HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Debunking Modern Myths (was  Re: Is NASA really...)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:25:36 GMT

In article <ryvnn1#.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

 > Let's see: China and India are hovering on the raged edge of
 > subsistance right now. Most of Africa is one meal away from
 > starvation. -- Why that means that more than half of the world is
 > bearly producing enough food to exist and no more.

China and India are better fed than they have ever been.  Over the
last 15 years, China's per capita economic growth rate has been the
highest in the world.  The private sector there is now about as large
as the public (not bad in a nominally communist country!)  and growing
explosively, with double digit annual growth rates.  India's economic
growth has been slower, but they appear to be finally loosening their
stifling bureaucracy.  The world food problem is mostly one of having
adequate purchasing power (there is more than enough food on the
market, as witnessed by world food prices that have nearly continually
fallen with time.)

The number of undernourished people in the world is actually
*decreasing*.  Nearly the only part of the world that has really
serious problems is Africa, but that is not because of overpopulation.
Africa could feed many times its current population if they did not
suffer from criminally dysfunctional governments and other social
problems.

Did you know that in his later years, Malthus became one of the first
anti-Malthusians?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Terraforming needs to begin now
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:57:01 GMT

In article <JGJ.92Sep9190252@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com> jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:

	On terraforming  the  unpleasant bits of Earth:

>I guess the hard part is getting fresh water to these regions.  Here's
>my wild, uneducated, naive silly idea for all ya'll to shoot holes in.
>There's tons of sand in these deserts.  You can use sand to make
>glass, so, use all this glass to make huge solar distillation systems.
>I'm envisioning long salt-water canals running from the Med. Sea, or
>Oceans running hundreds of miles inland.  Covering each canal is a
>greenhouse that heats the water up and makes it evaporate.  At the top
>of the greenhouse, the vapor is collected and cooled of, and the resulting
>distilled water is then pumped out into irrigation canals runing
>perpendicular to the salt-water canals.
>
>Yes, I'm an idiot, but tell me why.  Why won't it work?  What *would*
>work?

	I  think  the French have looked at digging a channel from  the
Med to the depression between Libya and Egypt (Nuclear demo charges 
could do this quickly, but  I think they intended on using more mundane
tools). A problem with flooding this depression (whose name escapes me)
is if you feed a constant flow of  salt water into a basin and let evaporation
take its course, the salinity of the basin can rise.  The soil type in
that region is described as 'salt crust' in my atlas, implying that the
region once was connected to the Med, although I don't know  how long
ago that was.

	Even a highly saline sea might be useful, if only to increase
precipitation in the regions downwind. Also, it could be useful industrially
as a source for materials disolved in sea water.

	I suppose the Nile could be diverted to  fill the depression,
although Egypt would probably not like the idea...

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 09/04/92
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL, KSC
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:00:52 GMT


Boy it will be nice when Mars Observer is in space where it's safe...
                             steve collins MO-SCT
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:10:25 GMT

In article <14941@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) enquires:
>
>> Thomas, would you expound on which bacteria or fungi can exist in a hot
>> sulfuric acid/sulfur dioxide environment [Venus' upper atmosphere]?
>
>I don't know if there are any microorganisms that can survive those conditions
>(I don't know that there aren't, either).  However, Perhaps advances in
>understanding enzymes and other building blocks of life will lead to engineered
>life forms that can survive--even thrive--in that environment. 

Since we cannot forcast the future, I cannot argue with you on that.

>These new
>building blocks needn't be based on Terran life; they need only meet the
>requirements for life on Venus (survival and replication, and possibly
>mutation).  They could even be wild & weird, such as buckyballs stuffed with
>sulfur and/or some metal available as dust in the upper atmosphere, and with
>chlorine or fluorine inside or out.

Hmm, have you ever considered writing science fiction ?  ;=)

>Of course, the real problem with Venus is the lack of hydrogen, or the excess
>of oxygen.  Might Venus lose oxygen at a significant rate if there was free
>oxygen in the upper atmosphere?

There *is* free oxygen in the upper atmosphere.

>Might free metal in the crust take in some of
>the excess oxygen?

The oxygen in the troposphere is not free.  It is predominantly CO2.

