HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dominop@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Philippos A. Peleties)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ESA Future
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:14:53 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <63998@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.160023.20724@en.ecn.purdue.edu> dominop@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Philippos A. Peleties) writes:
>>In article <63941@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>The point is this: ex-Soviet (Russian/Ukranian) technology most likely
>>will be used in some rather substantial capacity and some combination
>>of the above countries will become ESA members whether they are geographically
>>located in Europe or not.
>
>>It makes sense economically, politically and any other way there is to
>>measure things.
>
>I think the real point here is that you completely ignored what I wrote and
>simply poted what you would *like* to see.  
>
>In principle, it would be good for the former Soviet states to cooperate 
>with the ESA and contribute their storehouse of experience and knowhow.
>
>In practice, it's extremely unlikely.  Funding for the ESA comes from contri-
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I admire your confidence ;-) Am I the only one to be accused for wishful
thinking? :-)
     
>butions by the member nations, and there is no way the ex-Soviet states can 
>afford it.  The only way they could even consider it is if they completely 
>scrapped their current space program and subordinate themselves to the ESA, 
>which is unlikely, to say the least.  

Yes, I'm aware of the funding mechanism inside ESA. And, yes, the ex-Soviet
states will not contribute money, but it's not money that ESA want's them
to contribute anyway. The most likely short-term arrangement they will
have for the time being is ESA putting the money and ex-Soviets putting the
knowhow and facilities as you so nicely put it. It is still a cost-effective
measure for ESA. The long-term arrangement will most likely be that of a
member state. There's nothing new here.

>
>I think what we are going to see happen is a fairly signifigant scaleback in 
>Russian space activity for several years, followed by a gradual resumption to 
>former levels around the turn of the century, when their economy starts to 
>function again.  As for the ESA, God only knows what is going to happen to 
>them...probably bicker themselves to death.
>

Don't count on it. Standard politics in Europe. There will be a period of
minimal expenditure since Germany politically cannot afford not to scale back
as far as ESA funding is concerned... which points even more to the above
mentioned short and long-term approach.


>-- 
>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_

Philip Peleties


-- 


I speak for myself, I think for myself, I work for myself ... but I don't want
to play by myself ... so bring your toys and let's share ...
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Visual acuity in microgravity
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:07:07 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
-Subject: Re: Visual acuity for MS
-Date: 21 Jul 92 22:49:05 GMT
-Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA

-As a side note, even astronauts with perfect vision (on Earth)
-usually wear contact lenses on orbit because the shape of the
-eyeball changes when there is no gravity to distort it.

A person who follows such things more closely than I do has told me that
wearing contacts in space is fairly unusual, because of the trouble handling 
them in microgravity. One person on STS-50 did wear contacts, and they made a
point of showing him cleaning them and putting them in on the video downlink,
as though that were something fairly unusual.

Many of the astronauts wear glasses while in orbit. There are ongoing tests
of changes in visual acuity in microgravity, but I don't know whether anything
definitive has been found yet. I think the current theory is that fluid
shift may have some influence on the shape of the eyeball, rather than direct
gravitational distortion.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: U.S. Black Programs
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:16:34 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

J. Pharabod writes:
: Since last January, I try to get more information about a strange
: aircraft (probably an airship) which has been seen near U.S. Air Force
: bases in California and/or Nevada. The point is that this craft looks
: like the "UFO(s)" which thousands Belgian (and a few Dutch) citizens
: claim to have seen since November 1989. The description of this U.S.
: secret craft can be found in Popular Mechanics (not an UFO review!),
: December 1991, in the article "America's New Secret Aircraft":
: ''[...]
:   The big wing.
:   Meanwhile, several Antelope Valley residents say they've seen a
:   craft that simply strains credulity.
	[rest deleted]
Please would you indicate the location of this "Antelope Valley"
location?
		Andrew Palfreyman
Xref: sparky sci.space:10740 news.answers:2241
From: slb@suned1.nswses.navy.MIL (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Keywords: hahaha
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:44:16 GMT
Reply-To: slb@suned1.UUCP (Shari L Brooks)
Organization: Naval Satellite Operations Center, Point Mugu, CA, USA

In article <1992Jul20.182848.28666@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu 
(Thomas Clarke) writes, in a serious manner:

>It should be possible to chemically
>contain an antiproton in the form of an antiproton salt.

[...description of how to do this, chemically, deleted...]

>The obvious name for an antiproton salt it dilithium :-)

...which is why, of course, in ST it is always referred to as 
dilithium *crystals*  :)

-- 
  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: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Summary: A sign of lack of intelligence?  One has to wonder...
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:05:33 GMT

In article <9207251435.AA15413@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>Whales clearly lack some of the intellectual capabilities of humans (for
>instance, humans don't appear to be prone to mass beachings).

Then what do you call the migrations to Ft. Lauderdale, Miami,
California, Hawaii, etc. whenever the weather is nice?  ;-)

Seriously, humans have had mass suicides (Jonestown), institutionalized
mass murder (Germany under Hitler, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Ukraine under
Stalin, to name a few from this century), cults of self-genocide (the
Shakers), and other incidents of doing in large numbers of ourselves.
If the whale beachings are cetacian seppuku, then it's not clear that
they are any less intelligent than we are, just *different* (not too
surprising).  If it's accident, then it's not clear that their sonar
and limited sight (accidents of evolution) are not more to blame than
any lack of brainpower.

