HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:28:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul29.153743.30201
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> Go for it Henry. It is nice to see an outside opinion sometimes.  
The BBC 

> world report had a wonderful report on how the democratic party  
manipulates
> the U.S. news media by having congressional staffers "interview"  
their bosses
> as if they were reporters asking real questions. Lots of other  
chicanery
> was reported on that will never be shown here. 

> 


Agreed. If you:
	a) Are neither Republican or Democrat
	b) Live outside the US

You start to see patterns of political party manipulation of the news  
that are so blatent as to be hard to believe.

For instance, I watched the media invent a domestica crisis after the  
Gulf War because if the issues had stayed on international politics,  
the Democrats were on very shaky grounds. Over a period of a year,  
one could watch the issue being slowly moved to that area.  
(Incidentally I despise Bush and wouldn't vote for a Republican if  
they were the only one running. Of course the same is true of  
Clinton)

There are also other sorts of media manipulation going on that I have  
been quite surprised about.

Like the front page story in The European about the acquisition of  
two Soviet tactical nuclear weapons from one of the middle eastern  
republics. Lots of details about it, including the types and sizes  
and yields of the weapons. Oh, and there is a third warhead missing,  
and it's whereabout are NOT known.

Now, maybe the US media thinks this is unverified. But even so, even  
the fact that there might be significant evidence that it is so  
should have been front page news. And I suspect it is more than just  
hype.

When I was back for the ISDC in DC I chatted with a number of very  
well informed people, NONE of whom had heard of this. I gave out  
several copies of the clipping...

So value those outside inputs. You just might find out where the wool  
is that is being pulled over your eyes.
Xref: sparky sci.space:10803 sci.aeronautics:1718
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
Keywords: NASP NLS SSTO Congress money
Date: 26 Jul 92 07:56:32 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <kays.5@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com> kays@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>I heard a rumor the congress is considering canceling NASP, SSTO and a few 
>other launch systems and dumping most of the money into NLS.  Does anyone 
>know if there is any truth to this rumor?  

That's what the Clinton platform says anyway.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:06:41 GMT

In <Bs67GK.BHn@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <rwallace.712411796@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>>However, one crystal is pretty much the same as another; none of them
>>actually do anything (in the absence of humans to make use of them).

>You've obviously never studied crystal properties.  They can be complex
>and strange.  Incidentally, in some circumstances they can even display
>a limited form of self-reproduction.

*Trivial* self-reproduction.

>>... You actually need something like a cell to have
>>self-reproduction at all, where by "self-reproduction", I mean
>>non-trivial self-reproduction, not things like crystal growth...

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

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

>>for non-trivial self-reproduction to occur, the following must be present:
>>An information storage unit which stores information on how to build the
>>organism.
>>Some machinery to construct a new organism.

>With sufficiently favorable conditions or sufficient patience, the machinery
>need be little more than a supply of suitable raw materials.  Don't confuse
>a self-reproducing *system* with a self-reproducing *organism*; just because
>you can't draw a line around it and say "this is where it ends and the rest
>of the world begins" doesn't mean it's not a real system, capable of
>both reproduction and evolution.

>>In organic life forms, DNA is the blueprint, which is interpreted by the
>>transcription process, and copied by splitting the strands and adding
>>matching nucleotides to each. The enzymes are the machinery, and there
>>is a cell membrane around the whole thing (which is needed, otherwise
>>the enzymes will float away and be lost).

>If circumstances are favorable, you don't need the cell membrane.  There
>is no fundamental problem with just having the blueprint and the machinery
>floating free in solution, if it's concentrated enough (the proverbial
>"small warm pond").  The cell membrane does confer a very important
>advantage -- the benefits of better machinery are available only to the
>blueprint that produced them, not to all blueprints at large -- but it
>is not essential to the first stages.

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

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Galileo Antenna. What's left to try? 
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:44:53 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul21.190805.4575@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>What is the confidence (of the NASA team, not some net-philosophers)
>that thermal cycling will help? 

Reportedly, it is now fairly low.  It's always possible that the thing is
just about to pop out and one more cycle will do it... but the lack of
results is getting pretty discouraging.

>What else can be attempted?  Thruster bursts? Fast rotation?

It's hard to exert much force with Galileo's teeny little thrusters.
And there are limits on the rotation rate the booms can take, which is
problematic because the antenna is much closer to the center of rotation.
About the best that can be done in this direction will be at Jupiter
orbit insertion, when the big -- well, relatively big -- maneuvering
engine is fired up, and spin is increased for better stability during
the engine firing.

You can shake the spacecraft a bit by moving other things, which is
going to be tried.

You can also try hammering on the deployment motor.  It stalls quickly
when turned on steadily, but pulsing it might jerk things loose.  That
too is going to be tried.

>What is the confidence that *some* technique will succeed?

Not too high.

>What is the schedule for more dramatic attmempts at freeing the antenna?

Nothing endangering the spacecraft will be tried until after the atmosphere
probe goes into Jupiter and its data is relayed back.  That's a major mission
objective, and it can be done without the high-gain antenna.

Given the work being done right now on things like data compression, I
wouldn't give very high odds on anything endangering the spacecraft being
tried, ever.  Much of the mission can be flown as is.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Keywords: Zodiak
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:56:14 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

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

There wasn't a March 2000 years ago. The calender we use is a modern 
invention of the 17th century. When the Gregorian calendar was rationalized,
we lost a week, and renters rejoiced and landlords cried. Precession is not
figured into the calendar. Unless someone rationalizes the calendar again,
the seasons will precess across the months. The Chinese calendar, and the
Jewish calendar now have the new year occurring on dates other than Jan 1.
That's because both calendars are old enough to have precessed a bit.
Besides, it's midwinter now, in the southern hemisphere. Which one stands 
on it's head?

Gary
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: still thrilled by a manned space shot
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:21:03 GMT
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Originator: stgprao@xing


I don't know if anyone else feels the same way,
but I find the space shuttle missions this summer to be more
interesting than the Olymnpics and presidential conventions.
I still get a thrill when I see a manned spacecraft and takeoff
even though I've been watching them for 30 years.
Xref: sparky sci.space:10646 news.groups:15943 sci.astro:8222
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.space,news.groups,sci.astro
Subject: Re: 2nd (last)  RFD sci.space.planets
Date: 22 Jul 1992 15:13:05 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space,news.groups,sci.astro

In article <1992Jul21.222548.23205@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> 
> One thing that almost all posters ignored was that one of my main
> reasons for suggesting a new group would be to *stimulate* planetological
> discussion, not solely to move traffic around.  Cross posting is always
> (unfortuntely) an option.  Right now, wading through a bunch of 
> vague subject lines in sci.astro that may or may not have interesting
> planetary contexts is time consuming and unenlightening.  With a group
> devoted just to planetary issues, we could all just read that group!

This is never a good reason for forming a group. The presence of a newsgroup
will almost never generate discussion. In general, newsgroups follow rather
than lead topics. If you want to stimulate the discussion, the normal was is
to either

	1) Start topics threads in existing news groups and when you have
           enough traffic. spawn your new newsgroup off.

	2) Start a mailing list; When you have enough people [around 100] then
           you can form a news group.

The idea that a newsgroup will generate posting has resulted in several low
usage news groups such as comp.edu.composition,comp.internet.library,
comp.lang.idl-pvwave,comp.lang.sigplan,comp.org.issnnet and  sci.comp-aided.
Let's not create another one



-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Current Galileo status
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:27:34 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <memo.537297@cix.compulink.co.uk> rupertg@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>What is the current status on Galileo and its comms problems? ...

No change on the spacecraft situation; hope is fading although not yet gone.
People have been working madly on data compression etc, and it looks feasible
to fly a good bit of the mission without the big antenna.

>... are the Voyagers
>still plugging away? What science is being done with them?

They're still out there and in reasonable shape.  They're reporting
fields-and-particles data, and doing a bit of ultraviolet astronomy.
(They have small far-ultraviolet telescopes that are currently the
best available in space in that wavelength range.)
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Radiative heat loss
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:18:40 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
-Date: 23 Jul 92 14:47:29 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

-The latent heat of the atmosphere is roughly 5.3E20 kWh. Radiative
-loss to maintain current equilibrium is 1.28E14 kW. That would require
-1.1E3 days to drop the temperature to 0 Kelvin, or 2.12 years to drop the 
-average temperature to the liquification temperature of nitrogen, if 
-radiative loss remained constant. Of course it does not. It varies with 
-the square of the black body temperature. 

The *square*? Please double-check.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:29:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul30.112951.70401
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> and subtract out all multiple star systems, no stable planetary  
orbits,
> 


Not necessarily true. It depends a lot on the distances. Ie, a  
stellar pair separated by Jupiter-distances or more could have  
closely bound stable terrestrial planetary orbits.

The question might be whether the planets could form in that case.  
The argument is that Jupiter is responsible for there not being a  
planet where the asteroid belt is today, and for Mars being a bit on  
the smallish side. An M0 star at that position might well have  
precluded formation of an Earth sized planet (with tectonics to keep  
the carbon tucked away) within the life zone of a G star.

But if you put it at a Saturnian or Neptunian distance?

Also, if you had two very close bound stars, you could have stable  
orbits about the pair. Once again, the sizes and such are important  
because you might preclude terrestrial planets in the combined life  
zone.