>The possibilities are interesting to think about, if
>nothing else.  :)

Yes.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Mars Direct
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:37:25 GMT

In article <BuC4nt.3B3@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.143843.18127@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder) writes:
>>I'd say, forget about that. Even a manned mission to Mars would cost
>>*at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher).
>
>According to a NASA politician, you mean.
>
>There is no technical reason why it has to cost that much.  See Bob Zubrin's
>"Mars direct" proposal for an example of a method that ought to cost about
>a tenth that much, total, for the first ten missions.  If enough people prod
>me, I'll type in my notes from his talk, although there was a good summary
>paper about it a year or two ago in JBIS.

There is no "technical" reason why anything should cost anything; that
is a judgement of economics, and in this case of politics, as well as
of technology.  I have previously shown that Mars Direct, while being
a considerable improvement, would still cost $150 billion for a single
4-astronaut mission to Mars.  The two orders of magnitude improvement
postulated here is sheer fantasy.  We can just as easily improve 
automated missions to the planets by two orders of magnitude; in fact
the improvement in spacecraft technology is proceeding much faster than
improvement in space station technology, so that cost breakthroughs are
much more likely for automated projects.  We will have hundreds of automated
stations, sampling robots, propellant plants and much else on Mars before 
astronauts ever set foot there.

In fact the biggest savings in Mars Direct comes from putting an
automated propellant manufacturing plant on the surface of Mars.
There is also an automated sample-return version of Mars Direct that
uses two currently operational launchers, Titan IVs, to return hundreds 
of kilograms of samples to Earth for a $2 billion, a considerable 
savings over current Mars sample return designs and a whopping savings 
over the astronaut version for a similar function.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: sk4i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Samuel John Kass)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Relativity
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:15:49 GMT
	<1992Sep7.125350.13589@qdpii.comp.qdpi.oz.au>
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


>>A recent SF book used relativistic mass to produce black holes.
>>i.e. accelerate a spaceship until it's massive enough to collapse
>>into a singularity.  Something seems missing in this equation.
>>Could it happen?
>I don't see why not.  To continue to accelerate, the spaceship needs energy.

Could it?  I'm no expert either, but I thought that to get collapse,
parts of the object had to be pulling against each other.  Since the
ENTIRE spaceship is accelerating, from the frame of reference of the
spaceship, wouldn't it be 'normal' mass?  Of course, from the frame of
reference of a 'stationary' observer, the spaceship will have sqashed
itself so flat that it should have fused anyway.  Since, by general
relativity, there is no preferred frame of reference, why would the
Earth, then, not collapse into a black hole, just because such a thing
is possible.  (ie. Compared to the frame of reference of something else,
the Earth has enough mass to collapse.)  For example, there may be an
object in the universe travelling at such speeds that, to it, the Earth
should have collapsed into a black hole.  But we're not a black hole. (I
don't think.)

>>acceleration.  In effect, your just turning mass into mass as c is
approached.
>>Nothing is gained, except maybe some compression, depending on how the ship
>>is arranged.  If that's the case, it would have to be close to gravitational
>>collapse before it started.

it _IS_ possible to accelerate things without having the mass on board. 
Could we create a "black hole factory" with a long enough linear
accelerator?

   --Sam Kass
Xref: sparky sci.space:12902 sci.astro:9661 talk.politics.space:1205 alt.politics.bush:5005 alt.politics.clinton:5271
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:30:14 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:



>>Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
>>necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
>>economically beneficial.  And you're probably totally off base, given
>>the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore.

>Yes, but thanks to Al Gore's Porkization of the Space Program,
>military research is the last refuge in the US government
>of advanced propulsion research. After Gore manages to
>cut that tree down, like Isle Derniere, the whole tree
>is going to wash away.

I posted this just before I realized I was incoherent in that
last sentence. 

I meant it to be "After Gore manages to cut that tree down, like
Isle Derniere, the whole program is going to be washed away."

Isle Derniere was (and sometimes still is) an island off the
coast of Louisiana. A resort was built there out of native
hardwood in antebellum times, and due to the fact that none
of the hardwood was left to hold the island in place, the first
Category four hurricane to come along washed the island away.

Personally, I think trees are neat, and I hug them every chance I
get (except for the pines).

