HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:04:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Sep13.150440.5023
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep12.194702.23291@usl.edu>
pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:

> 	but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
> 	hostile to technology and research spending
> 	and especially to projects involving
> 	space exploration and astronomy.

Would you or someone else please explain this, particularly this last
item? I can't say I'm too enthusiastic about the other side, either, as
the last four years have not gone well. My three best job prospects are
all abroad, so it looks like I ought to emigrate. Just the same, I'll
leave an absentee ballot. I'll miss the dear old U.S.A., but I worked
hard to get up from nothing into the cultural elite: it'd be a shame to
quit now. 

Fred Ringwald
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH 03755-3528 U.S.A. (for the time being, at least)
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:07:49 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> The athmosphere, as we all now, seems to be an enourmously complicated
> system. It gets kicked out of balance due to meteor impacts, changes
> to the angle of Earth's axis and the like.

This is not relevant to Dr. Zubrin's thesis.
 

> So if you would be able to heat up this system in a few decades it 

> probably wouldn't be stable at all. It would cool out, heat up
> again and maybe would never ever find it's balance again.
> I'm very suspicious if a "solution" to a problem like this turns out
> to be a brute-force method.
> 


This was not simulation, but a simple matter of temperature and pressure  
curves and the direction that things are driven. He showed that Mars is  
bistable and that as time goes on, the warming up of the sun is making it  
easier and easier to push it over the edge so that it will fall into the  
upper bistable state. His logic and charts seemed quite solid, but as I  
don't have a copy of my own to refer to, I cannot in good faith defend his  
thesis much better than this. We'll just have to wait until it show up
in the literature somewhere.

Oh, and it is most decidely NOT a brute force method. It is more like  
tweaking a parameter of a bistable feedback control system just enough to  
make it runaway into the the second state.

And yes, if you read what I posted I noted that it would reverse if the  
atmosphere becomes O2 rich.  It would become transparent and allow cooling.  
But the CO2 atmosphere supports positive feedback that keeps things warm  
enough to keep the CO2 gaseous.

=========================================================================
Are PC owners Internet Challenged?    Dale Amon,Queens University Belfast
					      (!!!Incoming!!!!)
=========================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:57:30 GMT

If we send 2 probes to Pluto, maybe we should design them so that they
can "talk" to each other.  In case one has a stuck antenna, like one
we have en route to Jupiter.  Then one can relay data from the other.
Or a dead high power transmitter, or a deaf receiver, and such.

I suppose that someone has figured out what design to change, or do better,
to avoid "stuck antenna" problems?
=========================================================================
Are banana peels considered hazardous waste (after all, someone could
slip on one and fall)?
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terraforming needs to begin now
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:53:11 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <JGJ.92Sep9190252@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com> jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:
>
>On the wall of a nearby office is this neat picture of a planet with
>large amounts of liquid water, but large portions of the land mass is
>brown -- dry, relatively lifeless desert.  How about some ideas on how
>to terraform good old earth?  Starting with the Sahara or Austrailia's
>outback.
>
[distilled saltwater irrigation plan deleted]
>
>Yes, I'm an idiot, but tell me why.  Why won't it work?  What *would*
>work?

While this might work, it's a major engineering challenge that isn't
needed. What's needed instead is to restore the Great Sahara Forest
treeline by treeline using the plentiful underground aquifier of
the region. Yes, the Sahara was not always desert, and yes, there
is plentiful water there down deep. 2,000 years ago, the Sahara
region was forested. That changed the weather patterns in the Med
and northern Africa. It used to rain there regularly. It would again
if the forests were restored. There is a UN sponsored project working
on the southern edge of the Sahara to do just that. They're underfunded,
and presently in a war zone, but the plan can work given time.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Relativity
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:40:24 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

#4300029 from John Roberts

I always thought I had a good handle on the basics of relativity.
Can you have a look at this for me, and tell me what you think?


A Thought experiment:

Star A is four light years from star B.  A spaceship leaves earth
and accelerates to .9 C and ceases acceleration when it passes
Star A.  An observer inside the moving frame notes the length of
subjective time passing.  When the ship passes star B, the observer
inside the frame has only experienced 1.95 subjective years.  For him,
he traversed four light years in only 1.95 years.  A subjective speed
of 2.05 C.

