HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: derek.wee@f820.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Derek Wee)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ETs and Radio
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:10:00 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au


  Granted that Alien LGMs have the apparatus to detect radio waves......

  Radio transmissions started in the early part of this century. So we've
had
radio waves going everywhere and, especially into outer space at lightspeed 
for at least seventy years.
  Indeed, I see it that in a sphere of seventy lightyears radius, any 
intelligent life form either isn't advanced enough or won't receive radio.
Or
they don't want to speak to us. Or our early radio messages just got to them
 and they're just broadcasting back.

 Even so, leaving 5 years for time to think up of a message, we should have 
received messages from stars within a 30 lightyear radius.

If extraterrestrial intelligence exists, then they must not be very popular 
with God, although some say that intelligence will almost certainly be 
developed by some lifeforms, who will use their sentience as their defense
and  weapon, so it is inevitable that a planet that can support life will
soon have  an intelligent species.

Anyone have any good arguments FOR the existence of extraterrestrial 
intelligence?

---
 * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either. (3:680/820)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Mark Bixby)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: still thrilled by a manned space shot
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:27:01 GMT
Organization: Coast Community College District, Costa Mesa, CA

You're not the only one who's still thrilled.  Every shuttle launch outside of
working hours is eagerly watched on CNN by my wife & I.
-- 
Mark Bixby                         Internet: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu
Coast Community College District   1370 Adams Avenue
District Information Services      Costa Mesa, CA, USA  92626
Technical Support                  (714) 432-5064
"You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M)
From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: still thrilled by a manned space shot
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:49:38 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Jul31.192103.18668@unocal.com> stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:

>I don't know if anyone else feels the same way,
>but I find the space shuttle missions this summer to be more
>interesting than the Olymnpics and presidential conventions.
>I still get a thrill when I see a manned spacecraft and takeoff
>even though I've been watching them for 30 years.

Yeah, I feel the same way (despite my reservations about the shuttle
program).  On the other hand, it's amazing how blase' the natives here
are about these launches...

A (paraphrased) conversation from this morning:

KSC-area Native: "You know, the shuttle's going up in about ten minutes."

Me:	"Yeah, I was just about to head outside to watch the launch.
	Are you coming?"

Him: 	"Nah, I'm in the middle of doing some work..."

Oh well...  I suppose you get used to anything.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				Robotics Applications Development
					Boeing Aerospace Operations
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Kennedy Space Center
_______________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:35:35 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <9207251440.AA15431@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>I think Henry chose about the most negative possible interpretation...

Probably.  A lot of the stuff in that proclamation can be read as Motherhood
And Apple Pie.  However, if Clinton follows Bush's lead and hands major
responsibility for space to his VP, that could be very bad news.  Gore is
big on Mission To Planet Earth and not much else, I'm told.

I particularly do not like the sounds of "well, we can't spend any real
money on re-starting manned exploration, but we promise we'll think about
it often".
From: slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:35:27 GMT
Organization: Naval Satellite Operations Center, Point Mugu, CA, USA

In article <rwallace.711925839@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>Whales are _not_ intelligent in any significant sense of the word. If
>they were, they could prove it in about 30 seconds, by any number of
>means

Why would they want to?  Why would they care?

I have seen a number of posts saying "If whales were intelligent, they would
save themselves from whalers."  This is silly and hypocritical coming from
humans, who kill each other.  Often.  En masse.

--
  Shari L Brooks                   |   slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   shari@caspar.nosc.mil
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |   
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) 
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:04:22 GMT

In article <LNweoB1w164w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> me@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Michael Ellis) writes:
>
>I wouldn't want to be too terribly near to a Shuttle launch either. Or a
>smoking gas station attendant for that matter.
>
>No one is talking about dropping an anti-iron connonball onto a city. 
>Nor would all this antimatter and matter be combined all at once. 
>Payloads of men and equipment can only take so many G's. However, I 
>suppose a launchpad explosion would be a particularly nasty thing.
>
>Can anyone say whether an antimatter fueled launch vehicle accident would 
>be worse, the same, or perhaps less (no need to lift all that 
>heavy fuel) than a conventionally fueled rocket? 

	Given that one can mix the antimatter-reaction mass ratio to get
the Vexhaust one wants, the dangers of standing in the vicinity of the
exhaust of an antimatter powered ship could be *identical* to that of
standing inthe vicinity of a conventional ship.

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dpage@ra.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:09:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.144955.4105@unocal.com>, stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:
|> In article <25077@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
|> >The original question was not answered. Where did the month go? We lost
|> >12 days when we converted from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 
|> >1752 (cal sep 1752) and two century years 1800 and 1900 did not have
|> >a leap day. That makes 14 or half a month.

