HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Other life-forms
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:32:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul28.013420.160431
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


>  Hmmm... Both sides have a point. I think it'd be great to leave a planet
>such as Mars alone for the purpose of watching it evolve. But I don't
>think that would be too prudent. That would be like telling everyone
>on earth to go back to Mesopotamia (or whereever, ifever, we all came
>from) so we wouldn't interfere with evolution on the rest of the earth.
>Besides, our presence may just help evolution along. I stress _may_.

This thread has yet to lose that misanthropic assumption that so many
eco-pagans hold:  Man is not-life (or of the Earth - or of the whatever
system that contains life).  This is the result of the idea that man-made
equal unnatural.  But of course, our artifacts are as natural as termite-
mounds and beaver dams.  Otherwise, they would not exist in nature (here).

We have as much right (power) to evolve as any other life-form.  Attempts
to disprove such will always degenerate into the man = non-life argument,
which, of course, is wrong.  Consider:  Our presence -may- help evolution
along.  This value-judgement can never be resolved!  Who will decide?  Only
something not-living can decide, since it won't be part of the process, but
non-living things can't judge!  Computers?  How can they not be a part of
evolution, being an artifact (tool) of an evolving life-form?

Consider this:  We get to mars, and find some bacteria that Viking missed,
and discover it kills plant and animal life.  Is it okay to kill it?
What about small-pox?  Polio?  AIDS.....

Or, if you prefer...is it okay to breed cattle and corn, irrevocobaly
changing thier evolution for all eternity?  And ours?  It think the only
tenable position has to be based on the question:  Will this action be good
for us?  The eco-pagans would do well to learn this question...

-Tommy Mac                     .  "  Malcolm X:      +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .  You've seen the hat,  "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,  *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '  now catch the movie!           *
'-----------------------
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiac
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:06:03 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
-Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
-Date: 27 Jul 92 22:07:16 GMT
-Organization: Unocal Corporation

-No, the calendar stays the same, but the sky changes.
-The yearly calendar until @1950 was defined as the time between extremal
-positions of the sun: furthest north or south of the year etc.
-However, the position of sun with respect to the stars at the extremal point
-moves slightly each year- about the diameter of the moon per 36 years.
-The vernal equinox (spring) now occurs when the Sun is in the constellation
-Aquarius.  During the Roman Empire the sun was one constallation over in Pisces
-during the equinox.
-After 1950 the length of the year is defined in terms of vibrations of cesium
-atoms which are ten million times more stable than the length of a year.

Thanks for the explanation. I would like to add a refinement: It's the
*second* which is defined by atomic vibrations - larger units of time are
roughly defined by number of seconds, but the passage of the larger units of 
time is still subject to celestial motions. You can't say "there are x seconds
in a year, so the instant corresponding to this one 100 years ago was
exactly 100x seconds ago". The Naval Observatory keeps track of the passage
of the sun (and possibly the stars - I'm not sure), so there's no ongoing shift
between local solar noon and noon by the clock. Since the Earth's rate of
rotation is not constant, the clock time has to be adjusted every now and then.
The year is *probably* defined by the background of distant stars, at least
in the long run.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ET's, life in space
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:43:05 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul31.134151.42561@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>Another point of interest. It has LONG been known that the ribosomes  
>are from an ENTIRELY separate evolutionary strain. They don't even  
>use the same genetic code...

I think you mean the mitochondria (and chloroplasts, for plants).
A ribosome is just a handful of molecules, a protein factory.  A
mitochondrion really is a semi-independent organism, with its own
genetics and almost certainly an independent origin.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson)
Subject: Methods for meteor avoidance 
Distribution: world
Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:37:24 +0000


In article <a6cf4fff@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> brendan.woithe@f820.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au writes:

>After the meteor from last year passed withinn 4 minutes of the earth (the
>large one), I was wondering if we have any system of avoiding these 
>large beasts??!! I read that if it hit the earth, millions could have died.
>
>With a problem like this, surely there must be some defence!!!
>

One idea springs to mind if you know the time and direction of impact, get
to the other side of the Earth PDQ!  Or live in a polar climate, the chances
of getting a direct hit should be a bit less, although similarly
catastrophic to a perpendicular strike.

