HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:25:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.141056.13@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)  
writes:
> Spanish "colonies" were fundamentally different from the Plymouth colony
> which is why I didn't include them. 

The Spanish possesions were colonies, just like any other.  The main difference  
was that they actually prospered because of the large mineral wealth found in  
New Spain.  Plymouth on the other hand took years to fully develope because  
there was no wealth to speak of.  So in this case I would rather compare a  
Spanish colony with our future moon colonies.  We are not going to seriously  
colonize the moon with people seeking religious freedoms, the only way to do  
it, and what most of us probably would like to see, is getting all the  
resources that the moon, asteroids, etc can offer.

>They were Missions, funded by the
> Church, and they were Conquistidors funded by the Spanish "military
> industrial complex." 

Yes, the _first_ colonies and Conquistadores were funded by the military,  
because then, as now, it was the easiest and largest fund of money.  Later the  
main funding came from the large amount of trade being generated.  Again, just  
like I would like to see happen to space colonies.

>They were mainly *men* who acquired "native" women as
> companions, something highly unlikely in outer space since "Mars Needs
> Women", or so I've heard. :-)

Sure there were those who 'aquired' women, but again that was mainly during the  
first phases.  By the time Plymouth was founded, New Spain was a thriving  
vise-royalty, with a fully developed social structure.  Again, kind of what we  
hope will eventually happen with space colonies.

One final note, it is Venus who needs the women... :-)

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: govn't R&D
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:46:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvArDK.CEJ.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> >With the government,
> >you can bet that every part of the program will be recorded.
> 

> This is a good point.  The big reason NASA can make their
> "spinoff" argument is not because they do better R&D, but because
> they publish it and make sure it gets in the engineering libraries.
> 


I'll add to that. I think most of us would prefer a little more off  
the shelf hardware and a lot less historical paper. I'd like to see  
more action and fewer words.

The US has become a goverment of the paper, by the paper and for the  
paper...
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:44:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvGFEw.85q.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Date: 30 Sep 1992 22:10:47 GMT
From: Robert Andrew Knop <rknop@cco.caltech.edu>
> Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
> Newsgroups: sci.space
> 

> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
> 

> >I love this guy. Best laugh of the morning.
> 

> Indeed.  And, since it is difficult for others to see in a net  
post, that
> you're a wide eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic, this guy did a  
good job of
> 

> CAPITALIZING every word that he thought needed EMPHASIS, DAMMIT so  
that we got
> the idea that he was RANTING and RAVING with YOUR TAX DOLLARS!   
(Oops, sorry
> about that last bit, got carried away.)
> 

> -Rob Knop
> rknop@cco.caltech.edu
> 


Putting someone who holds strong but different opinions from your own  
in the same catagory as this is rather insulting and I'd suggest it  
requires an apology. There is certainly nothing wrong with holding  
and defending strong opinions. If you don't like his ideas, then join  
the debate and pull no intellectual punches. It is ENTIRELY another  
matter when you blatently insult a member of our community for no  
purpose other than to be "cute".
Xref: sparky sci.space:13677 sci.astro:10201 talk.politics.space:1307 alt.politics.bush:6952 alt.politics.clinton:7531
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:37:48 GMT
	<1992Sep14.163702.6785@eng.umd.edu>
	<1992Sep18.164821.15089@gtephx.UUCP>
	<komarimf.717029763@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
	<1992Sep23.214254.3010@digibd.com> <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   Let's see, ole Chris landed in the New World in 1492, the first viable
   colony landed in 1620. Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969. So we should
   expect private enterprise to land a commercial colony on the Moon about
   2097. Let's call it New Plymouth. In the meantime, I guess we'll have 
   to let the great navigators be funded by the government. The maps have
   to be filled in in those spaces that now say "Here there be dragons."

Hold on, hold on. Weren't the Spanish getting large quantities of gold
(etc) from the west coast of North America back in the 16th century,
down El Camino Real to what is now Panama?

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:25:23 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Sep28.232522.20772@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.141056.13@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)  
>writes:
>> Spanish "colonies" were fundamentally different from the Plymouth colony
>> which is why I didn't include them. 

>The Spanish possesions were colonies, just like any other.  The main difference  
>was that they actually prospered because of the large mineral wealth found in  
>New Spain.  Plymouth on the other hand took years to fully develope because  
>there was no wealth to speak of.  So in this case I would rather compare a  
>Spanish colony with our future moon colonies.  We are not going to seriously  
>colonize the moon with people seeking religious freedoms, the only way to do  
>it, and what most of us probably would like to see, is getting all the  
>resources that the moon, asteroids, etc can offer.