>It would be
>interesting to find out what capabilities they do have, for instance in the
>area of abstract reasoning.

Indeed it would.  The results would be enlightening regardless of
what they were, so long as they were well-grounded.
-- 
Russ Cage   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:43:54 GMT

In article <13775@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>That only proves that they don't possess both human intelligence _and_ human
>thought patterns (motivations, philosophies, etc).  It is not sufficient proof
>that they are not intelligent.  I don't believe that human motivations are the
>only ones intelligent beings can possess.
>
>Imagine that whales have intelligence at our level, and they all share a common
>religion.  This religion states that life is a temporary phase on the way to
>something better, and that dying is nothing to be concerned about.  That
>religion might also state (through an interpretation of the "Dead Sea Song")
>that revealing to any non-whale beings that whales are intelligent is a
>terrible sin which would send that whale to eternal agony.

But as pointed out, this could also "explain" how intelligent chairs let
people sit on them and push them around.

If the concept of "proof" is to have any meaning at all, the proof that
whales don't have greater-than-animal intelligence is similar to the proof that
chairs don't have greater-than-none intelligence.  For all practical purposes,
both of these are proven; the burden of proof is on the person who claims that
they are intelligent, not the one who claims that they're not.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: No markets in space? (was Re: Chemical unit operations in space)
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:01:32 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul19.075544.29047@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.175830.1@fnalc.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>>It's also true that no large increase in astronautical activity will
>>occur unless transportation from Earth decreases considerably. 
>>As this happens, the penalty for bringing equipment or raw materials from
>>Earth will be lower. 
>
>An otherwise fine post, but this statement is a popular misconception.
>The economics of space activity depend on both cost/lb. of transportation 
>and value/lb. of the goods transported (eg comsats).  Value/lb. (eg 
>telephone circuits) has been increasing at a rate several orders of 
>magnitude higher than the decrease in cost/lb.  If that trend continues 
>or accelerates, we will be processing materials in space long before 
>launch cost/lb. comes down significantly.
>
>Of course, those who insist on thinking _only_ in terms of cost/lb.
>will flame me for daring to project a trend.

The flame is for *mis*interpreting a trend. Leaving aside the fact that
there is excess transponder capacity currently in orbit, and the fact
that services are moving back to terrestrial fiber links, the key reason
communications satellites have been successful is that their cost per
pound has been *ZERO* for their product. Information is massless. Using
comsats to project space industrialization trends is bogus because the
product of space industrialization is not massless. The cost per pound
of launching radio waves into space is infinitely small, though the
one time capital cost of the equipment to do so is not.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Originator: stgprao@xing
Keywords: Zodiak
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:07:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.183247.14412@eos.arc.nasa.gov> brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody ) writes:
>I was just reading that the Earth precesses at a period of 26000 yrs.
>This means that over the past 2000 years, we have precessed about
>30 degrees or one month.  If the vernal equinox was in March back then,
>how do we account for the missing (or extra) month in our calendar?
>To reiterate, the vernal equinox is occurring 2000/26000 sooner than when
>it occurred 2000 years ago in a solar system coordinate system.  In another
>2000 years, will spring star in February, or do we account for precession
>somehow in the calendar?


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.
From: brendan.woithe@f820.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Brendan Woithe)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Methods for meteor avoidance
Date: 11 Jul 92 20:30:11 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au

I've just been wondering. . .

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!!!

Anyone know anything about it???

Thanks

Jhagon


... Our galaxy is just a figmant of someones bad imagination!!!
--- Blue Wave/RA v2.10 [NR]
 * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either.
(3:680/820.0)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
Keywords: NASP NLS SSTO Congress money
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:40:11 GMT

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?  

NASP isn't going to survive as a flying program although it may continue
as a materials research program. Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT)
is doing OK for this year but is in serious danger next year.

There does seem to be more interest in NLS in the appropriations committee
although this may reflect a desire to kill SSRT and NASP more than any
desire for NLS.

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

Suprise suprise. There are a number of alternatives which could be had
for far less time and money.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------272 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
Date: 31 Jul 92 11:48:21 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 15957@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (ryan korniloff) writes:
>
>The 5000 volts are induced by the Earth's magnetic field as the spacecraft
>orbits. The same principle in using magnets to enduce a voltage when you 
>pass a magnet through a coil of wire.
>
>
>     -- Ryan Korniloff
>     -- rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu

Thank you, and thanks also to Mr. Dietz and Mr. Cage who E-mailed me more 
involved descriptions that reminded me why I changed my major from Physics to
CS B-).

From the numbers I was sent, (copied from Mr. Cage's E-mail):

#The Earth has a magnetic field.  Around and above the equator,
#it is roughly horizontal, going from north to south.  Its intensity
#is about .5 Gauss, or 5e-5 Tesla.

