HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Early life discussions
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:45:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxMq66.A1D.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> Now, tell us all about the experiments that made pure
> 5'-Phosphorimidazolide of Adenosine with a spark from CO2, nitrogen
> and water.
> 

> It's a fine tradition in origin-of-life research to assume away
> your starting materials.  Rather a waste of time, IMO.
> 


If I run across such a reference, I will post it for the use of those  
arguing on this thread. I am not. Calm down for chrissake.
Xref: sparky sci.space:15382 alt.conspiracy:11902
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Keywords: Lunar Neutral Point Calculation
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:41:42 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, 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.

Well, if lunar surface gravity was about .64 that of Earths,
then suited astronauts on the Moon would have weighed about
240 pounds. Hardly likely that they would have been bouncing
around as lightly as they appear to be in the videotapes.
And the hammer and falcon feather fell much too slowly for
0.64 G.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gloveless in Vacuum? (was Re: Man in space ... )
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:11:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.093438.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>The reason I'm writing, instead of just allowing the discussion to
>peter out, is to mention that a suggestion of Hermann Oberth's:
>Astronauts might wear spacesuits without gloves for delicate work!

>He reasoned that your skin can stand up to low pressure without major
>medical problems, so maybe you could work without pressure gloves in
>space.

>Now, here's Henry...
>==================
>    HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE

>    Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
>    [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
>    start after ten seconds or so.

The sort of swelling refered to is more severe, if one's lungs (and therefore
blood vessels) are at atmospheric pressure. Exposing one's bare hands to zero
pressure wouldn't _kill_ anyone, but it would still cause alot of minor
damage.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: imdisp
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:57:43 GMT

In article <CMM.0.90.4.721361081.ephillip@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Earl W Phillips <ephillip@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes...
>Does anyone know what images are used for the imdisp
>software, and where to get 'em?

IMDISP will support VICAR, PDS, FITS and GIF formats.  VICAR is the format
used by the JPL Image Processing Lab, and there are several images 
(mostly Magellan images) available in the pub/SPACE/VICAR directory at 
ames.arc.nasa.gov.  I've converted most of these images to GIF and they
are in the pub/SPACE/GIF directory.  The PDS format is used on the CD-ROMs
put out by JPL, and there are dozens of these CD-ROMs available from
NSSDC at the Goddard Space Flight Center.  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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,alt.sci.planetary
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:22:43 GMT

Henry Spencer writes:
#Even so, nobody would have been rash enough to *predict* ice there.
#Recent radar-mapping work shows strong echos from Mercury's poles which are
#very difficult to explain as anything but ice deposits.

The late Axel Firsoff has predicted ice on the caps of Mercury. 

However, Firsoff was known to have some "non-mainstream" ideas also. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky sci.space:15552 alt.conspiracy:12056
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Keywords: snarfy concedes
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:18:46 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <4608@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>
>    I  will  continue , however to point out alternative theories to account
>   for various facts  of  nature.  Theories  are  not  science,  but  merely
>   suggestions  of  possible  explanations  for  observed  phenomena  .   An
>   alternate theory need only be logically and mathematically consistent  to
>   be as viable as relativity , or any other theory.

No, to be viable, a theory must make useful, testable, predictions that are
*better* than existing theory, or contain fewer unconstrained variables
while at least equalling the predictive power of existing theory.

>    I  am  , at least,gratified to learn that Velikovsky's idea of planetary
>   collisions , long scorned and ridiculed by the scientific community ,  is
>   now the prevailing theory explaining the origin of the moon.

