HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:17:25 GMT

In article <k7vn88l.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

> 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.


Do you know what fraction of US primary energy consumption goes
into growing food?

2 exajoules/year, or about 3%.  Even if we pick an inflated price for
energy (say, $5/GJ, about the price of natural gas at your stove),
this only comes to about $50 per person per year.

Hell, we spend 4 times as much energy cooking, marketing and selling
food as we do growing it.  *Restaurants* (and institutional food
services) in this country consume as much energy as all farms put
together.

In comparison, the US already gets about 3.5 EJ/year from biomass,
and about 3.3 EJ/year from hydro.  The nuclear contribution
is also larger.  Both biomass and nuclear can be greatly expanded.

Careful consideration of just where the energy goes in agriculture
shows that there is nothing special about petrochemicals, except that
they are currently somewhat less expensive than the alternatives.
Fuels, fertilizers and other inputs can all be made without
petrochemical inputs.  In particular, the two largest energy inputs
(nitrogenous fertilizers and fuel for farm machinery) can be made by
any of a number of alternative procedures (ammonia can be made from
any hydrogen source, including gasified coal, biomass or from
electrolysis, and likewise many different fuels can be made from coal,
biomass or other energy sources).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Keywords: Space Shuttle, Orbital Elements, Keplerian
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:09:54 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 47     
1 22120U 92 61  A 92258.25000000  .00075928  00000-0  25599-3 0    72
2 22120  56.9999  99.9735 0008844 286.2039 176.6558 15.89394833   261
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology
From: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Shuttle tank for habitation; was Inflatable Space Stations
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:45:29 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

Why not orbit the tank with solid fule trap-on boosters and
build them with an access hatch?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:09:38 GMT

roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>... Maybe
>with a little modification, we could set up a stable kudzu / fire ant
>ecosystem on Mars. Of course, we'd have to make them a lot tougher than they
>are now, and we'd probably want to test them on Earth by releasing them into
>the environment. :-)  :-)

Actually, the aliens are in this solar system. They're planning
to "terraform" Mars. They've engineered fire ants to do this.
They're testing them here now.

Of course, they're being phased out in the terraforming plans.
The aliens have discovered possums and armadillos. And blackberries.

--
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: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Keywords: Space Shuttle, Orbital Elements, Keplerian
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:58:06 GMT

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 47     
1 22120U 92 61  A 92258.25000000  .00075928  00000-0  25599-3 0    72
2 22120  56.9999  99.9735 0008844 286.2039 176.6558 15.89394833   261
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology
From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:54:16 GMT
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com

In <1992Sep11.120201.21000@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> Andreas Michael Weder writes:
>Even if some of the results of on-going research on the topic of global warming
>were wrong, would you like to bet on that? Even if all the waste we're producing
>wouldn't damage the environment at all: it's toxic and we're killing life forms
>by simply dumping it in the oceans or whatever. And that's a fact. If you
>disagree, watch the news.

  And if you uncritically believe everything the media tell you, then
I have a bridge or two to sell you ...

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk
                  voice/fax: 44-794-516038
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: steve_abrams@executive.isunet.edu (Steve Abrams)
Subject: Re- Terra-forming, The E-ca
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:08:20 GMT

GatorMail-Q                   Re: Terra-forming, The E-ca
> But everything I've ever read says that converting crude oil into burnable
> fossil fuels, then converting that into electricity, then converting that
> into motion, is less efficient than skipping the electric step.  With ceramic
> car engines (higher engine temperatures) I'm not sure how burning-in-the-
> plant will be more efficient than buring-in-the car.  Perhaps you could
> post some excerpts from your TECHNICAL articles?
> 


However, if D-He3 fusion comes to pass, you go straight from nuclear energy to
electricity. The fusion releases high energy electrons from which the energy
can be extracted by magnetic fields. The electric car isn't really a great
saver until fossil fuel plants are replaced. There are arguments about
centralizing the pollution in one spot, but I'm not sure I buy that. The
biggest pollution savings in cars would be remote sensing to catch the
couple percent of cars that cause virtually all of the pollution effects. Some
States are considering utilizing spot checks instead of other more expensive 

and intrusive means of decreasing auto pollution.

And since the nearest source of He3 comes from lunar soil...


------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by executive.isunet.edu (2.01/GatorMail-Q); 15 Sep 92 12:42:32 U
Received: from elegabalus.CS.QUB.AC.UK by isu.isunet.edu (5.64/A/UX-2.01)
	id AA19380; Tue, 15 Sep 92 12:56:11 EDT
Received: from  julius.CS.QUB.AC.UK  (julius) by  elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk 
(NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
	id AA00969; Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:44:22 BST
Message-Id: <9209151644.AA00969@ elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk >
Received: by  julius.CS.QUB.AC.UK  (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0a)
	id AA04858; Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:44:21 BST
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:44:21 BST
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63)
To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Re: Terra-forming, The E-car
From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Problems answering people from The Federation.
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:15:05 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska
From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: The Federation is still here
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:59:53 AST
Organization: University of Alaska
From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: The Federation is still here
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:53:25 AST
Organization: University of Alaska

Hello All

Yes, The Federation is still here, at the moment for those still
interested, it is still here and still reachable. We still want to 
hear from people interested in it or new people interested in the
Federation. 
	For those of you who are new to the Federation ideas, this is 
what we are:  We are a group of people who feel it is high time we got
off this rock and started exploring the great unknown of space.  We have
drawn out in blue print form a drive system that is a a super semi conducting
crystaline structure. It looks good on paper but we haven't been able to 
test it yet. As always the problem is money. The Federation has been working
on a personal funds of the few members base at the moment.  We do have a 
info packet that we will happy to give you. You must have a mac that has
5.0 microsoftword or better. Send us a 3.5 floppy and we will put it
on there for you. send to this adrress

The Federation
C/O Lady Rhavyn
Po box 231772
Anchorage, Alaska
          99523-1772

If you have any questions feel free to send to this account.

ASLJL@ACAD2.ALASKA.EDU

********************************************************************************

	I have had a problem sending the small version of the Federation 
Manual overthe E - Mail system.   It seems it does not like some the of the
addressesI am using that people send me.  Please be sure that you include in
your E-mail request, your internet/bitnet E-mail address so that I have the 
correct address to send it to you. 
	My problem has been that I have had to, on occassion take it off the
beginning of your messages.  Either I am  not copying it down correctly or
the computer is scrambled, or it does not like the address and so I get a
message from the postmaster telling me it doesn't like that address.  I do
apologize to those of you who asked for the info and never received it. Please 
try again. 

Member of the Federation
* May the Force be With You *
                       
Thank you                 
Sincerely               
Lady Rhavyn
Memeber of the
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:59:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.050435.10180@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.212810.18022@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>If you want to make your backyard unlivable, go ahead, but the second you are
>>doing things that make *everyone's* backyard unlivable, you should expect
>>a response.
>
>I'd have to disagree on two points: I don't think there is any evdence
>we are making the Earth "unlivable." 

You mean ignoring any possible consequences of ozone loss and maybe even
global warming? Let's even completely ignore increasing risks of nuclear
war (from non-NATO develpment) or from nuclear disaster.  We can also ignore
steady expansionism of the populace.

Even if you ignore all the globe-threatening issues, *population* growth,
which you can *count on*, will still be one of our greatest challenges.  It
will keep growing until it simply *can't* and that only happens when world
resources, particularly in food stuffs, become steadily taxed. Don't
kid yourselves, this is *going* to happen whether you like it or agree with
it.

> In some respects, we may have
>made it a less pleasent place to live, but that is a very different
>thing from uninhabitable.


Even after you look at the population curve and make some simple extrapolations,
keeping in mind things like fossil fuel depletion in the next 50 years,
shifting agricultural zones, you do not see this?

>I hope you aren't suggesting absolute
>prefection with respect to the Earth's environment should be a
>pre-requsite to extra-planetary ventures.

I would be happy with mediocre agreement on the significant issues, which
we have not even *approached.*

>Second, since there is no live on Mars, nor anywhere else in the
>Solar System, excatly who's backyard is Mars, if not our own?

You do not know there is no life on Mars or anywhere else other than Earth.
I don't see the relevance of arguing over the label of 'back yard'.  I don't
think as a society, or even a planet, we have yet learned how to manage our
*own* planet, not even a *little*.  Because of this I don't think we are
qualified to begin applying our ignorance to anther planet.

Luckily, this will not be an issue for many years.


"/users/as-phys/knapp/.letter" 59 lines, 2558 characters
s
Send, abort, edit, or list?
Append .signature file? [y]

(re-entering cbreak mode)
End of article 22135 (of 22160)--what next? [npq]
-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Club of Rome (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:02:51 GMT

In article <BuF7JH.C9A.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

>> Furthermore, the Club of Ignorance also ignores little things like A)
>> Technological Innovation is not static, B) Free-market economies  
>> stimulate the
>> development of more efficient use of resources and substitutes. 

> I might add that the Club of Rome types also refuse to consider  
> extraterrestrial resources and energy. All of their simulations are based  
> on closed, technologically static systems. This makes their models a waste  


Ahem.  The Club Of Rome, a group of non-scientists (businessmen, I
think), did no such things.  "Limits to Growth" was a report on a
study commissioned *for* the CoR, not conducted *by* the CoR.  Indeed,
I don't think publication of LtG was done under CoR direction, nor do
I think the CoR ever endorsed the conclusions of LtG.

I understand the CoR also commissioned a panel to review some of the
conclusions of LtG from a bottom-up perspective (just which resources
are tight?), and this panel reached completely different conclusions.
Alvin Weinberg was on this panel, and some of his writings (in
Science, for example) explain just how substitutable most resources
are.  No ET resources are required to dismiss LtG -- its methodology
is manifest nonsense anyway.  Read some of the reviews of the book
when it came out.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, Space
Summary: Clinton, space, zero sum government
Keywords: space station, shuttle, cash
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:22:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


First, in the article (58 or 59 atr. back), it said something about
...spending 1/2 billion to study reprocuction of wasps in space...

I'm a wasp, and I will volunteer to reproduce in space for MUCH less.

Seriously, gov't spending has become a zero sum business, and ANY spending
only cannibalizes something else.   I think nothing can be done in this
environment.   The only hope for progress in space in the future is via
private ventures.....
-- 
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
From: jmcd@cea.berkeley.edu (John McDonald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Clinton, Gore, Space
Keywords: space station, shuttle, cash
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:57:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for EUV Astrophysics


I think something is missing from the discussion of the
Democratic position on space.

The one thing no one has noticed, is that both SSF and
the Shuttle are PORK BARREL projects.  NO president, Dem
or GOP or Lib or Green, would dump these projects outright.
Both projects represent thousands of jobs and billions of
dollars for the economies of the communities that host 
NASA centers.  To suggest that a president would outright
dump such an economic boon is absurd.

The space station depends on the Shuttle for its very 
existence.  So, support the space station and you support
the Shuttle.

The advocation of alternative launch systems does not 
preclude the perpetuation of the Shuttle program, and 
may even save us a little money on the way.  Am i the
only one who questioned why we were spending half a billion
bucks to save a privately owned communications satellite?
Am i the only one who wonders if it is worth half a billion
bucks to study whether wasps will reproduce in space?

I happen to think the space station is a pretty good idea, 
but i have no illusions about its purpose.  It is primarily
to be build to keep corporations in business.  When in orbit,
it will be used to develop technologies that basically support
the businesses with the occasional spin-off to the public.

But if someone were to tell me that the SSF monies were to be
taken and given to smaller unmanned projects like a mission to
Pluto, Cassini, Magellan's survival, COBE, etc... then i would
have no hesitation.  The knowledge return per dollar is much
higher for those smaller missions....

John McDonald
begin 664 signature.uu
M:F]H;E\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7U\M7VUC9&]N86QD"@E!
M<G1I<W1S(%!R;W9O:V4@06QI96YS"E]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?
M+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+5]?+0IC96YT97(@(" @("!F;W(@(" @("!E=78@
2(" @("!A<W1R;W!H>7-I8W,*
From: al@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Haus Der Luge)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Truax
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 22:47:28 CST
Organization: system 6626 BBS, Winnipeg MB

 
Is there anybody using this sub-board who is at all familair with the 
work of one Bob Truax ???
 
From what I've heard, he's quite the "space ranger".
 
HausDerLuge
 
PS:  On the subject of Truax ... are there any L-5 types around here ???


;--- (Haus Der Luge) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64
;E-mail: al@sys6626.bison.mb.ca
;system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:07:04 GMT

jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:


>Nick, talk to _anyone_ who know's what they're talking about and you'll see
>that new suits are high on the list of required technology for the Moon.  
>Both the astronauts and the suits suffered significant wear and tear on the 
>Moon.  They (both the suits and the wearers) just plain wouldn't last 45 days.


Check out _For All Mankind_ to see this. One of the main things standing
between the astronaut and his ability to work in the space enviornment
is the thing standing between him and his enviornment: his space suit.

Anyone for skintights (that is, anyone besides Frank Crary, who
almost predictably doesn't like them)?


--
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

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Asteroid explorer
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:35:00 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Sep12152615@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes...
> 
>I think the first post of this was nuked by capricious postware..
> 
>Given some recent discussion on NASA approaches, howabout the
>following for a small explorer mission:
> 
>As per the AO you get $17million (1992) for hardware, R&D,
>staff etc, same again for launch; mission ops and data analysis
>are extra. So, put together a CCD camera, a (IR?) spectrometer,
>a low(medium?) gain antenna, redundant tape recorders, the best CPU
>and memory that's flight qualified (is the intel chip qualified yet?)
>and a couple of ion thrusters with as much fuel as possible - then
>go cruise asteroids, first an Earth crosser, then follow it out
>to the belt and peek around, keep going till you run out of fuel
>or something dies; main problem would be a power supply and weight
>constraints... Nick, Phil? you wanna put your time where your mouth
>is?

I along with Dr. Higgins saw an awesome presentation at the WSC about a 
faster cheaper better asteriod mission that boggles the mind.  Launched in
98 it would go out to a near earth crossing asteriod, (I forget which one) and
actually go into orbit about it. (it is a small one less than 20 miles in 
diameter)  Then after several months it would leave orbit, do a lunar swingby
and go out into the belt for a weird grand tour that ends up at Eros in 2008.
To top it off you get a couple of comets tossed in for free!  I wonder if Bill
bought the paper on that one.  It was from JPL and was a laugh a minute as
this guy tossed out several variations of the mission that would take the 
probe to several asteroids and comets.  He spoke in the manner of a vacuum
cleaner salesman and although he was funnin, it was a joy to hear.  Anything
to add there Bill?  BTW Bill send me a message I need your snail mail address.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: 3 Booster Questions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:00:41 GMT

wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>In response to Josh's statment about single engines for the booster phase of an
>HLV.  

>Josh the NLS one booster which as an Atlas II class launcher only uses one
>STME booster (600,000 lbs thrust) for 20,000 lbs to orbit.

[Stuff Deleted]

>Dennis, University of Alabama Huntsville

I know Dennis. However, I don't consider this a Heavy Lift Vehicle.  I can't
calulate how much a single F-1 can put into orbit without knowing what else
you have in mind, but I don't think the extra thrust is enough to put it in
the HLV class either.




-- 
Josh Hopkins           "If you are sitting in an exit row and you cannot read
                       this card or cannot see well enough to follow these
		       instructions, please tell a crew member."
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu                       -United Airlines safety instructions
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,alt.sci.planetary