#The Shuttle orbits the earth roughly horizontally, and even more
#roughly, from west to east.  It moves at about 8000 meters/sec.

#A Tesla is a Weber/m^2, and 1 Weber/sec across a conductor induces
#1 volt.  Each meter of a vertical conductor riding along with the
#Shuttle crosses 5e-5 * 8e3 = 0.4 Wb of flux per second, and has
#an induced voltage of about 0.4 volts, more or less.  15 kilometers
#of conductor would build up 5000 volts between the ends, no problem.

it seems that this must operate with about an 80% efficiency to get 5KV
over 15KM.  That seems like alot to hope for.  And isn't there an inverse
square rule governing magnetic strength?  Is this accounted for in that .5
Gauss figure?

Less confued and more amazed,
--f2

-------------------------------------
  All of life is six-to-five against.
  --Damon Runyon
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: siili@sumppu.fmi.fi (Tero Siili)
Subject: Geotail launch
Originator: siili@sumppu.fmi.fi
Organization: Finnish Meteorological Institute
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 08:19:46 GMT


Question: was last Friday's Geotail launch (on Delta, I think) succesful?  I found nothing in sci.space.news on the topic, although no news is often good news...

Respond preferably by e-mail to Tero.Siili@fmi.fi

Best regards,

Tero Siili
Finnish Meteorological Institute
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Date: 29 Jul 92 01:06:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, 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 <1992Jul28.143654.17945@walter.bellcore.com> ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com (Doug Davey) writes:
>However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
>nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
>of political statements from the USAian election campaign.  If you have a
>technical reason why something a candidate proposes is a good or bad idea,
>fine.  However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.  Thanks.

Typical of a United Statesian: ask the most intelligent participant in 
an enterprise to leave, merely because he's a foreigner.

I respectfully request that we hear more from all persons of intelligence
and less from all jingoes and dolts. Thanks.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: trivial self-replication
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:41:31 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci


>>Simple molecules in solution can reproduce
>>themselves, given favorable conditions.  RNA, in particular, does this.
>>Not well, and not quickly, by itself... but it does do it.

>Again, if it is replicating by itself, it is performing *trivial*
>self-reproduction, because it is not carrying any genetic information.

So what if it isn't carrying genetic information?  Self-replication is
self-replication.  Evolution will favor more complex forms, and eventually
it won't be 'trivial' anymore.  BTW, what is the definition of 'trivial'
in this context?  And no, evolution does not require DNA.  In this context
(usually called chemical evolution) it is just the process by which those
structures that replicate (whether 'trivially' or not) come to dominate.

>If the only machinery required is the stuff floating around all over the
>place (free amino acids etc.) then you have trivial self-reproduction
>which does not count, because even if RNA can replicate in this context,
>it is trivial self-reproduction because the RNA does not have or need
>any genetic information.

By what standards are you deciding that it 'doesn't count'?  If it can be
demonstrated (as I think it has, both in my own studies and in the
synopses offered here of late) that life processes can arise on their
own, without the infamous hidden watchmaker, or without the improbable
'protien of the Ninth Configuration', then what exactly, does 'not
counting' mean?  That we aren't here?  Ps- it's been mentioned already,
but RNA doesn't need genetic material, because it IS genetic material.
If we could talk to a piece of DNA, it might say that we existed for IT.

Aaaaand, as long as you have such a great handle on the defintion of life...

1)  Are viruses alive?  They reproduce non-trivially (by what I can get
    of your defintion from context)

2)  If humans built self-sufficient space colonies, would it mean that
     Gaia (the entire biosphere) had reproduced?  Evolved?

3)  Is human culture, as a whole, an organism?  It feeds, makes wastes,
    evolves, etc...

-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!           *
'-----------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Visual acuity
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:46:06 GMT

In article <9207221241.AA29196@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>There are many degrees of color blindness ("challengedness"? :-), and very
>few people are *totally* color blind. Is the restriction against *any*
>degree of color blindness, or are there intermediate standards?
>
>Are the Shuttle warning lights and color displays selected for maximum
>visibility to partially color blind people (like traffic lights are supposed
>to be)? There *are* legal standards for color selection in safety signals.

	Hmmm. There are (according to a biologist I know) two possible
types of receptors for the colour green in human eyes (Peak reaction is
at two different frequencies). I wonder whether the slight difference  
ever makes a difference in reading displays...

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Reply-To: ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 14:36:54 GMT

In article <BrwJvH.5qx@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.210517.4603@access.digex.com> rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge) writes:
> >administrations have failed to establish priorities, and because
> >they have not matched program needs with available resources, NASA
> >has been saddled with more missions than it can successfully
> >accomplish.
> 
> Translation:  we're going to kill some of the NASA programs, although
> of course we're not going to tell you which ones.

[ Several more "translations" deleted. ]

> -- 
> 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

Henry, your technical postings are probably the best things in sci.space.*.
However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
of political statements from the USAian election campaign.  If you have a
technical reason why something a candidate proposes is a good or bad idea,
fine.  However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.  Thanks.
Stop Canadian Imperialism!  Yankee Go Home! :-)

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Doug Davey        ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com         bcr!iscp!ddavey