But don't forget that the Romans "moved" the first of the year from March to
January for religious/family reasons which had nothing whatsoever to do with
precession, variations in earth's orbit or rotation, or any other
astronomical justification.  Remember, OCTober was formerly the 8th month and
DECember was the 10th.

dp

########## The opinions above are not those of my employeer . . . ###########
########## or any other sane person, for that matter.             ###########
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Delta
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:09:49 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <28JUL199220442331@judy.uh.edu> st17a@judy.uh.edu (University Space Society) writes:
>....engines and tanks sure look independant to me. There are 8 tanks, 
>eight engines, eight sets of propulsion plumbing...

Sorry, Dennis, there were *nine* tanks:  a Jupiter-diameter tank in the
middle and eight Redstone-diameter tanks around it.  All were lengthened
from the originals.  None had horizontal partitions -- the central tank
and four of the outside ones carried LOX, the remaining four outside
tanks kerosene.  The two sets of four outside tanks were slightly
different, because the LOX tanks carried all the structural loads
while the fuel tanks had slip joints at their upper ends to accommodate
the thermal contraction of the LOX tanks.  Each fuel tank nominally
fed two engines, and the central LOX tank fed the outboard LOX tanks,
which in turn each fed two engines... but there *was* an interconnection
network to maintain vehicle balance in case one set of engines was a
bit thirstier than another.  The eight engines were not precisely
identical either, because only the outer four were gimballed, and
details like disposal of turbopump gases differed.

Ref:  Stages to Saturn, NASA SP-4206.
-- 
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: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Originas of life (was ET's)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:19:24 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci


>>They wouldn't even have to self-replicate, just affect each other.
>>If one set of reactions happened to get into some kind of positive
>>feedback....

>Why would they not have to self-replicate? If positive feedback was
>sufficient, then a hydrogen flame should be the first life form. (And
>remember, we not only need self-replication, we need non-trivial
>self-replication.)

I was thinking more along the lines of RNA group 1 leads to the creation
of group2...it, in turn with group 3,4,5...N creates group 1 again.
Sort of an "I'll make you if you make me" kind of deal.

And I've still seen no definition of non-trivial, unless you mean
'using DNA', which I would call, instead, 'DNA-centric'.

>>Check out 'protien spheres' in some biology book, BTW.  It's not
>>that unusual for non-life to mimic life.

>So what? We need actual life, not something that just mimics it. And
>mimic is exactly all that those protein spheres do, given that they
>don't have any equivalent of genetic information.

Well, ok, protien spheres only mimic life.  But, if protien spheres mimic
cell membranes, and RNA replicators 'mimic' enzymes and tRNA, well, how
many things need to be shown that 'mimic' life before you'll be satisfied
that it IS life, or at least may be part of the origin of life?

Maybe you'll prefer a different way of thinking 'statistically'.  What's
more improbable...that some configuration or system of amino acids/rna/etc
began self-replicating enough to 'evolve'...or that all these things just,
'by chance', mimic life-processes, but have nothing at all to do with the
origin of life?  I choose the latter.

-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: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: History of black holes (was Re: Relativity in science fiction)
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:25:54 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <9207250444.AA14607@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
[in speaking of Doc Smith and the Lensman series]
> I've wondered about the chronology of the "negaspheres" (first appearing
> in the series in 1951, and apparently equivalent to antimatter black
> holes) and the development of theories on black holes. When did serious
> theorization on black holes come along?

Laplace figured out (about 1780?) that if escape velocity for a body
was the speed of light, it might be invisible.  Set GM/R = .5*(c**2)
and you can find the radius of a "classical" black hole of a given
mass.  I heard somewhere that this is incorrect but the right order of
magnitude for a relativistic BH.  But it's been a long time since I
had anything to do with black holes, so check with an expert.

J.R. Oppenheimer, working with somebody else who has slipped my mind,
published some work on "modern" black holes in the mid-1930s.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: How Much Nothing for Antimatter? (was Re: Propulsion questions)
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:21:28 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <4184@astroatc.UUCP>, ott@astroatc.UUCP (Michael Ott) writes:
> 
> Just exactly how do you store antimatter?  I would think perhaps magnetically
> suspended in a vaccuum, but can "vaccuum-enough" vaccuums be created?

Sure.  Here we store antiprotons by circulating them in a synchroton
ring called the Antiproton Accumulator.  The vacuum there is 1E-10
torr.  I presume this is comparable to the similar facility at CERN.
The beam lifetime in such a vacuum is of order weeks, I think.

We put them to work by injecting them counterclockwise into the
Tevatron, our superconducting synchrotron.  There the vacuum is
somewhat worse, typically 1E-9 torr.  (The walls of the beampipe are
at 4.5K, so they act as cryopumps, which helps, but there are six
kilometers of pipe with thousands of places for potential leaks.) The
Accumulator works at 6 GeV beam energy, the Tevatron between 150 and
900 GeV.  

