HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: lunar construction materials
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:17:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxMB3M.HJz.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In a slightly different context, John Roberts & Henry Spencer write ...

JR> >... Here's the composition for the Apollo 11 site: SiO2 (42.04%),
    >TiO2 (7.48%), Al2O3 (13.92%), FeO (15.74%), MgO (7.90%), CaO (12.01%), 
    >Na2O (0.44%), K2O (0.14%), P2O5 (0.12%), MnO (0.21%), Cr2O3 (0.30%).
    >(There are also tables for overall highland and maria composition.) Does
    >anything in there sound like it would be flammable...

HS> Note, straight oxides.  One or two of them could add a bit more oxygen,
    but overall this is *not* a flammable mixture.  Some of them would react
    a bit with atmospheric water vapor to form hydroxides.

This raises a potential problem with some desirable uses of Lunar regolith
for construction materials.  We'd like to just fuse a bit of the regolith
and use it as construction stone.  But several of these minerals *want* to
pick up water.  In their present setting, they are "dry as dust".  But in
the interior of any human-occupied environment, they will pick up water
from the air.  This will lead to a change in volume, and the material will
corrode, probably flaking.  (It will also act to keep the humidity down,
which might be either good or bad.)  Even outside a human habitation, there
will be stray water vapor, from the airlock, from the surface of anything
that was inside, waste dumps, maybe occasional spills, etc.

Given "water to burn", mixing regolith dust with water might make a good
cement, although we'd have to worry about it drying out.

A possible way to look for hidden water (subsurface ice?) would be to look
for spectral signatures of hydrated minerals.

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: More lunar gravity questions
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:51:29 GMT


A "gal" is 1 cm/s^2.  A mgal would be .001 cm/s^2, or about
a microgee.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Need Specific NASA Image
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov07.185538.13279@rvgs.vak12ed.edu>, cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu
 (Craig Fifer) writes...

I have the image in question on microfilm. Unfortunately my time quotient is
zero right now. If you can wait two weeks, I can scan it in at 600 dpi and
arrainge for you to ftp it from my computer.  Please reply to me by 
direct email if you are interested.

Hey Mr Bill. Can you send me the rest of the Lunar stuff that you started
a few months ago? Right now would be a really good time. BTW remember the
drawing I showed you in DC? Well things are go again on the project.

I just love making people try to figure out what we are talking about! :)

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:05:13 GMT

In article <lg3276INNjpa@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>In article <1drh9aINN91n@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>> ... Yes, nitrogen has narcotic effects at high pressure, but so does
>>oxygen.
>
>I think it's worse than that for O2: above two atmospheres or so, it's very
>toxic.

I don't have references to hand, but, from memory: above 2 atm or so, O2 is
an acute and chronic neurotoxin; toxic, but in a different way than N2.
Remember that O2, unlike N2, has some of the chemical properties of a free
radical.
Below *about* 2 atm, nearly all of the oxygen in the blood is complexed as
oxyhemoglobin; above about 2 atm, the hemoglobin is saturated with oxygen,
and O2 is present dissolved in the blood plasma.  It is apparently this
dissolved O2 that does the damage.  

As I say, from memory.  I distinctly  remember, though, seeing a paper
about 20 years ago on chick embryos in hyperbaric O2, perhaps 20 atm;  the
effects of the O2 were comparable to those from high doses of gamma
radiation.

O2 is nasty, dangerous stuff;  should be banned.


Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Nov9.194619.28736@pixel.kodak.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:24:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.194619.28736@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:

   [about Snarfy]

   When this all started I thought of that nonsensical 70's paperback
   that pushed the idea of a hollow moon as a giant starship.  [...]

"Somebody Else is On Our Moon". Can't remember the author; Donald
Something? Very entertaining (and quite fun doing the Rorschach
experiments, trying to `see' machinery in the moon pics).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Lunar effects on living organisms
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:56:11 GMT

There are some definite examples of this, mediated by tides. The mass coral
spawniong on the Great Barrier Reef, for example, takes place 4-5 days after the
October full moon. I don't know of any in land animals.
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Ice hardness
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:18:41 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>>->even one good-sized H-bomb placed directly into the
>>->nucleus would pretty much eliminate any "threat to earth". Seems it
>>->would be mostly vaporized and scattered.
	...
>I would assume that this is an indication that cryogenic ice is pretty
>hard stuff...

Being hard doesn't mean that bulk material is without flaws. It
wouldn't be surprising if the explosion caused major fracturing.
Precisely how much, would be unpredictable. 

Plus, no way the bomb is going to vaporize (much less melt) very much
of the comet. 
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wizard@r-node.gts.org (Miroslaw Kuc)
Subject: Shuttle improvements (was about new shutte computers) 
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX Information System (416-249-5366)
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:40:52 GMT

With all the changes to the shuttle computers and other components, 
is it easier/cheaper to maintain the shuttle?
Thanks!
Miro

-- 
wizard@r-node.pci.on.ca 
wizard@r-node.gts.org
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Man in space ...
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:59:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.721079973
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., 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 <720796989snx@osea.demon.co.uk> andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson) writes:

>>   What will happen if the space suite of an austronaut gets ripped 
>>in space ?
>>   Some of us recon that he will explode while others that he will end up 
>>with lots of bruises!!. One thing that all of us agree, is that it is not
>>going to be a very healthy activity.

>Well Nick, my feeling is that he would nearly explode.  

Well, Andrew, it's like this.  The universe just doesn't care how
you *feel*.

That's why scientists rely on *experiments* rather than feelings.
NASA and the US Air Force did numerous experiments, involving dogs
and chimpanzees, during the 1960's.  None of the animals exploded.
Their lungs didn't rupture.  Their windpipes didn't "lock."  Their
eyes didn't pop out and they didn't die of an "instant and massive
stroke."  In fact, the animals were able to retain conciousness for 
30-60 seconds and usually (except from a few animals that contracted
the bends and had to be destroyed) recovered with no irreversible harm.

All of this information has been publicly available for *decades.*
So why do self-styled experts keep making up absolute nonsense
instead of just reading the relevent literature?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.224620.15116@news.arc.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes...
>"Dante" to Descend into Volcanic "Inferno"
> 
>	Later this season, NASA plans to send an eight-legged robot into the
>crater of Antarctica's Mount Erebus, the world's only easily-reached volcano
>with a permanent lava lake.  The rover, appropriately dubbed "Dante," will
>photograph the crater, measure the temperature of the lava lake and sample
>the gases it releases.
> 
>	The Erebus project will test technology for future robotic explorers
>that could cross the rugged Martian landscape.  It also will collect science
>data to help understand Earth's environment, since some scientists think that
>gases from volcanic eruptions may play a role in depleting Earth's ozone layer.
> 
>	Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, built Dante under a $2 million
>NASA grant.
> 
>[NOTE:  This rover test has been postponed to next year.  Last week, Dante
>        damaged four its legs during a test run and has been sent back to
>        Carnegie Mellon for repairs.  Ron Baalke  ]
>

I've just been informed by someone associated with the Erebus project that
the repair work on Dante will only cause a 4 week delay.  So the rover
will be sent into Mount Erebus later this year. 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third. 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space Propulsion Research
From: William Fabanich <WAF102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:05:44 EST
Organization: Penn State University

What universities are best knownfor their research into space propulsion
 research ? How about a list, a ranking, and/or general opinions ? Whatever you
 might feel answers this question best.

                         Thanx,
                            Bill Fabanich
                            waf102@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 02:09:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.005151.15358@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins) writes:
>Sigh.  More myths about oxygen.  Normal oxygen partial pressure is
>about 150 mmHg (3 psi).  A pure O2 atmosphere at 150 mmHg total
>pressure is no better or worse, physiologically speaking, than air at
>sea level.  Nor is it more of a fire hazard.  Oxidation proceeds at

This is true for the most part, but at high O2 pressure, normally inflammable
objects burn quite well.  So in that respect, it is indirectly a fire 
hazard...sort of.  :)

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Where are shuttle research publications?
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: publications
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:08:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.021525.25017@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca (Henry Choy) writes:
>
>Where can I find publications on research and work done with the shuttle?

Formal scientific papers which document research done on the Shuttle
are published in a wide variety of scholarly journals.  There isn't one
journal which publishes or summarizes all of the research being done
with the Shuttle.  Many of the papers don't even have the word
"Shuttle" in their titles or abstracts.

You might try Human Factors.  It is a peer-reviewed journal which runs
quite a bit of material on manned space flight.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
      Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men
      with talent.  Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a
      proverb.  Education will not; the world is full of educated
      derilicts.  Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
      The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the
      problems of the human race."  -- Calvin Coolidge
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: RD-701
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:20:31 GMT

> 	Av. Week had a second article on the NPO RD-701, a tri-fuel
> engined which burns kerosene, LOX, and LH2, with continuously  
variable
> fuel transition from kerosene to LH2.  Is this to customize the  
rocket
> performance as a function of altitude, load, etc.?  The thrust  
figures
> for all kerosene were significantly higher than with pure LH2.
> 


Very interesting. Gary Hudsen's original SSTO design used a dual mode  
engine. You use the denser fuel to get off the ground and switch to  
LOX/LH2 at altitude. I would think you would need a dual expander as  
well (this appears in all the early Phoenix-E drawings). How do the  
russians handle that?

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thumb
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:43:49 GMT

In article <30473@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:

   [...]

   (1) This distance to the moon from the earth is the same as the
       as the distance to the earth from the moon,  

   (2) The earth is larger than the moon, and

   (3) We ordinary mortals here on earth can't cover the moon with 
       a thumb with arm outstretched.

   What is the error the caller made? Give up? It's number (3).
   There's a full moon out tonight. Go out and try it.

(3) depends, of course, on the size of your thumb, the length of your
arm, and the thickness of the gloves you're wearing. But you'd need a
very skinny thumb indeed for it to be true. A pencil held at arms
length will cover the moon. The illusion that the moon is much larger
than this is related to the illusion that it is larger still when near
the horizon (for that one, see alt.folklore.science).

From the moon, it's a much closer call, since the earth is nearly four
times as large (linearly). My outstretched thumb is 70cm from my eye
and 2.5cm across. The earth is 3.8e5km from the moon, and 1.3e4km
across. So my bare outstretched thumb would just do the trick.  Anyone
with fine thumbs or really long arms would have to be wearing thick
gloves.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Swift Tuttle and the satellite belt
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:23:02 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Nov2.222651.11883@dg-rtp.dg.com| jenseng@bojangles.rtp.dg.com (Greg Jensenworth) writes:
|So, suppose P/Swift-Tuttle misses the earth, but is closer than the
|moon.  Will it basically erase all the satellites on that side of the
|earth?  There will be a lot of junk traveling along with the nucleus,
|I would think...
|
The vast majority of artificial earth satellites live within 3000 km
of the earth's surface, the remainder include the GPS sats in 12-hour
orbits, the Molniya which start out low (around 400 km) and rise
to 40000 km, the geostationary sats (at 40000 km) and very little else. 
40000 km is 1/10th the distance to the moon, so if the comet is any
danger to the satellites is must go by at 40000 km or come closer
than 3000 km.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:44:18 GMT


-From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
-Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
-Date: 10 Nov 92 16:48:59 GMT
-Organization: University of Central Florida

-Actually, we should forget Hubble and spend the money needed
-for the repair mission on building a half-dozen Keck-type telescopes. 
 
The *incremental* cost for the corrections for the error (including
diagnosis, COSTAR, and replacing the little mirrors in WF/PC II, but
not including the service mission and the manufacture of WF/PC II because
those had been planned anyway) is estimated at ~ $60 million, so make that
*one* Keck at current prices. Since two Kecks have already been provided
for, and since HST can do useful things that no Keck can do, I think it's
worthwhile to repair HST.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Keywords: Earth-Moon Neutral Point Calculation
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:01:02 GMT

In article <Bx7CqJ.L8G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Nugent       ) writes:
>snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>
>>    Ranger  6,  launched on January 30th 1964, allegedly had it's electrical
>>   system burn out in flight and no pictures were sent.   Subsequent  Ranger
>>   Probes  were  more  successful  .  
>
>I thought that the reason Ranger 6 didn't send back pictures was because
>they forgot to take off the 'lens cap' before launch.  Seriously.  That's
>why they now have little red tags all over new probes etc. which say "Remove
>before launch."  At least that's the story I heard from a JPL engineer.
>

Hmm, the references I have say that the TV power supply shorted out
during booster separation.


--
====
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: i0c0256@summa.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Subject: Re: Man in the loop
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:00:00 GMT

In article <sf0L7wq00iV0M5s30N@andrew.cmu.edu>, Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
>Well it's strange, ain't it. Whenever there's a slow decision to be
>made, the responsibility in a human-machine system is given to the
>human, figuring the machine will make a mistake. (That's why we have
>decision *support* systems instead of decision *making* systems.)
>Whenever there's a fast decision to be made, as in fly-by-wire and
>nuclear power plant control, the responsibility is given to the machine,
>figuring the human will make a mistake. 


Actually one is giving control to the machine so that the human can 
THINK about what is going wrong. Most of the research in specific accidents
such as Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA) are studied in a way to allow the 
operator a safe margin of time to see what he can do to stop the whole process.

> 
>It's true that the human is always given the last word, but then if you
>look at nuclear power plant accidents, they seem to occur most when the
>human intervenes. 

While it might be true for the Chernobyl disaster, for Three Miles 
Island accident even the machine
could not do anything since they were not designed to handle this huge hydrogen
bubble.


> 
>Bottom line: Never trust a human, and never trust a machine.
> 
> 
Better : Never trust a bad design (TMI), Never trust an efficient design 
(Chernobyl) :-)


Igor
Nuclear Engineering Department
Texas A&M University
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Apollo fire
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 18:26:59 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <roelle.721603155@uars_mag>

I remember the incident, two men were killed while working inside the engine
compartment of Columbia in March, 1981. This was prior to the maiden flight
of the Space Shuttle, when ground procedures were still new and uncertain.
I've forgotten the two men's names, but they wofor Rockwell.
 
If memory serves, STS-1 astronauts Young and Crippen paid tribute to those
two men while in orbit.
 
-Brian
Xref: sparky sci.space:15366 alt.conspiracy:11885
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Keywords: Gravity Neutral point falsified
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:53:07 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article snarfy writes:
>
>In message Dennis comments:
>
>>Also the pertubations of Lunar orbits by the Earth and Sun become
>>significant at altitudes above 800 km and dominate above 22,000.

You should also say that satellites in Earth orbits that go to high
altitudes are very significantly affected by lunar and solar perturbations.

>Where did you read this?  Was this a paper based on theory or the actual
>flight trajectories of real spacecraft?  If it's true, I'll be the first
>to admit that it shoots my theory ...but I'd like to see for myself.
>
>snarfy

The Goddard publication, Satellite Situation Report, gives some of the
orbital parameters for thousands of objects in Earth orbit.  These values
are taken from current NORAD orbital elements.  Needless to say, the
orbital parameters do change in a way that is quite consistent with
the known values of mass, distance, and gravity.

The 1966 object, ATS 1, now has an inclination of 14 degrees.  The
original geosynchronous inclination was 0 degrees.

The Soviet payload, Astron, in a 5 day orbit, was launched in 1983 into
an orbit with an inclination of 51 degrees.  The current inclination is
32 degrees.  A year ago it was 24.  The large changes over the last
19 years are very well explained by proper computations.  It's not very
bright at 20000 miles, but I've seen it and I believe it.