HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Friday, 2 Oct 1992 15:34:52 CET
From: <MKHAN@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject:    Odyssey system for cellular phone comms

In a recent issue of AW&ST there was an ad by TRW for a cellular
phone system using nine satellites in 3 "medium" orbits. This system is
called Odyssey. The way the ad was worded gave me the impression that
the system is already up and running, although I can't remember
hearing about the satellites being deployed. Can anyone provide me with
some more information on this? Would Odyssey not nip the chances of the
Motorola "Iridium" system in the bud?
     Michael
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: BLACK HOLES
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:05:58 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalc.fnal.gov

In article <1992Oct5.051549.1528@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, umwu0014@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Bo Wu) writes:
> In <2523.2ACF3744@catpe.alt.za> Sasha.Degner@f5.n7103.z5.fidonet.org (Sasha Degner) writes:
>> 
>>1) What exactly are black holes?
>>2) Is there any truth in the theory that they may be created by alien
>>life forms?
>>3) Is there a black hole close to our galaxy?
> 
> 	I suggest you to read the book "A Brief History of Time" by
> Stephen Hawking. An excellent book that tells you just about anything a
> normal person would want to know about black holes and the Universe.

I haven't read this book, but I doubt it provides a direct answer to
question number 2.  

Higgins steps in where Hawking fears to tread:

Sasha, the answer is "No."

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !)
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:20:46 GMT

Ian Taylor writes:

>> Of course Toutatis  
>> is NOT coming in randomly, and even for its chaotic orbit we know the  
>> position well enough to say that over the next few encounters it will not  
>> be hitting and after that its encounters are not so close.

> As you know Toutatis's position _well enough_, perhaps you or someone else can
> answer Bill Higgins previous question about what the error is in its predicted
> position at Earth "encounter"?

Less than 0.05 Earth radii.  How much less depends on just how much astrometry
had been obtained so far this opposition.  A new orbit solution hasn't been
done yet (or at least not published yet).
From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Wealth in Space
Date: 3 Oct 92 05:19:48 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


Paul Dietz writes:

\HOWEVER: for fundamental reasons (having to do with space charge
/limits on currents) the throughput of a conventional mass spectrometer
\is miniscule (think: if it were not, anyone could enrich uranium on
/the scale of a lab bench).  In any case, the energy required to
\vaporize an asteroid would be immense, hand waving about mirrors
/notwithstanding.  The idea is basically stupid.

I was thinking, though, along with others, that you could quite easily
make the mass spectrometer really large as in "space is big"
large.

Anyone have any comments on large flimsy structure mass spectrometers?


-- 
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
---------------------
Disclaimer: Some reasonably forseeable events may exceed this
message's capability to protect from severe injury, death, widespread
disaster, astronomically significant volumes of space approaching a
state of markedly increaced entropy, or taxes.
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:14:09 GMT

  It is my understanding that the LP does support withdrawl from the UN.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ipolyi@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Harold H. Ipolyi 713-486-6444)
Subject: Re: Blue Danube
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:19:34 GMT

In article <msrMr*Oi6@deepthot.cary.nc.us>, jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) writes:
|> If its 100 years, its forever.  We'll run out of enough energy to put the
|> first SPS up if we don't start much sooner than that.

No problem. Our one remaining land-fill will be tall enough so we can just winch it up :)

Of course if you mean oil by "energy", then remember that other Nations are not as
finicky about nuclear power as we are, so in 100 years we'll still be buying
foreign energy, only a different kind :(
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:35:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvAtI4.EMG.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

>> 3.  Synfuels.  Jimmy Carter's idea to destroy mountains in the west for 

>> shale oil.  Would have been so toxic to the environment that even the
>> oil companies did not want to deal with it.  Bad idea pushed by so called 

>> environmentalist President (can you name his latter day descendant?) Of  
Gore
>> you can.
> 

> Synfuels failed because the price of oil dropped, not because
> environmentalists complained.  Oil companies were leery of oil shale
> development because they could make no money on it.
> 


Actually, you are both wrong! Oil shale development is quietly going on under  
PRIVATE financing. One of the largest ventures is in Australia and has  
Australian, Japanese, USAnian and other corporate funding behind it.

