles. 
The Back to the Moon Bill, if passed, would provide hard data on lunar 
resources. However, it will take passage of the Back to the Moon Bill 
to get America moving again to explore the lunar surface.     
        Among the important recent developments:
 
        Interest among the California congressional contingent has been 
expressed. Assuming the final draft of bill is politically viable, it is 
likely that it will be introduced in the 103rd Congress, and with some 
effort on the part of the space movement, passed sufficiently early so 
that hardware for lunar missions is created in 1994.
        Public hearings on the Back to the Moon Bill are tentatively 
scheduled to take place in the Los Angeles area in February, 1993.
        Some lunar scientists are responding positively to the prospect 
of obtaining new lunar data. Others are considering participating in 
bidding process to fly the lunar mapper. Others, however, are concerned 
about the possibility of the privatization of a formerly governmental field.
        The Back to the Moon Bill is receiving positive feedback from 
National Space Society chapters and newsletters, as well as by the "
experts" in the Beltway. 
        Space activists should have a major role in the passage of this 
bill. We need volunteers to deal with local congresspersons, with the 
media, and with other grassroots organizations. Please support this 
effort, by helping to pass the Back to the Moon Bill. For more 
information, please contact San Diego L5 at 619/295-3690, or 
David Anderman at 714/524-1674.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: Spy Satellite to Arab Emirates?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:44:00 GMT

In article <BxvF49.5CJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> daniels@ih-nxt07.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel  
Ray Sawyer) writes:
> 
> The specific case involved is in today's (Nov 17) New York Times. It seems
> that several months ago the United Arab Emirates approached the US gvt
> about getting a license to buy an advanced spy satellite from a US firm.
> According to the article, the satellite model would be able to pick out
> objects one to two meters large.  This is supposedly much better than the
> photographic satellites sold for "commercial" purposes.
> 
> The Emirates motive is supposedly to be the "first on the block" with
> a spy satellite in the Arab world.

My philosophy on this is better us than them (them being the Russians)  As I  
see it if we give the satellite to them we will have _some_ control over it.   
We will know its abilities, its orbit (if we launch it), its lifetime, even its  
radio frequency and computer encoding.  With some restrictions/recomendations  
we could at least try to make sure the UAE don't use it for purposes contrary  
to our national interest.

On the other hand we could refuse.  Odds are that if they really want a  
satellite they could get it from the Russians.  It is not even like they are  
asking for top of the line (2m resolution isn't that great if you believe some  
of the rumors about our 'real' spy satellites)  The Russians have already  
started selling photos what is to stop them from selling a whole satellite?   
And in this case we would barely know anything about it.  Of course if the CIA  
can insure us that the UAE will definetly not buy a sat from the Russians then  
there is nothing to worry about right?

And better that the 'first kid on the block' with a spy satellite be someone we  
at least can kind of trust, and is politically stable (for now)

Oh, and there's always the famed jobs question, which applies to both Russia  
and the U.S.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:02:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.205400.26953@trl.oz.au> a.Faris@trl.oz.au  writes:

>Israel had diverted about 80% of the jordan river away from the East bank.
>Now the Jordanians are thirsty, is Israel a gem of a country?.
>
>A.Faris

How can Israel divert even one drop from the East Bank?  The East Bank
(of the Jordan River) is on the other side of the river from the West
Bank  --  by definition!

What a dope!

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Subject: Re: MEQ #17: Ben-Gurion on Israeli expansi
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au 
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:06:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.233232.24708@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

|> 
|> Don't be stupid.  Israel's greatest mistake in it's plans for
|> expansionism is giving the Sinai Peninsula, a land mass twice the size
|> of all the rest of Israel, to Egypt in return for ... peace.  Boy,
|> what stupid expansionist Imperialists these Israelis are....
|> 
It was the best decision that Israel made in a long time. returning a useless
desert allowed Israel to concentrate on Syria and Lebanon and get hard cash
for the Jews who lived in the Sinai and bulid homes in the West bank.

A.Faris
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:22333 soc.culture.german:8366
From: naftaly@supergas.dazixco.ingr.com (Naftaly Stramer)
Subject: Re: Hezbollah
Reply-To: naftaly@dazixco.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:40:28 GMT


In article <1428@tdat.teradata.COM>, jcg@teradata.com (Jonathan Gingerich) writes:
>In article <1dgq2lINN2r6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>>...
>>Did Sharon order this massacre to take place?
>
>TIME's correspondant was told by his (anonymous) source a question about
>"revenge" (for the slaying of Bashir(?) Gemeyal) was raised by militiaman
>at the pre-assault meeting and that Sharon deliberately shrugged his shoulders.
>TIME supenoed two IDF officers present at the meeting and notes taken there
>but Israel refused to allow them to leave the country.

Mark's question was "Did Sharon order this massacre to take place?". The above is
even not close to an answer and does not show that Sharon ordered this massacre.

>
>Jon.


Naftaly

---
Naftaly Stramer (303)581-2370, FAX (303)581-9972    Intergraph Corporation
Internet: naftaly@dazixco.ingr.com                  Electronics Division    
UUCP: ..uunet!ingr!dazixco!naftaly  	            5101 Spine Road
Please excuse my English			    Boulder, CO 80301
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Another Missed Opportunity
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:12:25 GMT

In article <1e6o5fINNeup@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

# In article 18321@ennews.eas.asu.edu, makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >In article <1e4kihINN2f3@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
 
# ># In article 4966@ennews.eas.asu.edu, makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
 
# ># >In article <1dijq5INNdgj@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
# ># ># Haha, I guess you didn't li[k]e the line "Jewish terrorists copied Arab
# ># ># terrorists", eh?  Btw, FTI says Deir Yassin was on the highway too.
 
# ># >	What line?  Not that I care.

# ># p354 and p387, respectively.
 
# >	Of which?  FTI or M&F (NOT THAT I CARE).
 
# I don't care either (at last we found something to agree on!).
# However, just to continue this boring stream, both refs are to FTI.
# The first quote actually reads 'There were "one or two occasions"
# when it was said that "The Jewish terrorist groups...copied Arab
# Terrorism,...especially at [the Arab village] Deir Yassin" in 1948..'.

	Yes, but how far down on the pages, and what font and pint sizes
are used?
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast