HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:42:00 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: MicroMuse

A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters
tells me:

        A fairly large team <at NASA>, is planning the terraforming
        of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it.
        Mars will be raised 20 degrees C.  And with minimal study of
        that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur.
        After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based
        micro-organisms and rugged plant life.

Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise
elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars?

Barry Kort
Visiting Scientist
Educational Technology Research
BBN Labs
Cambridge, MA
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Wanted: 1-1/4" focusser mechanism
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:54:35 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

Anyone have a 1-1/4" focuser suitible for a refractor that they'd like
to sell?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: gak@wrs.com (Richard Stueven)
Subject: Re: Astrophysical punniness
Reply-To: gak@wrs.com
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:56:33 GMT

You've probably all heard this already, but here goes...

In article 118c@looking.on.ca, TCOMEAU@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau @ Space Telescope Science Institute) writes:
>A coworker remarked yesterday that she had a Masters in astrophysics in addition
>to her Doctorate.  Of course she also has a Bachelors in Physics.
>
>Her rationale was that it made perfect sense for an astronomer to have a 
>three degree background.

---
I don't know what system you use,  you might try vodka in Evian bottles.   Some
people like  cream in  their morning coffee,  I spike  mine with  a little  JD.
Mickey's Big Mouths are an excellent choice, you can use the empty bottles as a
desktop vase.                               -Hoodlum Empire "Get Drunk At Work"
Richard Stueven        gak@wrs.com         attmail!gakhaus!gak        107/H/3&4

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: ao@elixir.e.kth.se (Anders Ohlsson)
Subject: Strange sunrises...
Keywords: sunrises, astronomical algorithms
Organization: Dept. of EE, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:25:33 GMT

	Dear netters!

	I have implemented most of the algorithms in Jean Meeus book,
	"Astronomical Algorithms", and have come across some problems.

	The algorithms for rising and setting of the sun works very
	well, except for one minor problem. I wanted them to work for
	every point on the globe, and they seem to fail (or is it me?)
	for very extreme northern points...

	Could someone help me by checking my calculations?

	I used the following data:

		Latitude		18.00 degrees East
		Longitude		89.80 degrees North
		Standard altitude	-50 minutes

	For these data I found the following rises/sets by calculating
	the altitude accurately using Appendix II:

		...			below horizon
	    (1)	1992-03-18 05:14:30 UT	sunrise
		...			above horizon
	    (2)	1992-09-24 17:57:30 UT	sunset
	    (3)	1992-09-25 08:34:20 UT	sunrise
	    (4)	1992-09-25 10:19:00 UT	sunset
		...			below horizon

	The minimum altitude between sunset (2) and sunrise (3) is
	-1 degree and 3.2 minutes at 1992-09-24 23:52:00 UT.

	The maximum altitude between sunrise (3) and sunset (4) is
	-49.7 minutes at 1992-09-25 09:27:20 UT.

	Now, the problem is the following. When I use Meeus'
	algorithms (Chapter 14) it doesn't find (1) and (3).

	Maybe it's because the maximum altitude is only -49.7 minutes
	or 0.3 minutes above the "apparent horizon".

	Can this problem be solved easily? I can find the times by
	calculating the altitude of the body very accurately, but that
	takes 10-100 times as long as Meeus' algorithms...


					Many thanks in advance,

						Anders Ohlsson

	PS: Some references from "Astronomical Algorithms" are:

		Ch 14 (pp 97-100)	"Rising, Transit and Setting"
		Ch 12 (pp 87-92)	"Transformation of Coordinates"
		Ch 24 (pp 154-156)	"Solar Coordinates"

		and the data for the Earth in Appendix II as explained
		in Ch 31 (pp 205-208).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Anders Ohlsson       | "Life? The universe?? Everything???", Murphy asked |
| ao@elixir.lne.kth.se | "Subject to change without notice", GOD replied    |
| ao@infovox.se        |                                                    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 26 August
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 27 Aug 92 08:04:42 GMT

PLEASE NOTE:  The BOUTF parameters are not accurate at this time.