They are building a prototype plant soon and will eventually scale up to full  
production.

The synfuels program of Carter was unneeded and was a completely political  
beast intended only to answer the question: "The electorate is upset about oil  
prices going up. What can we do right now that will make it look like we are  
doing something about it?"

The oil shale venture in Australia has been going for about 15 years now (I've  
been holding a small amount of stock in it for nearly that long). Talk about  
long term thinking? The business plan extends about halfway into the next  
century. So much for corporate shortsightedness...

The venture is a matter of advance planning by oil and mining ventures. When  
the quantity of oil out of self pumping holes in the ground inevitably  
declines and it's price inevitably climbs, the production capacity for oil  
shale will already be coming on line. No fanfare, no publicity. Millions if  
not hundreds of millions in private investment... 


Yes, there is some government research involved. But this is primarily  
commercial, which is my point.

As Nick says, when there is a way to make money in space, the private money  
will be there, and the long term planning will be there.

If anyone is REALLY excited about this, I could pull some numbers and other  
info off their quarterly report.
From: Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:25:19 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: MDSSC-Space Station

I'm not sure...but it seems that Allan doesnt support the notion of
telerobotic exploration....consider this...
If the location can be scanned with enough detail,..then the data
transmitted back to Earth.... a vitual simulation can be constructed
Earthside.  Use of telerobotic interfaces using a form of batch commanding
can be feasible...  Earthside builds the batched commands using the virual
simulation then transmits...  The scan is performed again after the
completion of the commands as feedback again to the virtual simulation
Earthside....
The technical challenges include the scanning device, the throughput for
the scanned data back to Earth and the simulation Earthside....all are
easily solved...

Andy

This is my opinion....not MDSSC's!
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Storage space on craft
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:45:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvD622.80s.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


>5E5 bits is only 64k, I can't believe that. 5e8 is more plausible, but
>at 64 megs might be more than they'd put in (me, I'd go for a gigabyte
>:->).  Maybe 5e5 bytes (512k??)

512k for holding images?  Seems pretty small.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Clinto and Space Funding
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:50:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.152202.28388@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
>
>Let's be careful how we define "technology".  Did the Japanese invent TV,
>the automobile, VCRs, transistors, ICs, radio, computers,
>microprocessors, microcomputers, microwave ovens, telephones, or even the
>quality programs that they implement?  No, they did not!  Do they have a
>technological edge in producing the products listed?  Yes, they do!  The
>Japanese understand what the customer wants and then make it for them.  Are
>they inovative?  Yes, but primarily in the areas of manufacturing and quality.

Very good points.  When talk about government R&D in support of
business, we often have very wrong ideas of what form that R&D should
take.  It's the basic engineering technologies -- making things
stronger, tougher, lighter, easier to make, and making the machine
tools more functional and automated -- that make the most difference.
Unfortuneately, government programs are almost never measured against
these basic engineering goals, even when done in the name of
engineering.  Instead, government tries to out-guess the market on
what the next big business will be (fusion, fiber, space manufacturing,
etc.) and inevitably fails in doing so.

>The problem in the US is that if a company gambles on a new technology and
>loses, it can put a major dent in that company's financial condition (if not
>break it).

The same is true in Japan.  That's why we have hi-tech mutual funds,
etc. to spread the risk, and why we need to stop taxing R&D.

>..Japan and Germany support
>civilian R&D programs.  

Japan and Germany spend much less on public R&D than the U.S.  Many more
of their engineers and scientists are in the private sector, working on
stuff that people want and are easy to make, instead of dramatic
goals that bear little relation to human needs or ways to meet
them.

>...The advantage that Japan has is that the government underwrites
>gambles on technology and, thus, encourages long term thinking.  

This is false.  Neither Sony nor Honda, the two most successful Japanese
companies in the U.S., got government support; in fact they got significant
opposition since they were post-WWII start-ups, not part of the
traditional keiretsu.  Even the keiretsu only get marginal, incompetent
support from the government, eg the Fifth Generation Project, which 
joins the many U.S. public-sector civilian failures (Clinch River, fusion,
synfuels, etc.) on the trash-heap of history.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space platforms (political, not physical :-)
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:19:26 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

In article <BvEGG3.KCA.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk  
writes:
> > Intersting.  Our society is now freer than at any time in our
> > history.  Books that could not have been published 50 years ago
> > are published.  People can say or do things in public that would
> > 
> 
> 
> Can you spell... W a r  O n  D r u g s?
> 
> How about the simple freedom to live on one's own property and do  
as  
> one pleases. (ie, let the grass grow wild if you want, outlawed in  
> some communities; water it on Sunday, outlawed in some parts of  
> Germany I believe...)

Note that I said "freer" meaning "more free" than it was 150 years
ago.   Yes, there are still some restrictions on what you can
do, even on your own property.  Sometimes there are good reasons
for this.  If my neighbor begins dumping old cars and refrigerators
in his front yard, my property value goes down, the neighborhood
becomes less liveable, etc.  Since his actions affect those
around him, he can't be 100% free.

> 
> How about the freedom of contract between consenting adults?

What specifically are you refering to.  I know that in some
circles minimum wage laws are considered a violation of this
freedom (and a conservative supreme court once struck such
laws down on this basis).

> 
> I see some brilliant ideas of Paine, Jefferson and Franklin that  
were  
> quickly co-opted by Madison and others with more Statist leanings.  
> And not to mention that the seeds of conflict were sown from the  
> first day by failing to apply that Bill of Rights equally to all,  
> regardless of sex or race. If not for that mistake the USA might  
very  
> well still be something close to laissez faire.

Perhaps you should go back and read more about Madison. Madison
was heavily influenced by Jefferson. Where they differed tended
to be more that Madison was more practical.

As for Jefferson, he sometimes had very statist leanings. Look 
at the Burr trial. Or look at some of the laws Jefferson 
used while governor of Virginia (very similar to John Adams'
infamous Alien and Sedition Acts).


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: maguire@copland.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin Maguire)
Subject: Re: Clinto and Space Funding
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:18:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.181808.15779@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary
Coffman) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Sep29.110902.9094@vax.oxford.ac.uk> clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> >
> >I would suggest one area that need serious consideration are lung cancer
> >subsidies (ie. the money given to the tobacco producers which goes to subsidise
> 
> I can't let this old chestnut pass. Tobacco is the *one* agricultural
> product where growers do *not* receive money from the government. It
> is the one program that works because the government limits the amount
> of tobacco a given producer can sell. This keeps supply low enough that
> it sells at a profit. The government does *not* pay a subsidy to the
> farmer. Instead a clerk at the ACS office fills out a permit once a
> year, about 5 minutes of government clerk time goes to each tobacco
> farmer in the district. That's *it*.
> 
	   I can't speak to the issue of whether or not direct cash subsidies are
spent on tobacco crops, or whether or not it's proper for the government to

restrict production to keep prices artificially high.
	   However, it is a fact that the State Dept. applies enormous pressure, 
inlcuding threats of retaliation in other trade areas, to ensure minimum
imports of American cigarettes/tobacco into Southeast Asian countries
despite
the presence of much cheaper local tobacco and serious local government 
anti-smoking campaigns.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Maguire                         No, not THAT Kevin Maguire
maguire@copland.jpl.nasa.gov          I'm a rocket scientist, not an artist
Xref: sparky sci.space:13580 talk.politics.space:1279 alt.politics.marrou:1314 alt.politics.libertarian:328
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:29:29 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <Sep21.160859.25053@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> wendt@CS.ColoState.EDU (alan l wendt) writes:
>From: wendt@CS.ColoState.EDU (alan l wendt)
>Subject: Re: Space Platforms (political, not physical :-)
>Date: 21 Sep 92 16:08:59 GMT

>In article <1992Sep16.054900.17022@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>
>>From memory, the Libertarian platform has two signficant statements on space:
>>
>>* Disband NASA, turning over science to the universities, R&D
>>  operations to commerce, and anything the military needs to the
>>  military.
>>

>In the back of their recent "Fallen Angels", Larry Niven & Co. argue that
>the cargo-carrying capacity of the shuttle could be achieved for about 1%
>of its current cost.   More specifically, in terms of # of employees per
>aircraft:

>        Commercial carriers:        135
>        R71B (Blackbird):            40
>        NASA Shuttle support ops:  5000

>They further claim that the fuel cost of low-earth orbit is about the same
>as that of North America to Australia.   100 miles vertical instead of
>2000 horizontal.  Sounds reasonable to me but they've done more study than I.

>Alan Wendt

Does the libertarian party support US withdrawl from the UN?
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Switching ALSEP back on (was Re: another sad anniversary)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:12:08 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalc.fnal.gov

In article <BvMqJ2.Dx@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1689@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>>Is there any way to turn ALSEP back on once we get the ground station
>>set up properly?  Or was it a no-return type of prodedure?
> 
> Such turnoff procedures are usually irreversible, I believe, to minimize
> the chances of dying hardware later reversing them on its own.  I'm not
> sure about ALSEP in particular.
 
Oh, I don't know. Armed with a soldering iron, a wiring diagram, and a
space suit, I imagine you'd find it pretty easy.

> In any event, I suspect that the ALSEP RTGs have long since passed the
> point where they no longer supply enough power to keep things running.
> Limits were being felt there at the time of turnoff.

Was it a plutonium-238 RTG?  238Pu has a half-life of 86 years, but
available power from RTGs seems to drop off at a faster rate than
that, for reasons that aren't clear to me. 

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: stan@dixie.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Disney's Man in Space
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:30:59 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:

>...article deleted for brevity....

>I went down to Johnson a few weeks ago.  In one of the exhibit
>rooms, several monitors were showing the Disney film.  Surrounding
>it was an exhibit of sketches and artwork done for the film.
>Wonderful stuff.

   I Believe that these same films (or excerpts from them) are also
   shown continuosly at the US Space and Rocket center at Huntsville
   Ala.


>--
>In the midst of the word he was trying to say,|McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com
>     In the midst of his laughter and glee,   |Me, speak for Compaq?  
>He had softly and suddenly vanished away---   |Yeah, right.
>     For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see.   |#include <stddisclaimer.h>
-- 
Stan Brown					    Electric Systems Inc.
Home (404) 299-2225				Atalanta Ga. (USA)
Home (615) 894-5781				Chattoonaga TN (USA)
Work (615) 899-1714				stan@dixie.com
dixie.com = Public Access UNIX in Georgia
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:42:11 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <6797@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.115950.29032@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary  
>Coffman) writes:
>> 
>> Well, we haven't visited Mercury or Pluto *yet*. 
>
>Didn't one of the Mariner probes flyby Mercury?  

Yes, Mariner 10 did three flybys which is as good or better than
anything we've done in the outer solar system. We haven't orbited
or landed any probes however.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: TWICK@corral.uwyo.edu (Tony Wickersham)
Subject: what use is Fred?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:52:49 GMT

>> the area in skylab where the crew exercise equipment was.....
>> With  all the hatches open, within the US areas alone, the crew
>> will be able to  have great frisbee games or races....if they
>> had the time.....

> If any of them went to CMU when I did, they are
> great hall frisbee  "football" players. You'd be amazed at the
> ricochet's you can get. I  hope the switches and screens are cut
> out for it :-)

As many of you will doubtlessly recall, a frisbee is an aerodynamic
*lifting* body, generally modelled on the cross-sectional shape of
an airplane wing.

A frisbee that is thrown in SSF's "halls" will immediately ascend
to the "ceiling".  Needless to say, old frisbee players will have
to learn a few new tricks, if they intend to play aboard the
station. :-)
---
** Tony Wickersham         Programmer   American Heritage Center **
** twick@corral.uwyo.edu                Laramie WY  USA          **

Newsgroups: sci.space