This is by no means clear.  Lest one draw false conclusions from the current
populations, England was a not-very-populous country in the 16th century, and
was not that much of a power until they built up their navy with piracy.

Before essentially the end of the 16th century, only Portugal, Spain, and
France had the stability (England had just emerged from a quite chaotic
period with Henry VII), the population, and the military to settle.  With
the weakening of Spain in the 16th century, England and Holland jumped into
the settlement business.  Plymouth was not that successful, but the not too
much later settlement of Boston, founded also on religion, was quite
successful, with the leadership of the Puritan church moving to this
colony, even with massive membership still in England, in the early 1630's. 
So within a span of 10 years, a colony founded on religion "made it."

In 1634, Rhode Island was established by those who found the Puritan
suppression of religious freedom oppressive, and this also was successful.
Also, the Dutch colonies, founded more as commercial enterprises, were
successful.  So, except for the first English colony, founded in the
16th century, which disappeared, we have a high success rate of colonies
in the Atlantic seaboard established with the attitude of becoming homes
for people, rather than MERELY commercial exploitation.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Pioneer Venus
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 12:08:02 GMT

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Einstein's brain is stored
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | in a mason jar in a lab
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | in Wichita, Kansas.
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: DC-X vote
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:10:13 GMT


The full House voted on the Defense Appropriation yesterday. They voted
full funding for the completion of DC-X and the test program. Thanks
to those of you who lobbied to make this happen.

In addition to the appropriation, the following language was in the
final report:

Title SSRT

The Conferees agree not to delete $35.576 million allocated within the 
SDI program for this project as recommended by the House. The Conferees
agree that the SDIO may complete the subscale suborbital demonstration
and tests planned for FY 1993 but also agree that no funds are being 
provided or may be used for either full scale or orbital planning without
prior congressional approval.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------201 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Population
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:07:10 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
-Subject: Re: Population
-Date: 24 Sep 92 18:28:19 GMT
-Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

-In article <17668@autodesk.COM>, dudemon@dakine (me ) writes:
->so i would like to rephrase THE QUESTION (tm) in a slightly less homocentric
->manner:
->How many species are you willing to sacrifice to save some humans from a little
->inconvience?

-I suppose we should next try to restore the dinosaurs to the prominance they
-had a couple million years ago? 

That's a *little* beyond our current capability. I believe the current
(and recent) record for DNA extraction is ~25 million years, for a termite
trapped in amber. Reconstructing the entire genetic code from DNA fragments
and using that code to produce a living organism are additional challenges.

I'd like to see the restoration of the wooly mammoth. With frozen tissue
available, there's a pretty good chance that they could be cloned.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: FAQ -- USNO/BBS is Useless!
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:37:23 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


To whomever maintains the sci.space FAQ:
 
You may as well drop the listing for the USNO BBS.  I attempted a call
tonight.  What I got on a 1200B connect was a request for a 'modem
password.'  No explanation, no registration info, no nothing.  I'm not
even sure if the USNO is even involved with that phone number posted.

As far as I am concerned, information has no use and should be removed
from the FAQ for that reason.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley)
Subject: Re: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Organization: Harris Computer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:32:32 GMT
	<1992Sep23.214254.3010@digibd.com> <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp>
	<1992Sep28.175027.25554@eng.umd.edu> <28SEP199219445933@judy.uh.edu>
	<1992Sep30.082723.13517@ke4zv.uucp>

>>>>> Regarding Re: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding); gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) adds:

gary> Show us a way to *deliver* the materials of the asteroid to the
gary> Earth's surface in *ready to use* form for less than 109 billion
gary> dollars. Those gold and platinum *estimates* aren't in nice pure
gary> lumps. They're spread throughout that couple of trillion tons of
gary> stainless steel ore. Now we're talking $20 a ton material that will
gary> need hundreds of dollars an ounce worth of processing to get at that
gary> platinum and gold. Makes a big difference.  Don't pull another
gary> dinosaur killer in the process.

Shucks, this is the easy part. You're in outer space, you got your vacuum,
you got your limitless solar power, you got your zero-G environment.  All
you gotta do a setup a few solar mirrors, vaporize the sucker, and run the
vapor through a free floating mega-industrial scale mass spectrometer (you
can get improved mass spectrometer designs from Saddam Hussein).  This gets
the valuable stuff separated out in a pure form, you use the leftover slag
to make ablative heat shields, and just drop precious metal ingots directly
into the parking lots of factories.