So it is really hard to make conclusions about multiple star systems  
since we don't know AT ALL whether planetary systems will form in  
them, but we do know that IF formed, they can exist in many types of  
binary systems.
Xref: sparky sci.space:10989 sci.space.shuttle:2002
From: SPS@helios (Bill Jamerson SPS Pres.)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: shuttle --ufo?
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:53:12 GMT
Organization: Ohio University ASCGL, Athens

a friend of mine reports having seen on WCMH evening news from Columbus,oh,
a report about the space shuttle seeing something like unto a UFO while up
earlier this year. He thinks it was either the last Columbia mission or 
the Endeavor mission (more likely). 
 The footage shown (taken from orbit by the shuttle) was a shiny object 
apparently in orbit below the shuttle, which suddenly darted in a different
direction. immediately following, the footage showed a flash of light 
originating form below where the object had been.  THere was some speculation
that it may have been a UFO.
  Did anyone else see or hear about this? if so, what else do you know?
  If someone from NASA could give us any info, that would be greatly
appreciated. 
  THank you.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Star Trek Realism
Organization: 
Distribution: sci,world
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:23:44 GMT

In article <nsmc5kc@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>, wsj@triton.wpd.sgi.com (Bill Johnson) writes:
>         AND the fact that the Enterprise can accelerate at accelerations
> which *must* be many multiples of one gravity, with no perceived acceleration
> inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.
> AND...
> 
> -- 
> Bill Johnson                    9U-530                   wsj@wpd.sgi.com
> Silicon Graphics, Inc.                             Office:(415) 390-1440
> Systems Software Technology Center                    Fax:(415) 969-2314

Well, this one I can buy, but only almost.  The acceleration is countered by
an artificial gravity generator.  When they get hit by phasers, the generator
must fluctuate.  However this means that they ought to float, instead of
getting knocked down. (unless it makes the field more intense, in which case,
it ought to flatten them!)

Now, another problem, why do they all fall unconcious within about 2 minutes
of losing "LIFE SUPPORT"?

		john.
From: rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu (Rich Travsky)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:44:02 MST
Distribution: world
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <rwallace.711925839@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie 
  (russell wallace) writes:
> Whales are _not_ intelligent in any significant sense of the word. If
> they were, they could prove it in about 30 seconds, by any number of
> means (e.g. whistle the prime numbers, *-* *-*-* *-*-*-*-* etc. - for
> that matter just whistle the numbers from 1 to 10). In fact, if they

There's an assumption here about intelligence that just doesn't pan out.
Unfortunately it sorta depends on defining intelligence. I'd prefer not
to jump into that, thank you.

On the other hand, what would a whale do with knowing the prime numbers?
Why would a whale(s) need numbers? I have read (back when I took some
anthro) that some less technologically advanced _human_ cultures did
not have a numbering system that went much beyond "one, two, and many".
By the above metric, then, the people in these cultures are not
intelligent.

So long, and thanks for all the fish...

Richard Travsky
Division of Information Technology     RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
University of Wyoming                  (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Propulsion questions
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:56:58 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: rmartin@yosemite.Rational.COM (Bob Martin)
-Subject: Re: Propulsion questions
-Date: 21 Jul 92 16:44:15 GMT

-nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

->In article <rmartin.711643766@thor> rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin) writes:

->   What about Arthur C. Clarke's A-Drive.  Blow a small stream of
->   reaction mass past a mini-black hole (A few tons??, the size of a
->   proton??)  

-clearly you want to make sure that the singularity is massive enough
-such that its evaporation rate is slower than its accretion rate.
-Does anybody know what the relationships of mass to evaporation rate
-is?  I was under the impression that explosive evaporation only took
-place when the singularity was very very small, i.e. < 1e6g or so.

I read it somewhere, but I don't remember the numbers. A black hole is rated
by its "temperature", which is a function of mass - the more massive the 
black hole, the "colder" it is, and the slower its evaporation rate. A
black hole the mass of a star should take many times the current age of the
universe to evaporate. I seem to recall an estimate that a black hole the
mass of a "mountain" would be radiating fiercely, and very close to a final
"detonation". It sounds like a black hole large enough to do what you want
would be too massive for a reasonable-size spacecraft.

(Just to be on the safe side, please don't create any black holes in *this*
solar system until we know for sure. :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space position
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:26:00 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
-Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
-Date: 29 Jul 92 01:06:50 GMT
-Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA

-In <1992Jul28.143654.17945@walter.bellcore.com> ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com (Doug Davey) writes:
->However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
->nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
->of political statements from the USAian election campaign.  If you have a
->technical reason why something a candidate proposes is a good or bad idea,
->fine.  However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.  Thanks.

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

-I respectfully request that we hear more from all persons of intelligence
-and less from all jingoes and dolts. Thanks.

Technical issues, and promoting specific programs are fine and welcome. 
"Translating" stated campaign platforms is a little more into the realm of
internal US politics.

Actually, it's an ongoing problem for the US. As Japan comes to own more and
more of the US, it has an increasing ability to influence US politics and
policies. When National Geographic and other magazines published articles on
the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, they took major financial hits, because
most or all of the Japanese advertisers pulled their ads - they just didn't
want the subject brought up. What publications will have the temerity to
even mention the 75th anniversary? Canada owns a much smaller percentage of the
US (I don't know the exact figure, but it's significant), so they're not
in quite the same situation yet.

The Administration turns around and does the same thing to other countries,
i.e. Israel and the loan guarantees, and other countries are influenced by
having guns waved at them. I suppose you could argue that it's justified
because it's being done, but there's a point of view that there's some 
benefit to not being extensively involved in the politics of other countries.
:-)

[My opinions, as always.]

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov