HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Truax
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:20:36 GMT

al@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Haus Der Luge) writes:


>PS:  On the subject of Truax ... are there any L-5 types around here ???

Yah, but we're outnumbered by the local friendly "Just lie back
and NASA will fix everything with Freedom and NLS" crowd.

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:09:02 GMT

mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko) writes:

>Given that there are two bodies (Pluto and Charon), would it be
>possible to lose enough energy by sling-shotting around them
>repeatedly (the opposite to what's been done by the Voyagers, Ulysses,
>etc., at Jupiter)?  Or are they too small to have enough of a
>gravitational effect?

Pluto and Charon are teeny and light.  Pluto is something like .002 Earth masses
and Charon is even smaller.  So no.  Unless you were going _really_ slow - which
these probes won't be - you can't use gravity to slow you down.  Repeatedly
isn't an option since you can't do it more than once unless you've already lost
enough velocity to stay in the system.
-- 
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a 
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.AC.UK
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Small comet impact theory
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:14:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BuIsz0.Ixr.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

I was just reading the article in Science 31-July about the small  
comet controversy. Quite interesting from a political/sociological  
viewpoint. What I really can't fathom is: what was it about the idea  
that was so upsetting to people in the field that they replied to a  
possibly weak thesis with flaming rhetoric rather than research? Why  
did they wish it had not been published? I'd love to people's  
thoughts on it.

Note that I'm not interested in talking about the Dr. Lewis Frank's  
theory, which might be correct but is probably wrong; but on the  
sociology of the whole affair and it's implications for the world  
scientific culture.

I think there is a danger when scientists in any discipline make it  
clear that those espousing controversial ideas will be publicly  
denounced and privately cut off from funding. The mavericks may often  
be wrong, but when they are right, they shake the foundations of  
science. Controversies such as this send a message to young  
scientists that the way to gain recognition, funding and acceptance  
is by playing it safe and keeping their creativity leashed to within  
"socially acceptable" bounds.

That is *VERY* bad news for science as an institution.

Just in case there is anyone on here who was actually involved: I  
would chide them to respond to unconventional/unpopular ideas with a  
bit more of an open mind, or at least with well researched rebuttals  
rather than denunciations of the mere publication of an idea. For  
those unfamiliar with the debate, refer to the Science issue cited  
above. And note that the author of the paper was and is a highly  
respected space scientist. Right or wrong, it was an interesting and  
thought provoking idea and deserved more thoughtful response than it  
got.

OR, to put it really bluntly: if any of the involved are out there  
I'd suggest you allow Dr. Lewis Frank and his few supporters to  
continue to make their case in print as they see fit. If you don't  
like what he says, then respond civilly and scientifically instead of  
being a bunch of asses.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt (Rui Sousa)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: SABER - Sistemas de Informacao, Lda.
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:44:03 GMT

In article <BuBB2M.zL.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

   Not really relevant. In 248 years we'll have people living furthur out than  
   that. The real reason is that if a probe doesn't get there by 2010 or so, the  
   atmosphere will be condensing again. This IS our last chance for about 248  
   years to study the atmospheres of Pluto/Charon.

---

Well, perhaps during the next 248 years there will be a cheap way of duplicating the Sun's marginally greater irradiance power near perihelium. I think a big radiator, perhaps powered by fusion energy, placed in a properly designed orbit around Pluto would be enough to make the difference. Talk about astronomy as a  purely observational science...

Rui
-- 
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   ruca@saber-si.pt

                All opinions expressed here are strictly my own
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: "tom neumann" <tom.neumann@canrem.com>
Subject: 20 questions about th
Reply-To: "tom neumann" <tom.neumann@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:03:34 EST


To: aws@iti.org

Hi Allen!

I seem to have missed the article about the 20 questions (and
hopefully answers! ;-) about Delta Clipper.

If you still have the article would you please Emal it over to me?

Thanks,

Tom Neumann
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #350  I'm SO confused...
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario, Canadas
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Terraforming needs to begin now
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:02:57 GMT

In article <BuF5J6.50L@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <JGJ.92Sep9190252@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com> jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>
>	On terraforming  the  unpleasant bits of Earth:
>
>>I guess the hard part is getting fresh water to these regions.  Here's
>>my wild, uneducated, naive silly idea for all ya'll to shoot holes in.
>>There's tons of sand in these deserts.  You can use sand to make
>>glass, so, use all this glass to make huge solar distillation systems.
>>I'm envisioning long salt-water canals running from the Med. Sea, or
>>Oceans running hundreds of miles inland.  Covering each canal is a
>>greenhouse that heats the water up and makes it evaporate.  At the top
>>of the greenhouse, the vapor is collected and cooled of, and the resulting
>>distilled water is then pumped out into irrigation canals runing
>>perpendicular to the salt-water canals.
>>
>>Yes, I'm an idiot, but tell me why.  Why won't it work?  What *would*
>>work?
>
	Duh. In my previous reply, I  managed to miss the bit about
distillation. Never mind...

	What will be done with the salts left over from distillation, 
and anyone have an idea  how  much this might cost?

	Whose lifestyles get radically changed by a Libyan-Egyptian
border Sea?

							James  Nicoll
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
Date: 15 Sep 1992 22:47:51 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


Dr. Alexander Abian proposes:

>     As mentioned above, a practical way for creating a life-sustaining ecology
>say, on Venus, is to put Venus in an orbit similar to the Earth's orbit, to
>begin with.  This is the way, the only way.

Dear Dr. Abian, Sir:

   There are two approaches to this problem:

   (1) use your mathematical abilities to model the effect of transfering
       Venus to Earth orbit, quantifying the possibly deleterious        
       effects on the Earth's orbit and indigenous lifeforms.

   -or-

   (2) study Kabala, and become an AstroZionist, like me.

---------
Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: brettvs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Brett Vansteenwyk)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: (Big) Bang in The Netherlands
Summary: Brontides?
Date: 5 Sep 92 05:11:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep5.051118.3416
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

I remember some years ago reading about "brontides" which seemed to be
heard as either muffled booms to loud bangs and have been claimed to break
windows on occaision.  These were associated with coastal plain areas.  At
the time, people were not sure that they really existed, and certainly had
no firm theory as to how they came about.  Could this bang be a brontide,
and is there any net-expert on this phenomenon that could enlighten us
further?
			--Brett Van Steenwyk
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: UDSI
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:32:53 GMT



I saw parts of the pluto direct flyby talk by staehle from JPL.
they are talking of sending a 1-200 kg orbiter to pluto.

Did they consider using energia?  most of the charts I remember
were using titan or delta class launchers?

I was thinking an energia would allow a bigger bird or possibility of
more thrust to slow down the encounter.

Does anyone know if that's an idea, or do they want to hold costs down
to $150 million?
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:29:00 GMT

In article <9209050033.AA26423@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>I'd agree with you that it's not practical or desirable at present, but
>I also think that we don't know enough yet to make a decision for all time
>that it will never be practical or desirable. Terraforming is an interesting
>concept anyway in the sense that some of its principles might apply to
>smaller things like space colonies. (It doesn't *all* have to be done by
>brute force machinery.)
I especially agree with the last sentence.
Surely, in the long-term it makes more sense to alter the human organism to
life on another body (or deep space for that matter) than to alter the 
body (or space).  I imagine that many of the advances in molecular biology
required to terraform a body would lead to parallel insights into how to
adapt ``humans'' for currently hostile environments. Life needs an energy 
source, a way to replicate (optional), and some way to dump waste products.
*** Let's leave Mars for the Martians, but let's provide the Martians! ***
-- 
Gerald Cecil  cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169   NC 27599-3255 USA
   If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. -- Chairman of US Space
	Council.    ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: "Bob Montante" <bobmon@sandshark.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Arstrong's Boots
Keywords: Materials Moon
Organization: dyskaryotic
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:25:54 -0500

gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore) <1992Sep11.075511.6547@cc.uow.edu.au> :

| I was aked today a question by someone who hadn't even thought of all
| of the useful things I know about the moon.  A typical non scientist!
| He asked me "What material was used to make Neil Armstron's boots?" He
| needed the answer for a lecture on ??  and was serious in his request.