          ---->---->---->---->---->.9C
              *A             *B

                                                   __
                 T = d/v     ->   T = 4ly/0.9C = 4.44 yrs
                                     ________________
                 Tsubjective = T x \/ (1-(v*v/c*c))

                              = 4.44 yrs x 0.44
                              = 1.95 yrs

                 Vsubj = d/Tsubj = 4ly/1.95yrs
                                 = 2.05 ly/yr


However, if he were to use instruments to determine his velocity
relative to the frame of reference, his velocity would remain .9 C.

The only flaw I can see in this is if my observer's velocity somehow
changes the timing of his observations of incidence with Star A or B.



A recent SF book used relativistic mass to produce black holes.
i.e. accelerate a spaceship until it's massive enough to collapse
into a singularity.  Something seems missing in this equation.
Could it happen?

Not knowing the more complex math of relativity, I have no way of
proving it to myself.  But I wonder if time dilation due to velocity
(and the gravitation itself?) would put the singularity at the end of
an asymptotic curve, like v=1.0C, completely unachievable.


You may do SF a great service by whacking this SF writer upside
the head if he's wrong.


Alan

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:15:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <15054@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>> I believe that portion of the discussion involved a search for terrestrial
>> organisms that could live on Mars unmodified. I believe the Viking tests
>> found *no* organic material, and they should have found some from meteorite
>> impacts.
>
>The discussion wandered a bit, and I got the impression that the "Mars' surface
>conditions would kill any Terran life" argument was being used to argue against
>_any_ life able to exist there.  Viking scratched only the superoxidized
>surface; would it have noticed silica fibres?

That is slightly incorrect. I suggested that it woul be possible to find
either naturally occuring organsms or bioengineered organism to colonize
Mars.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct/ options
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:57:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.025730.29227@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes...
>If we send 2 probes to Pluto, maybe we should design them so that they
>can "talk" to each other.  In case one has a stuck antenna, like one
>we have en route to Jupiter.  Then one can relay data from the other.
>Or a dead high power transmitter, or a deaf receiver, and such.
> 
>I suppose that someone has figured out what design to change, or do better,
>to avoid "stuck antenna" problems?
>
The problem with Galileo was that it required a Venus flyby to get enough
energy to go to Jupiter.  This necessitated folding up the main antenna so
that it wouldn't be damaged by the close approach to the sun.  The Pluto
direct mission does not need to worry about this, since they will be flying
directly out from Earth to the outer solar system.  The antenna will be
fully opened when placed into the payload fairing of the Titan rocket (there
was an article in yesterday's NY Times on this mission by John Noble Wilford,
and I recommend reading this for anyone interested in this mission).  Actually,
Rob Staehle has an overhead transparency showing what the entire payload would
look like in its fairing (including the two solid upper stage motors), and its
miniscule size is really quite funny.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
irwin@iago.caltech.edu                |
ih@deimos.caltech.edu                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:18:17 GMT

>>Perhaps Mars has life already.  So what?  Anything we do will increase the
>>amount of life on Mars, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is
>>there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better
>>suited to living on Mars than anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve.
>>Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life.  Again, so what?  We can predict that
>>it's natural course would be to eventually grow more complex, through the
>>mechanism of evolution.  But we would bring already-complex stuff along,
>>speeding the process, to the enourmous benefit of life itself.

Perhaps the rain forest has life already.  So what?  Anthing we do will increase
the amount of life in the rain forest, and probably won't even interfere with
whatever is there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly
better suited to living in the rain forest that anything we could bring, 
engineer, or evolve.  Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life.  Again, so what?
we can predict that its natural course would be to eventually grow more 
usefull to us through the mechanism of science and breeding.  But we would 
bring already-useful stuff along, speeding the process ... etc, etc.

The two biggest reasons to look for life on Mars are to see if it exists, and
to see what life can be like when it develops under completly different 
circumstances.  Doubling the number of fungi in the Earth-Mars system is not
worth the cost of cripling the opportunity to answer the above questions.  Once
we know (or can be "reasonably" sure) that there is no life, then we can begin
to change Mars to suit our taste.

-- 
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   
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: RL-10
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:45:51 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep11.172322.2177@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>RL-10 failures? What does that do to Allen's statistics for the reliability
>>of the engine to be used for DCX?
>
>Even with the failures it's still extreemly reliable. However, it is not
>a problem because in both cases the problem was that the engine failed
>to fire, not go boom. So all DCX need is enough engines for an engine
>out capability (which it has).

Another side of this, too, is that all engines on Delta Clipper are firing
at launch... so an ignition failure can probably be a pad abort rather than
an engine-out flight or a mission failure.  This is one place where
multistage vehicles lose badly.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.space:12916 sci.astro:9671
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:07:00 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) says:

> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>> Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
>> necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
>> economically beneficial.  And you're probably totally off base, given
>> the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore.

> Wrong on both counts. How do you define "economically beneficial"? The Global
> Positioning System is one pretty nifty spin-off from the Evil Military, hm?
> Smaller computers? Smart-optics compensation for telescopes?

I suspect that the spin-off argument is about as bogus for military research
as it is for other fields (eg, the SSC).  For example, unclassified work
on laser guide stars was proceeding at the same time that the SDIO was
pursuing its own program.  Needless to say, the budget for the former was
vastly smaller than for the latter.  My conclusion:  If you want some benefit,
then go for it, but don't hope that by doing some unrelated work at much
greater expense you'll be lucky.

GPS is certainly a nifty spin-off.  It also is good for the consumers that
they don't have to pay for the R&D and capital costs.
From: freed@nss.org (Bev Freed)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Understanding human behavious in isolation
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:51:14 GMT
Organization: The NSS BBS, Pittsburgh PA (412) 366-5208


European Space Agency

27 August 1992

                           EXEMSI '92

   FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUS IN ISOLATION

For 60 days, starting on 7 September 1992, the European Space 
Agency (ESA) will run "Experimental Campaign for the European 
manned Space Infrastructure (EXEMIS)" in the deep diving facility 
of DLR in Cologne, Germany. 

A crew of four, one woman and three men, will be shut up inside a 
completely isolted pressure chamber and laboratory with all their 
food and provisions.  The experiment simulates a long duration 
mission on a small space station.  One of the main objectives of 
EXEMSI '92 is to see how a small mixed group behaves when they 
are isolated in confined space to perform an experimental 
scientific programme similar to the activity expected in a low 
Earth orbit space station.  

On 7 September the complete team* (crew back-up and crew 
interface coordinators) as well as the programme will be 
presented at a joint ESA/DLR press conference to be held at 10h00 
at DLR, 5000-COLOGNE, 90 Linder Hoehe.  

*  Ms. Catherine Casgrain (Canada), Ms. Marie-Christine Costino 
   (France), Mr. Colin Lloyd Davies (Great Britain), Mr. Hildo 
   Krop (The Netherlands), Mr. Clemens Lothaller (Austria); Ms. 
   Alessandra Maulino (Italy), Mr. Matthieu Roulet (France), Mr. 
   Luca Urbani (Italy), Ms. Anita Vestin (Sweden)
        





--  
Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed
INTERNET: freed@nss.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:38:14 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <kdawson.22.715361383@AFIT.AF.MIL> kdawson@AFIT.AF.MIL (KEVIN D. DAWSON) writes:
>>except that it will probably use either a "plug nozzle" (which puts the
>>entire base area of the rocket to work as the nozzle) or telescoping
>>nozzles that can be made longer in flight... neither
>>has flown, although both look workable...
>
>I Take it the Telescoping nozzle on the Peacekeepers upper stage doesn't 
>count because it only telescopes for storage?

Correct.  There are quite a number of nozzle designs that telescope for
storage but are fully deployed before ignition.  They are common for
applications where nozzle length is a major issue:  submarine-launched
missiles (where a fixed missile-tube volume must be used as efficiently
as possible), treaty-limited missiles (same requirement for a different
reason), and shuttle payloads (the IUS uses telescoping nozzles).  Nobody
has yet flown a nozzle designed to be *fired* in more than one position.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: coopride@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Amy L. Cooprider)
Subject: spacesuits
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 02:14:58 GMT


Does anyone know the latest figures for how much a spacesuit weighs??
I`ve heard of figures between 150 and 300 pounds.  This is somewhat trivial...
I only need the values to compute the payload of a vehicle for my senior 
design course.