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 239, 08/26/92
10.7 FLUX=092.5  90-AVG=125        SSN=042      BKI=4242 3222  BAI=013
BGND-XRAY=B1.8     FLU1=6.0E+05  FLU10=1.2E+04  PKI=4343 3332  PAI=016
  BOU-DEV=063,014,052,019,021,015,012,015   DEV-AVG=026 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= B5.5   @ 1506UT    XRAY-MIN= B1.6   @ 2359UT   XRAY-AVG= B2.2
NEUTN-MAX= +004%  @ 1400UT   NEUTN-MIN= -001%  @ 1655UT  NEUTN-AVG= +1.1%
  PCA-MAX= +0.2DB @ 1050UT     PCA-MIN= -0.3DB @ 1315UT    PCA-AVG= +0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55452NT @ 2222UT   BOUTF-MIN=55416NT @ 1748UT  BOUTF-AVG=55435NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+112NT@ 0004UT   GOES7-MIN=N:-013NT@ 0707UT  G7-AVG=+078,+048,+011
GOES6-MAX=P:+130NT@ 0004UT   GOES6-MIN=E:-013NT@ 0752UT  G6-AVG=+088,-003,+037
 FLUXFCST=STD:093,100,103;SESC:095,100,100 BAI/PAI-FCST=010,015,010/013,010,010
    KFCST=2223 3122 4444 4444  27DAY-AP=010,011   27DAY-KP=3222 2333 2223 2334
 WARNINGS=
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Binary stars, lifezones. HELP!
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:23:24 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

I have been asked the following questions and am appealing to my 
fellow netters who may be more familiar with the field.  A caller to 
the planetarium has asked how one might determine the separations of 
stars in a binary (or multiple) star system if you know the masses.  I 
recall something along the conservation of angular momentum giving the 
ratio of the masses proportional to the ration of the individual 
distances and the sum of the masses proportional to the total 
separation(?).  But as I recall, one also needs the inclination angle 
of the system to the Earth-system line (if I'm not way off base here), 
which he does not seem to have.  Are there approximations that can be 
used and a set of equations one can pursue?  The non-mathematical 
astronomy texts we have here at the planetarium are no help in this 
regard, and I will gladly hunt any references provided.

The kicker was the calculation of the life-zone around stars, which, 
although I am aware of it, it does not get mentioned in the above 
mentioned texts.  Any formulae or references would also be 
appreciated.

Thanks in advance for any and all responses.  E-mail or followup to 
the astro news group will work.  My E-mail address is below.

Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
Rauch Memorial Planetarium
University of Louisville
jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
From: mike@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Smithwick)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Cleaning a mirror
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:58:57 GMT
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix

[]

What is the recommended way to clean a mirror? I have an Astroscan
and the mirror is getting coated with a layer of crud. Can I use
camera lens cleaning fluids or would those damage the surface?

(Anyone clean an Astroscan before? Are the any gotchas??)

mike

-- 
"There is no problem too big that can't be solved with high explosives"-Rush

Mike Smithwick - ames!zorch!mike
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Space Poop Message Deleted?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:47:08 GMT

In article <1861fdINNoov@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>Through the effect of air drag these objects continue to
>lose altitude and eventually rain down to earth.
>Objects above the altitude of 1000 km are in the geo
>stationery orbit and will remain there for 1000 years
>orbitting the planet some 5 million times and posing
>a constant hazard of collision with other objects.

The overwelming majority of the debris is in low orbits (under 500km or so.)
The rest is sufficiently defuse that there is little hazard of
collisions (except within geostationary orbits, but debris is fairly
quickly perturbed out of these orbits.)

>Most of these objects have a velocity of at least 3 km/sec

They are, after all, in orbit. It's kind of pointless to say they have
orbital velocity...

>Interactive collisions in earth orbits will eventually
>generate sufficient debris to create a dense Debris Belt
>and prevent further launchings.

No, such collisions _may_ create enough secondary debris to _interefer_
with future orbital operations.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Meta-model, pubished ?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:39:10 GMT


clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:

> I would recommend you include [in your book about the Meta Model] as much
> technical material: equations, derivations, etc., as possible in an
> appendix.  Without such supporting material your book will be unlikely to
> influence "the journals" into taking your ideas seriously enough to merit
> publication.
>
> Do you relate the Meta Model to the currently ubiquitous theoretical
> framework of gauge theories?  The more you connections you can make between
> a new theory and current theory, even if only by analogy, then the more
> likely you will find a technical audience.

     Two excellent suggestions.  Thank you.  Where were you when I was
looking for reviewers? :-)  Unfortunately I am now beyond the possibility of
adding substantial new material.  But I will prepare such material for
possible journal publication.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 3 Sep 1992 09:30:14 CDT
From: Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject:    WANTED: Cheap CCD Camera Plans

Early this year I saw a posting for making a CCD camera from some type of
chip.  I am working on a 12" Newtonian telescope mirror and I would like to
have a CCD camera to take long "deep sky" exposures with it.
Can someone help me out?   Thank you

Wesley J. Bielinski                    | "I love my country,
SGT, USAR       U53734@uicvm.uic.edu   |   it's my government I fear!"
12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)   |
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Jaegers update
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:56:28 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

I just spoke with A. Jaegers and was told that they should have their
new catalog out in six weeks. Good news for ATMs.
 