I don't try to lie awake worrying about it though...

Andy.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates     | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk         |
| Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex |        ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk |
| CM9 8UH England.  0621-88756     | Also:  081-800 1708  081-802 4502    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Whales and Dolphins
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:01:27 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <9207280213.AA24733@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>One theory I've heard for a "typical" mass beaching is that one whale
>in a pod (usually a young, inexperienced one) gets confused by the
>echoes in shallow water and runs aground. Its cries of distress upset
>the other whales so much that they fling themselves on the shore, either
>in a vain rescue attempt, or as deliberate suicide. 

>One could perhaps view this as emotion dominating over intellect, or as a
>case of whales having values different from (most) humans.

Oh?  So you've never heard of search parties going out looking
for a lost person, in bad weather, although several people may
die in the attempt?  Especially if the lost person is a child?
Sounds very human to me.

 
Xref: sparky sci.space:10738 news.answers:2239
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ET's, life in space
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:51:51 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <30JUL199214461107@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov> bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert S. Hill) writes:
>Of course, I haven't _proved_ a darned thing, but I think that the 
>`horrendous odds against' argument is pretty shaky.

Or, as has been pointed out before:  many improbable things happen
every day.  Before deciding whether something is likely to happen, you
must know:

	(a) the probability that any single attempt will succeed
		(which is what "horrendous odds against" people focus on)

	(b) how many attempts are being made
		(eventually the coin *will* land heads ten times in a row)

	(c) how many different results you will accept as success
		(it's very improbable that a golfball will land on any
		*particular* tuft of grass, but it has to land *somewhere*)

As an example, the odds are horrendously against your thinking of a
particular distant friend just before you hear from them or receive
important news about them... but in fact there is perhaps one chance
in ten that it will happen to you sometime during an average lifespan,
because there are many chances for it to happen and many ways it
could happen.
-- 
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:10737 news.answers:2238
From: rmartin@yosemite.Rational.COM (Bob Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Propulsion questions
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:44:15 GMT

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

>In article <rmartin.711643766@thor> rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin) writes:

>   What about Arthur C. Clarke's A-Drive.  Blow a small stream of
>   reaction mass past a mini-black hole (A few tons??, the size of a
>   proton??)  Some of the stream is accellerated into the singularity.
>   The frictional heating of its accelleration and accreation is absorbed
>   by the rest of the matter in the stream which then roars out the
>   exhaust nozzle and supplies thrust.

>Problems:

>- if the black hole is small enough to be light (you have to carry it
>  along, you don't want too much mass) it's also small enough to
>  evaporate in a burst of extreme gammas.

clearly you want to make sure that the singularity is massive enough
such that its evaporation rate is slower than its accretion rate.
Does anybody know what the relationships of mass to evaporation rate
is?  I was under the impression that explosive evaporation only took
place when the singularity was very very small, i.e. < 1e6g or so.

>- you still need lots of reaction mass.

You need reaction mass, yes.  The amound depends on the delta V you
need.  For short hops, you only need a little.  For long hauls, you
need more.  And, if you are thinking about interstellar hops, you can
still use the bussard ramscoop to collect hydrogen and blow it past
the singularity.  

Can anybody tell us the efficiency of this with respect to a fusion
drive?

>- it's probably at least as tricky to control as a bottle full of
>  anti-hydrogen.

Maybe.  Remember you can control the charge of a singularity just by
forcing it to swallow some ions.  Also, its mass will give it a
certain amount of inertial stability, i.e. it's not likely to be
bouncing around its container at a decent fraction of C.  Thus, the
control system will have time to marshal it forces and keep the
singularity at bey. 


--
+---Robert C. Martin---+-RRR---CCC-M-----M-| R.C.M. Consulting         |
| rmartin@rational.com |-R--R-C----M-M-M-M-| C++/C/Unix Engineering    |
|     (Uncle Bob.)     |-RRR--C----M--M--M-| OOA/OOD/OOP Training      |
+----------------------+-R--R--CCC-M-----M-| Product Design & Devel.   |
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: E-mail newsletters
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:12:24 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Jul22.171021.2259@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, ewininge@nyx.cs.du.edu (Eric Wininger) writes:

> Are there any newsletters that are disseminated through e-mail relating
> to the topics of astronomy/space science/NASA Headline News. 