Thanks!!

-ALC
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: vulch@cix.compulink.co.uk (Anthony Frost)
Subject: Re: Space markets
Reply-To: vulch@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:52:00 +0000


 
  > In the commercial world not one manager of of a program will
  > dare to use any technology that has not been "proven" by the
  > military or NASA on government sponsored space flights.  The
  > solar arrays, batteries, power systems and upper stages were
  > all proven as a military or NASA program previous to their 
 
Mind you, you can get unproven technology very cheap. UoSAT-1, the first
satellite built by the University of Surrey, got its solar cells more or
less free as a donation from the manufacturer. (I think it was a case of
"Here, give us fifty pence for them" [made up number though!]) For UoSAT-2
they went back to the same manufacturer as the panels had been nicely
reliable and were quoted telephone numbers for the purchase price. "Why the
increase?", "Oh, they are space qualified now thanks to you!"
 
          Anthony

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Asteroid explorer
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:41:58 GMT

[Phil posts neat idea for hitting asteroid with a tank and measuring 
the seismic effect]

Along these lines, perhaps we can steer upper stages headed for
deep space into intercept trajectories, and get some observing
time on a big telescope like Keck or Hubble to see what happens.
For example, could Mars Observer's TOS be steered into Phobos,
or would we have had to tinker with TOS's navigation box beforehand?
Do we know Phobos' orbit well enough to steer blind?  What
could we learn by doing imaging and spectroscopy on the resulting Phobos 
debris cloud?  I suspect this would be a great way to learn what lies
underneath the surface layer of regolith.

The collision wouldn't damage Phobos, just put another impact
crater on it.  Some future isotopic ratio studies might be
effected, and the spectroscopy study itself would have to factor 
out the TOS debris.  


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Xref: sparky sci.space:13007 misc.headlines:6339
Newsgroups: sci.space,misc.headlines
Subject: Alien substance from space
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:59:34 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Anyone have any ideas as to what the substance found on NASA's long
term exposure unit is?

	Apparently it's something never before seen on Earth.

	The substance is a few microns of crystal-like material found on a 
piece of teflon from the structure.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:22:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.195609.29356@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>	Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests
>that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment.
>Both Clinton and Gore have suggested increased suppport for national
>computer networks ("internet", maybe you've heard of it), and a major
>part of Clintons economic policy is government funding of technical R&D.
>Thats not what I usually think of when I think "hostile".

	Because they're going to have to get
	lots and lots of money from somewhere,
	---without raising taxes or slashing social spending---
	and they're going to have to do it in a Big Hurry,
	since there will be a lot of pressure on them to get quick results
	in order to prepare for the next election.

	(4 years is a short time by political/economic measures)

	Cutting deeply into research funding and space exploration
	is an easy way to do this without losing too much support.

	Perhaps you remember the slogans of the 60's:

		We shouldn't be sending people to the moon,
		while there are still people starving here on Earth.

	Clinton and Gore, for all their brand-new-packaging
	are essentially a throwback to '60s liberalism.

	Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat
	---a liberal and a populist---and he's not about
	to favor technology and investment
	over traditional social goals.

	Clinton's main strategy is to get elected,
	and he will promise anything to anyone to accomplish that.
	After that, he will have to face reality
	and make hard decisions on what he can accomplish
	in his first (and maybe only) term.

	If you're a poor, uneducated person,
	you WILL probably benefit.
	But if you're a skilled white-collar worker,
	or an entrepreneur, or an investor,
	then Bill Clinton is going to soak you.

	The world econony is in a slump,
	major changes are taking place,
	and we are just going to have to ride it out.
	Throwing up trade walls only guarantees
	that when the recovery comes
	we will not be able to take part in it fully.

						And that's all folks :-)

						Gerard
-- 

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA

Newsgroups: sci.space