I also had a brief and odd conversation with the gentleman there
about my name, another customer of similar name, and the problems of
pronouncing "Jaegers". Just one of the pleasures of dealing with small
companies run by interesting people ;-)      --mike
From: ch.steyaert@abbs.hanse.de (Chris Steyaert)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Calculating Planetary Positions
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:30:01 GMT
Reply-To: ch.steyaert@abbs.hanse.de
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

In a message of Aug 20, Travis R. Stone writes:

>  Meeus gives you rough formulae only for Pluto, since the
>  wobbly little bastard's orbit is so hard to pin down (i.e.,
>  there has been no good "theory" derived for Pluto's motion
>  yet).

Pluto is now included with higher accuracy in the new book of
Jean Meeus, Astronomical Algorithms, the follow-up of Astronomical
Formulae for Calculators (both available from Willmann-Bell).

Chapter 36 gives an "accurate representation of the planet's motion".
This is not a "theory", as periodic terms have been fitted to
numerical integrations.

The book gives the heliocentric longitude and latitude with respect
to J2000.0.  In the original article [A&A, Vol. 155, p 323-325,
(1986)], this was still B1950.0.

--

    Chris Steyaert
    Dr. Vandeperrestr. 83
    B 2440 Geel
    Belgium
    tel (32)14582075   fax (32)14221373                                                                                                                            
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Yaron Sheffer)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Quasar "proper motions" (was: Standard model of QSOsex)
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:02:38 GMT
Organization: University of Texas, McDonald Observatory

In article <BtnDo0.CDE@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>     In the Meta Model, I would have picked a number smaller than 30,000 km/s
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^???
And I thought that all the numbers are right there in front of you... Are
you changing your numbers as we go along?

>     If data is being collected now, we should know within 10 years or so
>which model is correct.

The problem here is that the data has been collected now for 10 years already!
I don't see how a factor of two in baseline would make much difference. Of
course, if they improve their precision, then it'll be worth it.

> Please join me in rejecting any claim that quasars
>are "relativistically beamed" or other such nonsense if it turns out that
>quasars do have significant proper motions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
>supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.

Hey, I'll even ask you for a job at Meta as soon as quasars are found to fly
across the sky, although then they'll become mainstream topics in Astronomy,
and Meta would be supporting something completely different...

Ronny
Xref: sparky sci.astro:9317 sci.space:12310 sci.physics:13797
From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Inflationary universe
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:51:50 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

I recently posted a question regarding the shape of the universe, and
I'd like to thank those who replied.  My original question was:

>If in a closed universe, we could travel in a "straight" line and
>end up back where we started, and in an open universe we couldn't...
>then what happens in a flat universe?  I'm not sure if I understood
>the physics correctly, but is it accurate to say that the inflationary
>universe scenario starts out with Omega less than 1 (so the universe
>is closed), then as it "inflates", Omega rapidly approaches 1 so
>that expansion forever continues BUT the universe remains closed??

From my own further reading, and from most of the replies I got, Omega
is either EXACTLY one in inflation theory or stupendously close, and
getting closer by the day.  Most of the replies I got stated that in
a flat universe, one could never travel in a 'straight' line ('geodesic')
and end up at the startinmg point because the flat case means an 
infinite universe eventually.  However one replier pointed out that
I may be confusing open/flat/closed with (finite but unbounded)/infinite.

To make a long story short: where is the following thought experiment
wrong?

If the universe started out as a finite ball that got bigger and
bigger, then that means that today it is just a bigger ball, right?
If Omega is one, then this means that the expansion is slowly approaching
zero, I believe - but never quite reaching it.  Does this mean that, if
we were 'immortal', we could head out in some space travel vehicle
which chugs along at some constant speed which would EVENTUALLY be greater
than the speed of expansion - so in a flat universe we WOULD end up
back where we started?  Just that if we tried to repeat the same journey, it
would be different?

I guess I am having trouble understanding why having a forever expanding
finite universe means that it is infinitely large TODAY.  It can't be
right?  At any point in time, a flat universe will be finite in size.

*************************

Yes, it does sound ignorant ;-) but I'm no cosmologist...

Please EMAIL your replies to aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu

Thanks

Ahmed
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.optics
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: cleaning mirrors - NOT!
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:11:32 GMT

One day I was trying to clean the mirror in my 8" Newtonian.
It had lots of grunge on it, I keep it outside on the porch
and Florida is a very organic-biological place.  I suspect 
mildew, pollen, stuff like that.  I have even seen mold-like
things growing on bare metal around here.

I reasoned:  Liquid chlorine is good for mildew.  Aluminum film
is protected by oxide layer.  Therefore, chlorine should oxidize 
organics and not harm mirror.  

So I got some pool chlorine (stronger than chlorox) and put a
little on the mirror.  To my horror, the aluminum film
began to dissolve.  Quickly rinsing it under water I partly
saved the coating; I suspect what remains is about 50% reflective 
now.

At least I know how to remove the old coating before I send 
it out for recoating :-)  

Anyone know what the chemistry of an Al film plus 
sodium hypochlorite solution would be?

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Subject: Re: Astrophysical punniness
Reply-To: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:40:16 GMT

Richard Stueven writes:

>You've probably all heard this already, but here goes...

>In article 118c@looking.on.ca, TCOMEAU@stsci.edu (Tom Comeau @ Space Telescope >Science Institute) writes:
>>A coworker remarked yesterday that she had a Masters in astrophysics in addition
>>to her Doctorate.  Of course she also has a Bachelors in Physics.
>>
>>Her rationale was that it made perfect sense for an astronomer to have a 
>>three degree background.

This is as good an explanation of the 3 degree background as any I have heard
recently and strikes me as less ad hoc than BOTH of the alternatives that have
been bandied about here lately.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: fischer@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Phil Fischer)
Subject: Re: Binary stars, lifezones. HELP!
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:34:53 GMT

In article <3SEP199218021767@rigel.tamu.edu> wdb3926@rigel.tamu.edu (BRUTON, WILLIAM DANIEL) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.122324.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes...
>>I have been asked the following questions and am appealing to my 
>>fellow netters who may be more familiar with the field.  A caller to 
>>the planetarium has asked how one might determine the separations of 
>>stars in a binary (or multiple) star system if you know the masses.
>

The masses alone are not sufficient. That is, one can have a binary star
consisting of stars of mass x and y and an arbitrary separation.

Phil
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: moon tides
Keywords: wobble
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:19:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.191452.1757@voder.nsc.com> pad@galaxy.nsc.com (Paul Denny x8349) writes:
>A recent thread recently explained why angular momentum 
>was transferred from the earth to the moon causing the 
>diameter of the moons orbit to increase. The same mechanism
>was invoked I think to explain why the moon is locked with
>one face towards the earth.
>
>Yesterday I read that early NASA lunar "landers" (crashers
>is perhaps a better word) discovered that the centre of
>gravity of the moon is offset fom the geometric centre. 
>It seems to me that if the moon was rotating it would
>have its geometric centre rotating around its centre of
>mass and hence the geometric centre would move into and
>out of a stronger gravitational field. At first I thought
>that this wouldn't have any effect with only the c of m
>being important but given that gravitational fields are
>non linear I am not sure what the affect would be.
>
>Can anyone help? Thanks Paul


I think tidal locking is more simple than you are making it.  Tidal
locking of moons is *very* common in the solar system.  This occurs
because as the moon rotates in the gravitational field of the planet,
it literally flexes 'through' an induced oval shape. The shape of the 
planet is flexed into an oval by the gravity of the planet. As the moon
rotates through that oval (the oval maintains orientation to the gravitational
field while the moon continues spinning) it flexes the moons crust and 
generates heat.  If you've seen the molten sulfur pools on Io, you'll 
get an idea how much heat this can be.  That heat is eventually dissipated
and that energy was the energy of the moon's rotation through the gravity
field of the planet. Now it is it's lower energy configuration. Entropy
wins again and the moon is not rotating through the field anymore.


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: What was it?
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:19:12 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <56280013@hpscit.sc.hp.com| jackz@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Jack Zeiders) writes:
|
|	I have a question for the satellite trackers of this news group.
|I was at a star party at Fremont Peak State Park, central California, when
|at 9 PM, I watched a very bright object sweep from south to north near the 
|zenith, in approximately 1-2 minutes. I had no watch and did not count 
|seconds, the time is only an impression. It seemed to be -3 to -4th magnitude 
|or so. I got it in the main optics of my 17" newtonian briefly. I could 
|see no detail, just a bright point of light moving rapidly. 
|
|	It reminded me of seeing the shuttle but that does get that high in 
|the sky here.
|
|	We had lots of smoke passing through at times we had 4-5 magnitudes 
|of extinction. 
|	
|Any idea of what we saw?
|

There is no date given. If it was the evening of Aug 22-23 the object
you saw probably Almaz 1 which reached a maximum alt of 72 degrees
from Fremont peak park at 8:58 pm PDT. 

Almaz 1 is a commericial remote sensing satellite launched by the
then USSR from Tyuratam on March 31, 1991 by a Proton booster. It uses
synthetic aperture radar instead of an optical system. Image resolution
is 15 m. It is 15 m long by 4.2 m in diameter with two 43 sq m solar
panels. Sunlight reflecting from these panels at a low angle probably
caused it to flare to -3/-4 magnitude you observed.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Newsgroups: sci.astro