They were made of concrete.  That was the only way to make them heavy
enough to keep from drifting away.

:-)  :-)  :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: utiger@iat.holonet.net (Tom Utiger)
Subject: SSTO motors
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:43:57 GMT


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 00:22:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BuFoFx.2Mr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>
>I've always wondered about logic like this.  I suppose the increasing 
>population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus
>making food available?  Sure.  Makes sense to me. 

This is the point I've been listening for. It really doesn't matter what
the reasons for starvation are. It is happening.

>I see, so In ten years, all those green technologies the crazy tree huggers
>have been working on are going to be suitably conservative for you to use?

Ten years won't be enough time for the political force to be generated
to spend the money to build these energy resources on a large wnough
scale. I am afraid that by the time it it plain enough to the man on the
street it will already be too late to start.

With the national debt at it's present point we simply cannot afford
to do this now. If the politicians cannot even settle an issue as 
important as the economic well being of the country, how do you
suppose they will face something like changing power sources?>

>If you think electric cars or even bikes have to be "raggy" you obviously
>aren't very familiar with either.

You are not going to feed a world on the (non-existant oil) driven
green revolution by riding bicycles after the oil is gone, or
by burning coal to generate electricity to supply energy to
electric vehicles.

This whole string relates to space. (Believe it or not) This is
because a space faring species is one with energy independance of
a large order. We are who we are mostly because of the cheap and 
plentiful energy storage that mother nature was so kind to
leave laying about. This has turned out to be even more plentiful
then believed in the 50's but is, nevertheless, of a finite nature.

There _are_ means and methods that could greatly reduce the impact
of a petroleum-less society, but most of these need to be financed
heavily and soon. The political enertia of the world's governments
and the staggering global debts may simply make it impossible for 
the required steps to be taken in time for any meaningful corrections
to be made.

I can tell you that if you think that China and India are in any
position to survive a large scale environmental problem like the 
failing of a single year's monsoon then there is more trouble in
the world than even I imagine.
>
From: slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Seeding Venus (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
Summary: put bacteria & algae in Venusian upper atmosphere
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:49:08 GMT
Organization: Naval Satellite Operations Center, Point Mugu, CA, USA

In article <1992Sep13.205938.16251@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu 
(Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <22205@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil 
>(Shari L Brooks) writes:

>>But I have
>>always thought, there are plenty of bacteria & single-celled algae
>>capable of putting up with the Venusian extremes.

>Excuse me?  If by the "Venusian extremes" you mean the surface
>of Venus (with its extreme temperature and pressure), this is
>simply wrong.  No living creature based on the common terrestrial
>model (proteins, DNA, etc.) could survive those conditions.  Indeed,

No, I am thinking of the upper atmosphere, above the sulfuric acid...
I seem to recall that there is oxygen and the atmospheric pressure there
is still survivable.  [to bacteria, not humans!] 

I was thinking, that if the upper Venusian atmosphere were "seeded" with
a variety of bacteria, algae, even viruses (although I am fairly unsure
of the efficacy of that), that some would survive, adapt, and thrive.
Eventually evolution would dictate that something would adapt to surviving
lower down. 

>even the somewhat less extreme conditions inside hydrothermal
>vents here on earth are too hot for amino acids to survive.

Are these conditions less extreme than the upper atmosphere of Venus?

--
 Shari L Brooks                  |      slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             shari@caspar.nosc.mil
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
The US Navy probably disagrees w/all statements/opinions above, which are mine.
From: pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:31:32 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>It's always nice to see people write refreshing things like, "All you have to
>do is move Mars several thousand miles into a closer orbit." Or some such.
>Do you remember that lunatic that was interviewed on 60 Minutes about 
>the Soviet antiballistic missle system -- the one where he said, "All
>you have to do is, first, contain a nuclear explosion. Then ---", I
>sort of turned off at that point.

Ever wonder what underground nuclear testing did?

Well...

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Technology development
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 08:29:41 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
> An example of the best way to develop this new technology can also be
> seen in the fridge example.  Currently, GE is offering a huge cash
> prize for refridgeration technology based on something other than CFCs,
> with comparable or better efficiency.  I think the prize is $3 million,
> with a bonus for improved efficiency, but is was a while since I heard
> about it, so I may have the exact figure wrong.
> 
> If the goals in space were as easily defined, this would probably be a
> cheaper way for NASA to develop launchers, etc., than the current system.
Clearly, this is feasible.  I suggest people try defining some prizes.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Rocket Clones
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:01:59 GMT


Much of the high price of space launches comes from the complexity
of integrating the rocket and payload, and the extra effort needed
to develop many kinds of payload interfaces, fairing sizes, fuel loads,
and engine performance levels.  Both the cost of the launcher and the
cost of the satellite are impacted.

There are currently over a dozen different kinds of payload dimensions 
and interfaces in common use.  This has several consequences:

* once a satellite is designed, it is expensive or impossible
  to switch launchers, for example if it proves unreliable
  or its schedule is delayed
* there are few standard, mass-produced parts that can be used
  across different kinds of launchers and satellites
* there is no standard for training technicians
* it is difficult for new launch technology to enter the market,
  because satellite builders must be convinced to custom-design
  satellites for the new, more risky technology 

In the Earth surface freight business, cargo carriers have standardized 
on truck-trailer sized containers that can be put on trains
and ships.  A good chunk of our planet's cargo now goes around in these
things, with large gains in economy.

In contrast, the launch industry is a mess, with each government and
even each agency within government pursuing its own narrow-minded
strategy.  I suggest that two standards be developed for small (c. 500 kg
to LEO) and medium-sized (c. 3,000 kg to LEO) launchers.  The standards 
would specify payload dimensions, and most of the payload/launcher
interfaces.  All patents essential to implementing the standards would be
made available to the general industry with no royalty.

The USAF and Martin Marietta have pursued the cloning strategy
at the high end of the market with Titan 4, whose payload fairings 
and interfaces are designed to carry Shuttle payloads, while using
old Titan and new ALS expendable rocket technology.  This gives the USAF
the flexibility of being able to switch launchers in reaction to
scheduling delays or reliability problems.  As a result, this kind of
payload is becoming the high-end market standard.

Space investors should discuss these ideas with their companies, and 
space advocates should make rocket standards a priority on their 
agenda. Cargo standards will bring open systems and commodity hardware 
to the launch business; decreasing costs and increasing the infusion of 
new technology.



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Space Position
Organization: LSI Logic/Headland Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:48:35 GMT

In article <3SEP199210570592@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> aavso@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Tom Quesinberry) writes:
>Senator Al Gore chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Science,
>Technology, and Space...

How has he voted on the various attemts to scuttle DCX?
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
LSI Logic/Headland Products               No whimper, no blast.
sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp                  His life's goal accomplished,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                         Zero risk at last.
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Subject: SSTO has been achieved
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:11:55 GMT

As the subject line says, a Single Stage ascent To Orbit has been
achieved a half dozen times already, the last taking place almost
20 years ago.  The Lunar module ascent stage achieved lunar orbit
without dropping any stages (the lower section of the descent stage
was abandoned upon liftoff, serving as a launch platform).

The fact that lunar escape velocity is 1/6 that of earth, and that
without an atmosphere a 15 km high orbit is stable (for a few
orbits at least) and that the reduced forces (due to the lack of
aerodynamic stress and the reduced force of gravity) involved
lighten the craft substantially, a lunar SSTO was an achievable
task in 1969. 

But what about a martian SSTO?  I have seen several discussions 
about the logistics of a manned (or even unmanned return) mars 
mission, but I have never seen a proposal for how to achieve 
mars orbit after the mission has ended.  How difficult will this be?

Presumably, since numerous people here believe DC-Y will succeed,
similar technology will prevail on mars (where the conditions, while
more difficult than on the moon, are still easier than on the Earth).
But what about an unmanned sample return mission?  What would the
minimum weight be for a sample return craft capable of achieving
mars orbit (or solar orbit)?

-Kevin







-- 

            -Kevin

         Be particular