HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett)
Subject: Deep-sea Diving on Europa
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:34:39 GMT

   Many scientists and science fiction writers have speculated about the
possibility of life in the depths of the oceans on Europa.  They base this
on the diversity of life found in the depths of Earth's own oceans near
thermal vents, and the likelihood that similar vents exist on Europa due to
the same effects that continually churn Io's surface into a volcanic hell.

   I have heard that Europa's oceans are quite a lot deeper than the oceans
on Earth, even though Europa is a much smaller world.  My question is: do we
have any deep-sea diving equipment that could survive the great pressures 
that exploration of the bottoms of the Europan oceans would entail?  I know
that the Mariana Trench on Earth has been visited before, but that trench is
only eight or so miles deep, which is nothing compared to the figures of 20
or more miles that I have heard bandied about for the possible depth of the
oceans on Europa.  

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
From: Chris.Ralph@f573.n635.z3.fidonet.org (Chris Ralph)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Star Trek (anti-)realism
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:19:01 +1000

DP>From: parkins@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (David Parkins)
DP>Organization: Cornell Theory Center

DP>In response to the statement that no real navy would let a 35 year captain
DP>a ship. Reference Captain John Paul Jones US or Colonial navy during
DP>the US revolutionary war, I'm pretty shure he was around 35 when he got
DP>his first command.

DP> * Origin: FidoNet/ACSNet Gateway [csource.oz.au] Melbourne, OZ
(3:632/400.0)

John Paul Jones was 21 when he first took command of a vessel.  He was
en route to Scotland as a passenger when both skipper and 1st mate died
of fever.

In 1775 he was commissioned a senior lieutenant in the new Continental
Navy.  In 1776, at the age of 29, he commanded the Providence.  He was also
appointed by Congress to the Ranger in June 1777.  At the age of 40 he was
appointed rear admiral and seconded to the Russian Navy.

Reference Encyclopaedia Brittannica, 15th Ed.

Hope this helps the discussion.  Regards, Chris.
  SLMR 2.0  Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
 * Origin: Peninsular B.B.S. (059)773326 (3:635/573)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:16:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.201804.15953@hal.com> bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton) writes:
>From article <BsMIC9.29z@zoo.toronto.edu>, by henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer):
>> In article <1992Aug6.182520.18534@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>>>> I have recently got into the field of making home-made rockets ...
>>>
>>>What you describe doing is amazingly dangerous. If you persist in it, I
>>>hope you do get caught and arrested, as you are a public menace, if
>>>you're still alive to read this post!
>> 
>> What I posted the last time this came up:
>
>> In article <1175@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>>>If you're not a pro, DON'T try it. It just isn't as simple as it
>>>looks.
>> 
>> I'd revise that slightly:  if you're not a pro, don't try it unless you
>> are prepared to turn yourself into at least a semi-pro first.
>
>Sheesh! I hardly ever read this list any more. So I decide to read it
>while waiting for a build and find something I wrote 2.5 years agoing
>being quoted. Never underestimate the memory of the net.
>
>There is one other danger to consider. Even if you become a pro or
>semi-pro, you may inspire non-pros to blow their hands off.
>
>During my teenage basement bomber phases (an amazing number of bright
>kids go through this phase, I think of it as evolution in action) I
>used carefully prepared propellants and wound paper tubes.  My
>failures burned and made loud *pops*. Some other kids in the
>neighborhood "copied" me. They were not nearly as careful as I was.
>One kid lost most of a hand and part of his face.
>
>There are many levels of danger to building home made rockets.

While I commend your advice to learn what you're doing before
engaging in building rockets, I can't endorse your warning to not
try lest you inspire the less qualified to imitate.

Fools have been inventing ways to harm and kill themselves for
some time now.  By your reasoning I should give up skiing, because
while I'm good, others aren't and I just might inspire that 16
year old beginner to try Superstar at Killington and put
themselves into the local hospital with multiple fractures.
Similarly others should give up all other dangerous activities.
And, for that matter, let's outlaw rockets in general.  They
can be dangerous in the wrong hands -- and the best professionals
will inspire the less qualified to try their hand.

I recommend _educating_ the public about the dangers of 
rocketry et al.  Getting them involved _responsibly_ if they
want to get involved.  Isn't there an American Model Rocketry
association that does just that?


-- 
Chuck Divine
From: wlmss@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Fermi's Paradox
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:46:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:Bsor1w.2BF@zoo.toronto.edu:-2096233449:peg:246900035:000:639
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!wlmss    Aug 16 11:46:00 1992


 
   You got it all wrong. ;-) When disruptive little lifeforms develop
   on planetary surfaces  *something*  evidently wipes them out fast.
   My bet is on comets which may be alive and sentient.    Expect the
   bombardment any time.      Perhaps just this once in this cosmos a
   technical socety has risen that  can  keep ahead of their cleansing.
   Credible possiblity?             ---
   We need to turn the divertible debris of the solar system into
   can openers before it is used to turn us into popsicles.
   Any sceptics need convincing comets are alive??
                                       ---         Lawrie Williams
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: U.S. Go'vt Procurement (was: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Keywords: procurement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:38:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.203909.12541@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>Dan Goldin, in a recent press release, announced that he's going to
>reform NASA procurement practices.  I don't know how, since NASA is
>bound by the same laws as everybody else (except Congress).

Goldin CAN set up a different system if he wants. Most of this is federal
regulation and not law. 

The advantage of the FAR's is that it keeps your ass well covered. If your
project fails miserably but you followed the FAR to the letter, your safe
and can even be promoted (as has happened).

You can choose not to follow the FAR if you want but your ass is no longer
covered.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:18:37 GMT

In article <1kbya_k@rpi.edu> strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>>A simple return craft can be built to return these payloads in a suitable
>>environment. Estimate the cost of this anyway you want.

>	Hmm, sorry, I don't have my figures for EVA handy. 

Well when you can attach numbers to your complaint I will address it.
Otherwise, it can't be considered credible.

>>Since it achieves less reliability than commercial systems costing a fraction
>>as much I don't think it is anything to boast about. Let's see it go on
>>for a few years.

>	How? If you kill it?  Compare the reliability of the first 50 flights
>of the shuttle with the first 50 of any booster.  When we get more 
>shuttle flights under our belt, we use that as a better data set.

Shuttle deserves to die on the basis of cost alone. Its generally
poor relaiblity is just iceing.

>>HL Delta would use Complex 37. As for Atlas, the report I mention does
>>say that the additional six flights can be acheived.
>>
>	Ok, so, let's see... under YOUR plan, you need at least 2 Soyuz
>flights to recrew that station, 4 times a year.. gives 8 flights.  Ok,
>so where do the extra 2 come from? 

They go up on the HLV along with the resuply.

> Given my numbers of min 3 flights
>gives you 12 flights a year, twice the 6 you quote. 

Only eight Soyuz are needed. If we need 12, that simply raises the cost to
$1.6 billion per year. Instead of saving $ billion per year we will only
save $3.4 billion.

>Now, where do we
>launch the Progress and other resupply flights?

the HLV of course.

>What happens
>when an Atlas is grounded (for whatever reason, I believe that you are
>reasonable enough to admit that sometimes ANY booster can be delayed 
>somewhat) on the pad you're planning on launching your resupply mission?

Since it can happen to any vehicle it can happen to Shuttle. Since we
resuply with unmanned vehicles, gounding is a far more serious problem
for Shuttle.

I also point out that unlike Shuttle, the alternate approach has
backups and assumes things will fail. If Shuttle fails, your dead
in the water. If Atlas fails, you launch on Titan. If HL Delta
fails, you use Titan V.

>>What isn't there is included in the estimated development costs. Like I
>>said, the HL Delta designers know what they are doing.

>	I've neer seen you quote the money to be spend on intergration
>facilities, etc.  

Nevertheless they ARE included.

>>Look, McDonnell Douglas offered the government 20 HLV flights at a fixed
>>price.

>	Oh Allen? What do we need 20 flights for?  

That represents ten years of station resuply.