--
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
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: spgreg@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Greg Macrae)
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct was Re: Pluto Direct
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: sci
Date: 15 Sep 1992 16:40 EDT  

In article <1992Sep15.084334.19434@news.Hawaii.Edu>, tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes...
>Nobody wants to say that their mission REQUIRES ion drive, because of the
>very real potential for cost overruns and schedule slippage, due to the
>technological developments that must take place to make it feasible for
>such a mission.  Since nobody needs it, no money is being spent on further
>development, but further development is exactly what is needed before
>people feel safe choosing it as their preferred propulsion method.
> 
>Chemical rockets can get us to Pluto, and quite fast, so ion drive has
>limited appeal.  And as someone else correctly pointed out, using such
>a drive for a orbital mission, as opposed to a flyby, would require that
>you start to slow down after reaching roughly the halfway point.  Flight
>times would be much longer, and there is a sense of urgency to get there
>as soon as possible, for a variety of reasons.

Well, you're actually wrong on all counts.  The biggest problem that ion 
thruster technology faces is being unproven in the field.  In a mission 
that is such high risk as planetary robotic exploration, no one want to 
be the first to use ion propulsion.  For a Pluto mission, ion thrusters 
enable the mission.  The Aerospace Analysis Office here published a study 
that showed ion thrusters could place twice the payload in orbit (or on) 
Pluto that chem. rockets could fly past Pluto and ion did it in less than 
1/2 the time with the same Leo mass!  The study assumed a Jupiter slingshot 
for the chem. system and not for ion.  In general, ion has time and mass 
advantages for all missions beyond the asteroid belt.  At Pluto's orbit, 
the advantage is very significant.  As for on-going work with ion thrusters, 
the focus is currently on station keeping and other near earth satellite 
applications in hopes of establishing the track record of success required 
for serious consideration for interplanetary missions.  Research is funded at 
fairly low levels at both Lewis Research Center and JPL.  Hughes is marketing
flight qualified ion thrusters for station keeping use.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     MacRae                  |       Friend, that open mouth
                             |     Reveals your whole interior
  spgreg@mars.lerc.nasa.gov  |         Silly hollow frog!
                             |                      -Anon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: kfree@arghouse.UUCP (Kenneth Freeman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re:Terraforming Mars
Keywords: Martian water lots of water
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 22:14:21 PDT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Listening Post


> 
> Date Entered: 09-11-92 03:35
> N.>The entire organism could be underground, using silica fibres to the s
> N.>light pipes.  I think some Terran life forms use something like this (
> N.>plants that use light pipes).
> N.>
> N.>Limiting your thoughts to Terran organic processes leaves out a _lot_ 
> N.>possibilities.
> N.>
> N.>--
> N.>
> N.>Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
> N.>
> 
> Am I missing something,
>  
>         I havn't been following the entire conversation here, but it seems 
> to me everybody is missing the gravity problem.  Last time I checked, 
> Mars' gravity was not strong enough to keep oxygen molecules from escaping 
> into space over time.  So, even if one could start plant-life on Mars,  
> you'd have to have a heck of a lot of it to keep the oxygen from just 
> "floating away"!!!
> 
> More wood for the fire!!!
>  
> Brad T.
> 
> 
> ---
>    WinQwk 2.0b#545   And God said: E =  mv  - Ze /r, and there was light!
>    RoseMail 2.00 : Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363

 
Water has mass. How much water would have to be poured on to
Mars for it to stay there? (Or how many comets... Mars an
ocean world? :)

---
If people did not sometimes do silly things,
nothing intelligent would ever get done. -Wittgenstein
kfree@arghouse.UUCP or ...!crash!nusdecs!arghouse!kfree
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore)
Subject: new name for NASA?
Summary: New name for NASA?
Keywords: NASA
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 00:20:51 GMT

In the Sun Herald  (Sydney) on 13th September NASA's name was stated as meaning North American Space Agency.
Since this appeared in an article by Peter Pockley on a two page 'Science and Education ' column and appeared very authoritative perhaps NASA has changed its name? But then again perhaps it is just newspaper carelessness.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: New lunar spacecraft
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 07:06:27 GMT

In article <2AB11BA8.AE2@deneva.sdd.trw.com>, hangfore@spf.trw.com (John Stevenson) writes...
>Lunar Orbiters 5 and 6 were in polar orbits. The radio navigation data  
>collected (which would be used to develop models of the lunar  
>gravitational field) are either lost or stored on punch cards and so far  
>unretrievable. JPL was attempting to recover this data in support of the  
>Lunar Observer mission, which has since been cancelled. The loss of such  
>pricey and important data is representative of the post Apollo era. :-(
> 