You can bootstrap the process by launching virtually any quantity of factory
equipment you might need on an Orion class nuclear pulse propulsion ship,
which can conveniently be powered by all those nasty old left-over atomic
weapons the US and Russia have laying around.

See, I have proven it is possible. Now there are just a few little piddling
details to work out :-).
--
======================================================================
domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com       USMail: Tom Horsley
  uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley               511 Kingbird Circle
                                               Delray Beach, FL  33444
+==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+
|     (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...)               |
+====================================================================+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both? (was Re: Controversy over V-2)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:17:35 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <SHAFER.92Oct4132317@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>It's odd that you'd see it this way--in my circle of acquaintances at
>work, the young are the most rigid and intolerant.  Maybe those of us
>in our forties have succumbed to apathy, but I just don't see the
>burning moral outrage in them that I do in the folks in their twenties...
>Reading the Net tends to reinforce this opinion.

I'm not sure I agree with Mary on this one.  I'd tentatively assume that
most of the net participants are pretty young, given the net's roots in
educational institutions... and on the occasions when I've forcefully
expressed my opinions about those responsible for the Challenger disaster
in particular, the responses have been at least 95% hostile, citing all
manner of reasons why "I vas chust following orders" should be considered
acceptable, or at least excusable, behavior.

Returning somewhat to the original topic, I'd be interested in seeing
details on von Braun's alleged involvement with mistreatment of slave
workers and the like.  As far as I know, and as far as a quick check
of some of the usual historical sources (e.g. Ordway&Sharpe) shows, he
had very little to do with V-2 production, which is where most of the
abuses took place.  An awful lot of people seem to believe that von Braun
was boss of the whole V-2 project and hence responsible for anything
done in its name... but he wasn't.  He was technical head of design and
testing at Peenemuende.  As best I can tell, his primary involvement
with production (apart from constant redesign work because this or that
material was no longer available in production quantities) appears to
have been as a technical consultant when quality problems loomed (which
they did constantly, since the whole process was rushed a bit too much
for consistently good results).  I find no indication that he had any
*authority* over the production effort.  I'd be curious to hear of
specific evidence to the contrary.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:13706 sci.astro:10226 talk.politics.space:1314 alt.politics.bush:7065 alt.politics.clinton:7662
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:59:37 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <26SEP199222073863@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.001600.22606@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>>In article <1992Sep23.184518.25122@medtron.medtronic.com> rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes:
>> 
>>>Like it or not, the two main technology drivers for the
>>>last 5 decades have been first the military and then the space program.
>> 
>>Whether we like it or not, it's probably not true.  Most of the patents,
>>and most of the important inventions like transistors and genetic
>>engineering, have come outside the sphere of these programs.

>4. Fusion.  Still the best long term solution to both terrestrial energy 
>needs and intra-solar system propulsion systems.  No failures in the technology
>just failure of will in Congress to fund this needed technology.

The government has spent many times the amount that is required to 
develop fusion energy.  The problem is NOT the amount of money spent.  
It is that the work takes place in National Labs, is run by DoE Headquarters,
and it is not funded to the private sector on a cost sharing basis. 

The tokamak (inverts pressure leverage) for example, was invented in 
the 1963 and isn't promised by most before 2040 .. and that's not for 
a "working commercial plant".  Imagine the tremendous boost a machine 
like that would give the space program.  (The SPACE is needed for buildings
to house the support equipment to bring a tokamak into operation).  

+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 09/25/92 (Launch Day)
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL, KSC
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:51:28 GMT

I've been following all the detail in the run-up to this since about
June. You guys have persevered through a lot of bad luck, even without
to mention the hurricane coming through, but you fought it all and got
the job done anyway. Well done! And thanks for all the reports.

Best of luck now getting it to Mars.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Organization: UDSI
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:59:08 GMT

In article <Bv0459.CAG@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>The Titan IIs are in storage, earmarked for refurbishing as (military)
>launchers.  I believe the combination of treaty limits on methods of
>disposal and treaty deadlines made it impractical to do much with the
>Pershing 2s, which were in any case a bit small for use as launchers.
>-- 


I realize the pershings were a little small for use as orbital payloads, but how

about as sounding rockets?  they have to be more useful then the scouts
or other light rockets.  i'm sure a number of grad students could have
slapped together light fast hi altitude study  payloads, if they could
have gotten the rides.   Thiokol says they recycled the fuel, but it
would have made more sense to use the birds up.  well, that's my HO.


Newsgroups: sci.space