    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?"                               |
+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:34:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: gnv.1992Aug19.183403.1527

Whatever became of the idea of inflatable space habitats/workstations ?
The savings on initial cost and on launch weight should be very great.
Add to that the large size and configurational possibilities and you
have an incredibly good deal. Modern materials, esp tri-weave carbon
fiber, could strengthen an envelope and protect against ripping or
bursting. All you need is a docking hatch and a few hard points to attach
odds and ends to. The rest is just hot air. Internal partitions and
compartments would be easy to build into such a structure ... or glue in
later on. The large internal free volume of air would also add safety
against explosive decompression. Self-sealing layers could deal with
micrometeorites. If desired, thin interlocking plates of metal could be
attached to the envelope to armor the whole thing. 

What's the problem ? Is this perhaps a TOO CHEAP solution - meaning that
the contractors couldn't steal enough money during development ? If we
want nice BIG space stations, with loads of internal room, with easy
expandability ... inflatable spheres sound like the economical solution.
Any feedback on this ?

-- Jim Mason 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:40:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.130334.8888@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>	Ok, we now have 4 potential solutions (HL-20, Soyuz, 2xPLS above);
>>Soyuz is $65 million per flight and $500 million to adapt (massively

>This is a questionable number. CIS is now quoting commercial launches
>on Proton for $65 million, 

KB Salut recently bid 35 million to launch an Immarsat-3 satellite.

>not including payload, and the US and others
>are complaining that that is a below cost figure and unfair trading
>practice. The US wants them to charge $85 million like Arianne. 

GD and Arianne bit $60 to $65 million for the same launch. $85 million
is a very steep price; list price of an Atlas is only $72 million.

>>	As you've said, neither PLS nor HL-20 is going to Phase B anytime
>>soon, though it's easy to point out that if they don't, we won't have
>>a ACRV for PMC Freedom...

>But we will have long duration Shuttles by the time of PMC. So the
>Shuttle can be crew transport, resupply, material return, and ACRV 

In other words, we will simply cut Shuttle utilization in half
thereby doubling the cost.

>until we get something better.

With all the money your wasting you will never get anything better.

somebody a while back asked why we don't have a lunar base yet. I
submit the answer lies in this post.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS feasibility and other space development
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:25:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Aug19.172512.8712
 <1992Aug18.130245.9231@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu>
wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

> As for quasi-religious; why are you so hung up on that phrase? Does it
> have some special meaning for you? My religion or lack thereof does not
> enter in to this discussion.

Yes - it means faith prevailing over reason.
From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:24:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9208211428.AA08827
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com

In <8780.2339210127@kcbbs.gen.nz> Simon Demler writes:
>Does it also bother you that these people could be spending some money
>on the drought problems in Africa rather than on some space program
 Nope, it doesn't bother me at all. The planet is overpopulated as it
is. Besides, how do you fix a drought ???
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk
                  voice/fax: 44-794-516038
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: space industry
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:28:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9208191433.AA07451
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com

In <1992Aug19.135709.17016@iti.org> Allen W. Sherzer writes:
>So what are Atlas, Delta, and Titan, chopped liver?
  Nope, one is the 4th letter of the Greek alphabet, and the other
2 are straight out of Greek mythology .. <insert deadpan expression here>
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk
                  voice/fax: 44-794-516038
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kfree@pnet01.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Martian Chronology
Date: 22 Aug 92 10:26:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BtDrny.AHq.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Has a Martian calender been worked up for the benefit of future
colonists? Would the moons have a practical or a _pro forma_ role?
---
Free Tibet.
UUCP: {ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!kfree INET: kfree@pnet01.cts.com
From: rjn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Weird circle-like things on shuttle map
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:28:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpfcso.7470026
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA

In sci.space, cortex@csli.stanford.edu (John Eisenberg) writes:

> On the NASA channel, when they display the globe with the shuttle moving
> around, there are all these cirlce-like things that have strange grooves.
> They seem to all be around places that could track or serve as emergency
> landing areas.  What are they and why are they shaped as they are?

Since you hadn't got any serious answers yet, let me take an educated
guess...

Each circle surrounds an earth ground station that can communicate directly
with the shuttle (i.e., doesn't need to use TDRSS).  The circumference of
the circle represents the range of coverage, and may be adjusted on a
flight-by-flight and orbital altitude/attitude basis.

The notches represent no-signal areas due to terrestrial obstructions.  If
you reached into the circle and folded the notches up vertically, you would
have a representation of what the horizon looks like from the center of that
circle (the transceiver site)

Since an emergency re-entry would take most of an orbit (if not more),
there's not much point in depicting landing sites within range.  The
envelopes would not be circles and would not connect with the sites anyway,

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:34:18 GMT

In article <Bsw5z7.6MJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent) writes:
>dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>
>>Clarke also had his tower made of that famous variety of unobtainium,
>>monomolecular filament.  Assuming he'd done some basic estimates, you
>>have to figure that's the kind of tensile strength you need for a cable
>>23,000 miles long.  He also had a captured asteroid stuck out on the
>>far end as a counter-weight, possibly at a height beyond GEO.
>                              ^^^^^^^^
>Most definitely beyond GEO - the Center of mass needs to be at GEO for
>the whole thing to stay above one spot.  i.e.,therefore,ergo: the cable
>must go (pretty far) beyong GEO.
>
   This is going to sound like a picky objection, but it isn't actually
the centre of mass which must be at GEO. That would be true for a
balanced tether in an environment where the force on an element of the
tether is +K outward from GEO and -K inward from it.
   The calculation actually gets a bit complicated. A balanced tether
which is not terminated with a big rock (ie. maintains its taper on the
outward arm for as far as it takes to reach the balance condition) will
turn out to be about six times as long, if memory serves, as the distance
to GEO. This puts the centre of mass a long way out.
   What you really want is that the net force on the tether in the
noninertial frame of the rotating Earth be zero. Assuming the tether
supports tensile loads but not compressive loads you can put a heavier
weight on the end than necessary and let the extra force be taken by the
anchor to the ground. In principle, given a big enough weight the anchor
can be arbitrarily close to GEO as long as it is outward from it.

>Tom Nugent		e-mail: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


-- 
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Confidence is the feeling
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | you have before you
 utzoo.utoronto.ca!generic!cneufeld              | understand the situation.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Early Warning of missiles and meteors
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:14:06 GMT

> they could detect it; if their systems were looking.  the military
> is rather sensitive about how sensitive their equipment is.  they
> 


I would tend to agree. However, from your description, I could  
suggest a scenario by which it could slip through.

	a) As you say, on a  hyperbolic orbit it would not be
	   detectable until it got fairly close .

	b) The entry point may have been over the continental US and
	   heading OUT into the ocean, thus it would not have been in 

	   the coastal watch until very late and may have
	   been there for such a short time as to be missed entirely.

Or, as you said, they seen it and the ain't talkin'....

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford)
Subject: Re: Tether and Space Junk
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:35:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.011547.16612@access.digex.com> rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.152518.11581@unlinfo.unl.edu> cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis) writes:
>>
>>I have been waiting to see this issue discussed: in the event of 
>>serious difficult with the tethered satellite experiment, I understand
>>that one option was to cut the tether. Wouldn't a 20 km cable in orbit
>>be the environmental equivalent of a drift net for space craft and 
>>pose an unacceptable hazard?
>>Cliff Bettis
>
>A follow up to the above question is what happens when a 12 to 20 or
>so mile-long tether starts to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere?  Aren't
>the Russians planning on flying a tether experiment and cutting it at
>the end of the experiment?  Would a long tether burn up?
>
>Bob Bunge


>rbunge@access.digex.com

















I'm using an editor on a weird system, so sorry if the following is
illegible or scrawled all over the previous article:


I don't think the length of the tether should matter in regards to it
burning up in the atmosphere - it is mainly the cross-section that
should matter (or perhaps more appropriately the volume to surface
area ratio and the material of the tether).  As long as the heat of
reentry eats through the same amount of "cubic inches per unit time"
on the surface of the tether, it should be able to eat up a tether of
any length in the same amount of time.  Come to think of it, if it's
copper or some similar mat'l, it should look pretty sweet if it's   
anything like the experiments you do in physics and materials classes
(quite a glow).

Does this sound right?

-- 
Scott Stanford                 (;@~)  (`@<)   
                             |\____________/| 
stanford@leland.stanford.edu |  \/  \/  \/  | 
                              \___/\__/\___/  The BIG FACE is your friend.