I think it worthwhile to point out that a number of mailing lists are 
discussed in the monthly posting of "Frequently Asked Questions." 
Look in the one titled "Subject: Space FAQ 02/15 - Network Resources"
for information about mailing lists.

Lists covered include:

    SPACE Digest 

    Space-investors 

    Space-tech 

    SEDS-L (Students for the Exploration and Development of Space)

    SEDSNEWS 

A quick search through the list of LISTSERV lists on Bitnet turns up some
further candidates:

List name        Address for        Description
                 postings (NOT for
                 subscription
                 requests!
--------         ----------------  ---------------------------------
ASTRO-PL         ASTRO-PL@JPNYITP  Preprint server for Astrophysics
  (What the heck, I'll throw this next one in:)
ASTROL-L         ASTROL-L@BRUFPB   FORUM FOR ASTROLOGICAL DISCUSSION
CANSPACE         CANSPACE@UNBVM1   Canadian Space Geodesy Forum
ISDS             ISDS@UIUCVMD      ISDS Illini Space Development Society List
JCMT-L           JCMT-L@UALTAVM    James Clerk Maxwell Telescope
SPACE            SPACE@FINHUTC     (Peered) SPACE Digest
                 SPACE@TCSVM       (Peered) SPACE Digest
                 SPACE@UBVM        (Peered) SPACE Digest
                 SPACE@UGA         (Peered) SPACE Digest
SPACE-IL         SPACE-IL@TAUNIVM  Israeli Space & Remote Sensing List

To subscribe to any of these, send mail to LISTSERV@node, where "node"
is the Bitnet node in the second column, by your favorite method of
getting mail to Bitnet.   The mail should say "SUB Listname Your_Name"
in the body of the message.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | The restaurant's architect
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | said every effort had been
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | made to build McDonald's
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | 15th outlet in Italy 
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | in harmony with Pompeii.
                                       | --Reuters story in *Chicago 
                                       |  Sun-Times*, 18 June 92
From: brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody )
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiac
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:28:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center

gmcquary@Ingres.COM (George F. McQuary) writes:

>The main question is will the seasons occur in other months of the year than
>currently. The answer is no. The Gregorian year is defined as starting
>exactly ten days after the winter solstice. The current system of leap days is
>a forecast of how to maintain the constant of Dec 21, but would change if
>necessary. (If a large enough metor hit the earth to change the current
>forecasts, however, there would probably be larger problems to deal with than
>resetting the calendar...) As long as the calendar is kept in sync with the
>sun, the rhythm of the seasons will continue to occur at the same time in the
>calendar.

>George F. McQuary 
>"He is mad, bad and dangerous to know." -Lady Caroline Lamb

The point is that while the period of revolution around the sun (year) is
roughly constant, the seasons shift backwards roughly one month every
2000 years due to precession.  You can think of it as the Earth's axis
getting tangent to its orbit (equinox) before a complete revolution (year).
Over 2000 years, the equinox will be at Feb 21 rather than March 21.
Accepting the fact that Pope Gregory corrected for the past 2000 years,
how are we currently accounting for precession in the calendar?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:01:16 GMT

George Hastings writes:

> To make up the VERY small difference due to precession, as well
> as to adjust for the slowing of the Earth's rotation due to
> tidal drag of the oceans (caused by the moon's gravitation),
> from time to time they declare "leap-seconds" there was one
> this year.

Yes, leap seconds are used to correct for irregular rotation, but
they are not used to correct for precession.
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:54:38 GMT
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Originator: stgprao@xing

In article <1992Jul31.040116.3371@news.Hawaii.Edu> tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
>George Hastings writes:
>
>> To make up the VERY small difference due to precession, as well
>> as to adjust for the slowing of the Earth's rotation due to
>> tidal drag of the oceans (caused by the moon's gravitation),
>> from time to time they declare "leap-seconds" there was one
>> this year.
>
>Yes, leap seconds are used to correct for irregular rotation, but
>they are not used to correct for precession.


Precession is a major difference.
The stars shift by 1200 seconds a year due to precession.
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ESA Future
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:04:12 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Jul21.192638.5594@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>Should look up terms like "in kind" aid. And "cheaper facilities." And
>"hypersonic wind tunnels."  And other goodies which could be rented at cost.

This is probably the best bet for cooperation between Russia and the ESA, 
but there is going to be a *very* strong domestic lobby for keeping jobs 
of this nature within the host countries, and not shipping them off to Russia, 
no matter how much money is saved.  If you think U.S. labor interests are
bad, you should look at Europe...
-- 
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their 
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter, 
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu              _The Number of the Beast_
Xref: sparky sci.space:10807 sci.aeronautics:1719
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
Keywords: NASP NLS SSTO Congress money
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:55:34 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Gary Coffman writes:
>
>In article <kays.5@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com> 
kays@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>I heard a rumor the congress is considering canceling NASP, SSTO and a few 

>>other launch systems and dumping most of the money into NLS.  Does anyone 
>>know if there is any truth to this rumor?  
>
>That's what the Clinton platform says anyway.
 
I'm disappointed in Clinton.  I thought he was just a national socialist.
I didn't realize he had gone all the way to being a communist.  

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:45:03 GMT

sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>In article <pgf.711672356@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...

>>_both_ Star Trek series... Hell, if anyone ever starts a terraforming
>>project somewhere, you know some Professional Idiot over in Congress
>>or Parlaiment or the Diet or the Supreme Soviet is going to stand up
>>and say "But how do we know there isn't some life there we can't even
>>begin to imagine, like that episode of Star Trek?"

>No need.  I'll stand up and ask it.  It is such a ridiculous question?

Yes. If we are going to live in fear of constantly wiping out
totally unrecognizable life forms we might as well all give up
and mass suicide now. True, we don't know whether or not Mars
might have lifeforms totally unrecognizable to us which might
be wiped out in a terraforming attempt, but I would consider it
of considerably less possibility than the possibility that (to
bring in another and in my mind better example from science fiction)
every time we spill some whiskey on our towels we sterilize away
a high civilization built up by hundreds of generations of bacteria...

I think we could recognize life if we see it. If for no other reason
than Gaea-like effects.


>Would you want something from a nearby star system to come here and
>accidentally reterraform 

perhaps the word you're looking for here is Kzinform?

>Earth to their liking because they didn't notice
>we were here?  Until we meet a new life form or two from another planet 
>I don't think you can make a convincing case for our ability to know
>them when we see them.

If we won't know them when we see them, then how will we know if
we meet them? Seriously, planetary engineering per se is constrained
by the basic physics of the various surfaces and energy flux on the
surfaces of the worlds under consideration, not to mention the need
for the chemistry to be at least roughly similar. [Translated: I
don't think silicon-based life forms will evolve on a planet that could
be engineered to provide earthlike conditions]. Therefore their life
is likely to be constrained by chemical and physical factors to be
similar to ours and therefore we would be recognizable to them
and vise versa.

Also, you might as well live in fear of the Great Cosmic Hankerchief
as worry about inadvertently wiping out totally unrecognizable and
inconceivable life forms.

>-Scott

>--------------------
>Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
>				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
>				had been definitely settled, I think I would
>				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418
"There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message
"57 channels and nothing on" - Bruce Springsteen
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:39:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul28.113946.79411
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

It seems that antiprotons can live inside matter far longer than was
initially thought. In 1947, Fermi and Teller calculated a 10^-13 seconde
value ( 0.1 picosecond). But from bubble chambers experiments with
negative pions and kaons, it was inferred that the real time could be
100 picoseconds. Now, first at the KEK Japanese laboratory, and then
at CERN, it has been shown that, inside helium at 6 atm. pressure,
4% of the antiprotons live several microseconds. If the helium is
"contaminated" with a small amount of hydrogen (0.04 %) this time is
divided by about 10. Many questions remain, in particular is this a
specific property of helium.

J. Pharabod

Reference:"Antiprotons refractaires a l'annihilation", Courrier CERN,
June 1992.
Xref: sparky sci.space:11009 news.groups:16236 sci.astro:8505