Velikovsky's ideas are still scorned and ridiculed because they violate
known facts. No one disputes the likelyhood that planetary bodies collided 
in the formative stages of the solar system, but equally true is that no 
competent scientist supports the idea that such collisions have occurred in 
historic times. The geologic record clearly denies such collisons, and
celestial mechanics says that a ping pong Venus is not dynamically possible
as Velikovsky describes it.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU ("Kevin R. Cain")
Subject: Addr: SPACWE FOOD
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:36:13 GMT

FROM: KEVIN

Nigel Allen posted:

>Date: 12 Nov 92 23:13:28 GMT
>From: Nigel Allen <ndallen@r-node.gts.org>
>Subject: SPACE FOOD. How Food Processors Manufacture Space Food for NASA
>Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.food.cooking,alt.food,misc.misc
>
>Here is a press release from the National Food Processors Association.
>
>****   stuff deleted   ****
>
>The standard Shuttle menu supplies each crew member with three
>balanced meals, providing 2,800 kilocalories each day.  Diets are


WOW! No wonder they say that the shuttle glides like a brick. At 2,800
kilocalories a day per I'm not suprised!  :-)

As the saying goes, what's a order of magnitude among friends.


*******************************************************************************
*  KEVIN R. CAIN, APPLICATIONS SUPPORT  *    "HUMAN? IT'S A DELICIOUS,        *
*  FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY             *     NUTIRITIOUS SNACK THAT          *
*  TALLAHASSEE FL 32307                 *     TASTES JUST LIKE CHICKEN!"      *
*                                       *        - BATTY, FERN GULLY -        *
*  KEVIN@VM.CC.FAMU.EDU                 *                                     *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check and Apollo fire
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:58:48 GMT

soc1070@vx.cix.umn.edu (Tim Harincar)  writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.225129.28676@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes...
>> 
>>I have not heard of that book.  Who was the author?  

>_Carrying The Fire_ was written by Michael Collens (CM pilot on Apollo 11).
                                            ^^^^^^^
>Its sort of a autobiography of his life as a test pilot then astronaut.

Spelled "Collins".  He was also the first Director of the Smithsonian
Air and Space Museum when it opened circa 1980.  To best of my knowledge
he is still working for LTV Corporation in the Washington, D.C. area.

Curt Roelle
roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Man in space ... 
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:36:03 GMT

Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu) wrote:
> In article <1992Nov9.182037.19085@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins) writes:
> >... At normal arterial O2 partial pressure (about 100 mmHg),
> >the blood is almost completely saturated with oxygen.  You can raise
> >the partial pressure by hyperventilating, but not the oxygen content.
> 
> How do the breath-holding effects of hyperventilation work, then?
> Flushing CO2 out to suppress the desire to breathe, as opposed to
> providing more internal oxygen to eliminate the need to breathe?

I think the hyperventilation idea is an incorrect extrapolation from
underwater techniques.  Vacuum would be like an anoxic atmosphere - no
oxygen coming in, but no problem losing CO2.  Without buildup of CO2 in the
blood, there's no urge to breathe faster.  That's why people get caught out
by hypoxia: they don't feel a problem until they're so far gone they can't
save themselves.  Just this week a guy died inside a storage tank after it got
flushed with N2 by mistake.

Moderate ventilation might be a good idea for fully saturating the blood
with O2.  Beyond that you risk lowering blood pH to the point where you
impair your ability to function.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Man in the loop
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:50:18 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

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. 

And they're both right, too.  Machines aren't good at coping with
unforeseen situations, hence a bias toward leaving non-time-critical
decisions to humans.  They are good at making simple decisions quickly
hour after hour, which humans don't do well at.  (A human pilot can
fly an unstable aircraft, but it's extremely tiring and very intolerant
of even small mistakes.)

It's worse than you think, though.  In automated systems like modern
airliners, increasingly humans are placed in the role of system monitors
rather than active participants.  They are basically asked to remain
alert for long periods of time with nothing much to do, and react quickly
when needed... this being exactly the sort of task that *machines* do
well and humans don't.

There are many situations where a little *more* automation could do
wonders for safety.  I mean, it does not take megabytes of code to watch
the coordinates from an inertial navigation system and turn on a warning
light if you're about to enter Soviet airspace...
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:15363 alt.sci.planetary:235
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Comet Collision
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:08:51 GMT
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Wayne Harvey (wharvey@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au) wrote:
> 
> >In <BwwKo2.6vt@breeze.rsre.mod.uk> black@breeze.rsre.mod.uk (John Black) writes:
> 
> >>Maybe a near comet approach could be a good thing. I did a rough calculation 
> >>and estimated that there must be something of the order of 10 to the power 11 
> >>metric tonnes of water. Maybe in 130 years time somewhere on the Earth could 
> >>do with some water,  <et cetera>
> 
> Here's something that people seem to be missing, that has been bandied about
> by SF writers for a long time: 10^11 tonnes of water (and associated other
> shit), if we could capture it and place it in Earth orbit, would provide
> us with an awful lot of fuel for rockets. Perhaps we could even have fusion
> rockets when the comet comes back in 130 years, and that would make for
> some pretty inexpensive colonisation fuels.
> 
This one's not a great bet.  For a 50 km/s velocity change, about what it
would take to get the comet into Earth orbit under ideal conditions, you
have a mass ratio of about 1/163 if you assume some fairly optimistic
numbers for rocket efficiency.  In other words, take 1.63 x 10^13 tonnes of 
your own reaction mass to the comet (requiring 163 times that to match
velocities) or take your energy source there and use it to throw away
162/163 of the comet as reaction mass.  Actually, the delta V is even
worse because there's Earth's orbital velocity to take into account.
The mass ratio could be 2-4 times worse.

The same technology can put icebergs in orbit for much less cost...

Incidentally, re Asimov's "Martian Way", I estimated Saturn orbit to
Mars orbit as dV= 5.5 km/s, with another 3.5 km/s for landing on Mars.
You could fly a Saturn ring fragment to Mars using about 3/4 of it for
reaction mass (Isp = 1000 or so) but I'm afraid Ike was way off.  He
had about 2% used for reaction mass, along with out-of-plane orbits,
continous boost trajectories, you name it.  Give the guy a break, he
was a biochemist.....he also wasn't to know that ring fragments aren't
big enough for the scheme (his was 1 cu. mile).

> Has anybody read Arthur C. Clarkes' 2051: Oddessey 3?
> 
Well, yes.  They visited Comet Halley (that's 2061, BTW).  What else?
Oh, they used Sakharov's Cold Fusion (mu meson catalysis) for energy.
Anything else?

--
||Halloween Candy: the office snack    |
||from Nov. 1st onwards............... |Puff the Magic Dragon
||-------------------------------------|Lived by the sea
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Who knows what's in the autumn mists
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY      |In the mind of Yadallee?
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Water and moon rocks?
Date: 13 Nov 92 06:30:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bxn64B.Mp5.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: bruceh@mothra.rose.hp.com (Bruce Hendler)
-Subject: Water and Moon Rocks?
-Date: 11 Nov 92 23:20:17 GMT
-Organization: HP - Systems Technology Division

-The other evening I was watching a PBS special about the moon.  I briefly
-caught a portion of the program about some scientists creating water
-from moon rocks brought back by one of the Apollo missions. It was being
-done by introducing hydrogen into the rock.  They showed this working...      
-you could see water dripping from the moon rock.  Could someone please
-explain this in more detail.  Like I said, I only caught a glimpse of it and it
-totally amazed me.

Since the hydrogen has to be imported (water, LH2, metal hydride, plastic, 
etc.), this is basically a method of extracting oxygen from the lunar
material (though the water would be useful too). You produce water from
moon rock and hydrogen, elecrolyze the water, save the oxygen, then react
the hydrogen with more moon rock to make more water, and the process
repeats.

I believe there are also oxygen extraction methods that do not require the
use of hydrogen.

Much of the research going on now is performed using *simulated* lunar
material, made up of the appropriate mix of Earth rocks. For instance, 
EPCOT now has demonstrations with plants growing in simulated lunar soil
and simulated Mars soil.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: "Earth Gains a Retinue of Mini-Asteroids"
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 18:05:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Distribution: sci
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <BxAxsL.LLC.1@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

>With objects sized on the order of Barringer I can well imagine the  
>mushroom cloud occuring: the energy is released very rapidly and in a  
>very small area. Although at a certain size the explosion simply  
>blows a hole in the atmosphere, ie it is a circular curtain rather  
>than a mushroom cloud. 

I wonder how much trouble it would be to try to recreate one of those events
under controlled and monitoried conditions. 

All we need is an asteroid, a vacant plot of land, and a lot of confidence
in our aiming. 

				:-)

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Man in space ... )
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:43:13 GMT
Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates


In article <1992Nov4.093438.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> you write:

>In article <720796989snx@osea.demon.co.uk>, andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew> Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>> 
>> In article <13335@ecs.soton.ac.uk> nf@ecs.soton.ac.uk writes:
>>>   What will happen if the space suite of an austronaut gets ripped in space> ?
>> 
>> Well Nick, my feeling is that he would nearly explode.  
>
>*Bzzt* Wrong, but thank you for playing.  I append Henry Spencer's
>summary of this every-so-Frequently Asked Question from the FAQ files
>(as if they hadn't been posted just days ago!).
>
>Ever put your hand up against the nozzle of vacuum cleaner? Your skin
>will hold about 1 atmosphere pressure nicely.
>
>The reason I'm writing, instead of just allowing the discussion to
>peter out, is to mention that a suggestion of Hermann Oberth's:
>Astronauts might wear spacesuits without gloves for delicate work!

!!

Ah well... I stand corrected...  Thanks for the explanation, it still
sounds like a horrible way to go...

I suppose after further thought, if one doesn't notice the 7psi or so at
35,000ft in an aircraft, 0 psi isn't going to make that much difference.

The key is the uniformity of pressure - a vacuum cleaner could cause a
slight bruise in time, but that's because of the 15 psi air pressure trying
to squeeze you into the tube!  Reduce the outside pressure, and reduce the
apparent suction.

One problem is the density of air at low pressures for breathing.
I'm sure that an acclimatisation programme would help too.

I would guess that space suits and space biosphere pressures are
substantially less than trophospheric pressure ~ 5 psi?

With an oxygen enriched supply, and spacesuits at 5psi, naked hands in space
should be quite feasible.

Most interesting, thanks for putting me straight on that...

Andy.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates   | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk         |
| 54 Greenfield Road, London     |        ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk |
| N15 5EP England. 081-800 1708  | Also:  0621-88756 081-802 4502       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>> Those that can, use applications. Those that can't, write them! <<<<
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Putting air on the moon
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:21:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxGIso.IE.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <BxF0E2.7Ks.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

   [about big telescopes]

   The formula I found for the diffraction resolution limit of a telescope
   (which ought to be put in the FAQ list) is 
     alpha = 2.1E5 x lambda / d

   where alpha is the resolution in arc seconds, lambda is the
   wavelength being observed, and d is the diameter of the telescope
   (same units as lambda).

The easy formula is

	alpha = lambda / r

where alpha is in radians, and r is the radius of the telescope.

Since you've got a value in radians, you can then multiply by a
distance to get a linear resolution:

	f = lambda . D / r

(D is the distance to the object, f is the resolvable feature size).
Plugging in units for light-years and light wavelengths, this gives:
f = 5.3e3 * D/r, where D is in light years and f and r are in km.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Obscure Help  Needed
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:28:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.152829.25858@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>James Davis Nicoll (jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca) displaying brain-death wrote:
>> 
>> 	An embarrassing request: my  HP died and I discover I cannot
>> remember how to  do logs with a slide-rule,  nor  can I find my sr-related
>> texts. Clearly, I am  senile. Anyone out  there recall how  the damn  things
>> work?
>> 
>You're serious, right?  I mean praying to the netgods is easier than dashing
>down to the university bookstore with a $10 bill in hand?  OK, maybe you'd
>need $20 for a calculator these days.
>
	Advice for the slide-rule-challenged  deleted

	Yes, it was a stupid request. At least I didn't
ask for  the time...

	I still find it hard to believe that I could so completely
forget a skill I used every day not so  long ago. It's also hard to
believe no book store seems to stock books on the subject anymore.
Are there no slide-rule makers left?

	At least sliderules never run out of power, nor do they suddenly
decide to display '0.00' only, just  when the user is calculating mass
ratios.

>Now when is my 1965 Faber-Castell going to become a collectors' item?

	I think it may be already...

							James Nicoll

Newsgroups: sci.space