Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow."

At  2:08 PM 7/30/94 +0100, Graham Toal wrote:
>: From: solman@mit.edu
>
>: This is a relatively inane conspiracy theory. Gates hardly requires any
>: assistance since the feds were already committed to setting up licenses
>: in bands that are good for these types of networks. Both the FCC and Hughes
>: have sped up their efforts towards these systems in recent days.
>
>That's just the terrestrial side.  What about actually getting the birds up?
>

Oddly enough, they're discussing the use of a modified version of Orbital
Sciences' Pegasus launcher.  It currently uses a B-52 to carry the rocket
to ~40K ft., and then lets it go on up to LEO.  However, there's no reason
they can't use a 747 as the "first stage". 747's are newer and cheaper and
easier to maintain, and the result would be private enterprise from the
ground up.

At the risk of sounding like pollyanna, we may again be seeing fascists
behind every Bush(?) here...  Yet, conducting a public awareness campaign,
in the shrillest possible terms, against SKE (or more properly, government
mandated SKE) is a very good idea.  It's easy to separate the two on a
conceptual basis, and we should.

Conspiracy theories about collusion between governments and big business,
no matter how monopolistic those businesses, usually don't wash.  Economic
institutions really can't keep secrets for very long these days, especially
secrets with significant economic impact. While I believe that they
probably try, it's a little like pissing in the wind (if you're looking for
the proper middle-class white northern european unconciousness-raised male
metaphor ;-).

However, I have to admit people do stupid things for uneconomic reasons.
Windows is living proof of that.  Microsoft offering a "security" package
with SKE in it to their most lucrative market (Large, Hieropatriarchical,
Semi-ossified, Ex-industrial Corporations), is very plausible without any
collusion with the uncle necessary.  Us howling like banshees about it
makes real sense in that light.  LHSECs really hate it when people howl at
them like like banshees.

Exhortatory prose (and action) about manning the barracades against SKE
makes sense. Conspiracy theories will probably make potential allies laugh.

Cheers,
Robert Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga  (rah@shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone
Shipwright Development Corporation     who eats too little and sees Heaven and
44 Farquhar Street                       someone who drinks too much and sees
Boston, MA 02331 USA                       snakes." -- Bertrand Russell
(617) 323-7923

[crypto relevance is basically nil; apologies]
RH> == Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>

 RH> Oddly enough, they're discussing the use of a modified version of
 RH> Orbital Sciences' Pegasus launcher.  It currently uses a B-52 to
 RH> carry the rocket to ~40K ft., and then lets it go on up to LEO.
 RH> However, there's no reason they can't use a 747 as the "first
 RH> stage". 747's are newer and cheaper and easier to maintain, and the
 RH> result would be private enterprise from the ground up.

I believe OSC is now ready to use (if they haven't started already) their
modified L-1011 TriStar launch platform ("Stargazer").

I'm not sure the 747 would be as easily modified, based on the design of
the wing box and landing gear.  Similar issues would probably apply to the
McDD DC-10/MD-11.

OSC has already used their modified L1011 to launch a Pegasus.  Last 
month they launched a stretch Pegasus from the plane for the first time.  
Unfortunately they are using new control software in the Pegasus and it 
did not properly take into account the difference in the Phugoid 
frequency of the stretched bird.  The result was positive feedback in the 
yaw control loop causing failure of the main wing.  A self destruct 
charge was detonated from the control facility aboard the L1011.  They 
are due to try again sometime soon.
						Lyman

Finger lrh@crl.com for PGP 2.4 Public Key Block.