Another method for storing p-bars in small numbers is in the traps
used by Gerald Gabrielse and collaborators at the University of
Washington.  I don't know what their vacuum is, but it must be good; 
they once kept a single electron trapped for ten months.  Hans Dehmelt
received a Nobel Prize in physics for developing this technique, and I
imagine you could find details in his prize speech, published a few
years ago in *Reviews of Modern Physics*.  Or dig up papers by
Gabrielse.

There have been one or two books on antimatter experiments, sources,
and storage.  The pop version, as we've already mentioned in this
thread, is *Mirror Matter* by Bob Forward and Joel Davis.  Uh-oh,
our library's node seems to be down so I can't fetch you any more
technical titles.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "I'm gonna keep on writing
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | songs until I write the song
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | Detroit who make the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: If the sun went out...
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:27:26 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
-Subject: Re: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
-Date: 20 Jul 92 19:31:16 GMT
-Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

-A first approximation could be to look at the cooling rate when the sun is  
-turned off each night.  If the air is clear, this is typically 10-15 C.  With  
-heavy overcast it's 5 C.  If 0 happens to be in the range, you can deduct about  
-4-6 degrees from that range due to latent heat effects.  

-Using those two as bounds, it would take 3-5 weeks before atmospheric gasses  
-started to liquify.  However, most of the civilized world would stop in a week. 
Radiative heat loss is roughly a function of the fourth power of absolute
temperature. So as the temperature went down, the rate of cooling would
also decrease.

Also, the oceans contain a tremendous amount of heat, which would take a long
time to dissipate (even before freezing).

If the cooling leads to a change in the albedo, this would also affect heat
loss (the higher the albedo, the slower the loss).

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Xref: sparky sci.space:10789 sci.aeronautics:1713
From: kays@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
Subject: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
Summary: Is Congress cancelling NASP, SSTO, & a few other launch systems in favor NLS
Keywords: NASP NLS SSTO Congress money
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:13:23 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Santa Cruz, CA.

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?  

I also heard the NLS is spinning its wheels and wasting time and money.

Laters,                NO
Randy                  SIG
Laters,
Randy
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:13:24 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

The original question was not answered. Where did the month go? We lost
12 days when we converted from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 
1752 (cal sep 1752) and two century years 1800 and 1900 did not have
a leap day. That makes 14 or half a month.

-- 
 __________________________________________________________________________   
|wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.com|    "Another Case of too many scientists and     |
|Bruce Watson            |     not enough hunchbacks." -- Gary Larson      |
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:15:29 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Jul29.182610.3431@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <64612@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>I really will be surprised, though, if we end up using Soyuz.  It's a neat
>>idea on paper, but I think the number of technical problems that need to be
>>overcome will outweigh any savings from using already-existing hardware.
>
>Huh? What already existing hardware for assured crew return? Since NASA is

The 'already existing hardware' is the Soyuz; I was trying to say that the 
cost savings from using a currently-existing vehicle (Soyuz) will likely
be eaten up by the cost of converting and certifying it for duty, so we
won't really be saving that much.

>Plus I can see cases where they want to send up one or two specialists without
>blowing a full shuttle flight.

If they can launch people to a 28.5 degree orbit from Russia, that would be a 
good use.  I can see us sending a couple of people over to Russia for a 
quick trip up.  We'd need a docking adapter, but no big deal.
-- 
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_
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Propulsion questions
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:21:17 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
-Subject: Re: Propulsion questions
-Date: 22 Jul 92 21:35:23 GMT
-Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

-[Black hole drive]

-Penrose mechanism. Can't remember actual number but you recover
-about 30% of rest mass energy. Main problem is that minimum stable
-mass is uncomfortably heavy - particularly if you want a primordial
-black hole that's been around a Hubble time - that's if Hawking's
-right. 
-	Of course if he is, and you can _create_ a  m < m_HubbleBH
-black hole you recover almost 100% of the rest mass as it evaporates
-;-)

Though maybe a little quicker than you'd like. :-)

Interesting system - you have to keep feeding it, whether you need the
drive or not, or it keeps heating up until it blows your ship to
smithereens. :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: first man on moon date and time
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:40:01 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <92205.131754MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET- MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET (Mike M. Skala) writes:
-In article <pgf.711774166@srl03.cacs.usl.edu-, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G.
-Fraering) says:
--
--Everyone should know the date: July 20, 1969.
--
-
-Of course everyone knows the right date: 21.7.1969 02:56 GMT
-
-mike :)
-
-And I still have the 8mm my father took from the TV Screen !

Neat! We were using still cameras.

-- 
 __________________________________________________________________________   
|wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.com|    "Another Case of too many scientists and     |
|Bruce Watson            |     not enough hunchbacks." -- Gary Larson      |