The results of the Lunar Orbiter gravity data was published in 1968 and 1969,
and there's a nice map of the gravity field on page 605 in the Lunar
Sourcebook.  Note that there has been *no* gravity mapping of the Moon's
farside.  This is because lunar spacecraft were either too far from the
surface when on the farside, or the Moon itself blocked any radio transmissions
to Earth.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Mars Direct
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:52:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.202447.1557@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>So, you are proposing that safety studies constitute 1-1/(5*150/50),
>or 93% of the cost of SSF?  That's interesting. :-)

No, I'm saying that, if you require extensive safety studies, you must
fund something like Freedom. And, if Freedom is considered part of
a Mars mission (to conduct long-term medical and technology tests, as
was your assumption), this will dominate the costs of a manned Mars
mission.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: African culture, demographics (was Terraforming)
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:37:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BuIwsF.Kx7.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Josh:

I'm not at home where I could pull out the demographic and  
anthropological stuff, but it basically comes down to this:

Much of african tribal culture is based on a very stable extended  
family. The cost of an extra child, in or out of wedlock, is not very  
high for the child bearer. On the other hand, the increased number of  
children is seen as a means of security in old age.

In most other cultures the cost of extra children has caused a  
decrease in their desirability once the demographic transition has  
been completed. This has thus far not been the case in Africa. That  
is not to say that it will always be the case: that is my point.  
There are already independant stirrings with SOME african nations  
that maybe the cultural pattern does need to change, and that it is  
not merely western cultural imperialism: their own survival is at  
stake.

I seriously doubt it will go as far as the "four horsemen", but they  
are always there to "concentrate the mind most wonderfully". There is  
really not much the outside world can do except keep up a gentle  
pressure to assist those on the inside who are attempting to change  
ancient ways of thinking. 


If you are really interested, I can probably dig up a title or two. I  
have no idea if they are in print, but they might be available  
through university libraries (one of them was a special source book  
put together for a CMU university wide course on world population,  
done in ~1986)

It is really rather difficult to explain complex demographic and  
cultural interactions in anything less than the scale of a full text  
book. Although I find this discussion quite interesting, I think it  
is getting a bit far afield...





 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: How to build ion engine?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:37:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.160445.1938@vicorp.com> ron@vicorp.com (Ron Peterson) writes:
>
>Could someone please describe to me how to build a practical ion rocket?
>...platform that could lift itself in the air powered by a solar cell
>or very small battery.  I thought that perhaps a tiny ion motor
>with a solar cell painted on its exterior might be capable of
>lifting itself off the ground.


The thrust-to-weight ratios for any know ion rocket are far too
small to lift itself off the ground.  They are currently used for
stationkeeping, which requires only a very low thrust for a long
duration.  Breakthroughs in the technology would be most important
for deep space transportation, which is very limited by the low
exhaust velocity of chemical engines, and could also be useful
in circularizing satellites from GTO to Clarke orbit.




-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: msmilor@skat.usc.edu (Mark Smilor)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: test
Date: 11 Sep 1992 09:03:05 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

this is a test







!
From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:28:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Sep12.194702.23291@usl.edu:622941548:cdp:1469100015:000:1602
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Sep 13 11:28:00 1992


Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org

Gerard Vignes writes:

>        We all know those are empty campaign promises,
>        but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>        hostile to technology and research spending
>        and especially to projects involving
>        space exploration and astronomy.

You may presume this to be true, but you certainly do not _know_
it.  Judging by their statements, precisely the opposite is true.
You would be hard pressed to find a stronger or more knowledgable
supporter in Congress of research and technology development than
Al Gore.

Henry Spencer writes:

>Of particular note is that John Pike reportedly has major input to their
>space positions and is likely to be head of the Space Council staff if
>C/G are elected.  He basically opposes manned spaceflight and does not
>believe that cheaper launch vehicles (e.g. SSTO) are possible.  Or so I
>am told; those who get to vote in this election might wish to investigate
>further if you care about the future of spaceflight.

John Pike has been a big opponent of military space boondoggles
(SDI), but a big supporter of human space exploration.  His skepticism
about cheaper launchers is based not on hostility to the idea but on
history, as one vehicle after another failed to live up to predictions.

The key to the future of NASA lies with its new Administrator, not
with the next administration.  To vote for President in this
election on the basis of space policy issues is silly, since the
candidates hardly differ.  To urge people to vote on that basis is
irresponsible and dishonest.

Mark W. Goodman