HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Magellan successors? (was Re: Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!)
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:16:03 GMT
Reply-To: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

In article <1992Jul22.041320.1@fnala.fnal.gov> higgins@fnala.fnal.gov  
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> I asked Dr. Gordon Pettengill this question last year: "Is there a
> successor to Magellan?"
> The answer is no.

In a way, there is a successor to Magellan, but not for Venus. It is the  
Canadian Space Agency's RADARsat, which will do SAR mapping of Earth. The  
launch is scheduled in 1994.

It is not certain, however, that the data will be so widely or freely  
distributed as that of Magellan, as RADARsat has a profit motive. We may  
end up in more of a Landsat or SPOT-like situation, where there is great  
interest in the data but thinking people cannot afford to get them.

Martin Connors - Space Research - University of Alberta
Organization: European Space Research Institute (ESRIN)
Date: Thursday, 23 Jul 1992 13:17:54 SET
From: Mike M. Skala <MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: first man on moon date and time
 <pgf.711774166@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>

In article <pgf.711774166@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G.
Fraering) says:
>
>Everyone should know the date: July 20, 1969.
>

Of course everyone knows the right date: 21.7.1969 02:56 GMT

mike :)

And I still have the 8mm my father took from the TV Screen !
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: censorship, yet again
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:49:51 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: sci

In article <1992Jul29.184459.154211@cs.cmu.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu  
(Richard Schroeppel) writes:
> I think Doug is wrong.  As a US taxpayer, I hereby invite Henry Spencer  
to
> offer me whatever perspective he has on the politics of space in the  
US.
> I will also note that Henry is a directly interested party, since the  
outcome
> of the election will influence his prospects for eventual space travel.
> As an interested party, he is certainly entitled to participate in the  
debate,
> and perhaps even to complain that many disinterested parties (who don't  
pay
> taxes, and don't care about space) are allowed to vote, while he isn't.
> I must also ask Doug why he wants to muzzle Henry.  Is it because you  
don't
> like the analysis?  Is it too close to the truth?

I agree to the extent that I think he has every right in the world
to offer his (often good) advice on what to do.  However, as 
one of the taxpayers paying for the US space program, my vote
(and the vote of any other taxpayer) should count for more.
I must admit that I do bristle a bit at those who aren't paying for
something telling us how we have to spend money. But then, I bristled
the same way when I had a (US) college student (who wasn't paying taxes
yet) try to explain to me that taxes should be raised to pay for
some service he wanted and (he claimed) couldn't afford. (This was 10 
minutes after he told me how he was spending $15 (1978 prices) per week 
on comic books.)

--
Jim Mann       jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  Stratus Computer
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:32:39 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Jul29.170300.2254@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>If Soyuz-TM is used as an "lifeboat" for Freedom... doesn't this open up OTHER
>possibilities beyond the normal budget/friendly/we-are-now-friends bit...

>Assuming docking fittings on Freedom for Soyuz-style capsules, it gives us:

>	A) Ability to send up crew on Soyuz on a contingency basis
>	B) Ability to perform resupply and cargo return via Progress.

>I realize there's the little matter of launch/orbit angles to work out, but 
>could this be changed by launching Soyuz/Progress from someplace else
>(Australia?). 

Well, if we ever get to the point where we're doing that kind of station 
support with CIS hardware, we can launch it from KSC just as easily as we
can from Australia.  Depending on the amound of payload we're willing to 
sacrifice, it could probably still be launched from Russia.

I really will be surprised, though, if we end up using Soyuz.  It's a neat
idea on paper, but I think the number of technical problems that need to be
overcome will outweigh any savings from using already-existing hardware.

-- 
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their 
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter, 
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu              _The Number of the Beast_
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Visual acuity
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:41:37 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
-Subject: Re: Visual acuity for MS
-Date: 21 Jul 92 00:54:06 GMT
-Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office

-But there's a whole lot more than just the one number to be
-considered.  Astronauts, like pilots, can't be colorblind.  They
-have to be able to recognize warning colors.

--- Ken "20/200" Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
-      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

There are many degrees of color blindness ("challengedness"? :-), and very
few people are *totally* color blind. Is the restriction against *any*
degree of color blindness, or are there intermediate standards?

Are the Shuttle warning lights and color displays selected for maximum
visibility to partially color blind people (like traffic lights are supposed
to be)? There *are* legal standards for color selection in safety signals.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: bwood@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Blake Philip Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Antiproton-Boosted Microfission (was: Antimatter ...)
Date: 22 Jul 1992 13:05:55 GMT
Organization: /etc/organizaton
NNTP-Posting-Host: diva.berkeley.edu

All the postings so far have missed the most realistic application of
antimatter to space propulsion:  antiproton-boosted microfission.
This is being investigated by a number of folks at Penn State, in
collaboration with some people at Phillips Lab in Albuquerque.
The Penn State lead is R.A. Lewis.  The reference I happen to have 
on hand is from Nuclear Science and Engineering, (109) p.411 (1991).

The basic idea is that hitting a U235 or Plutonium nucleus with an
antiproton makes it so unstable that you get an average of 16 neutrons
out of the resulting fission, as opposed to the usual 2-3.  This means
that the critical mass which can be completely fissioned is very
small.  The paper I referenced above discusses using an ICF
arrangement to compress a Plutonium pellet, then irradiate it with 
antiprotons at peak compression.  The advantage of this approach
is that you can do it with quantities of antimatter which can be
produced today in large accelerators.  The article above quotes
results from another paper which suggests that fissioning one
70mg Plutonium pellet per second in this fashion, each event requiring
only 2e8 antiprotons, could yield 5GW of power in a complete propulsion
system with a specific mass of only 0.07 kg/kW.

-- 
                 Blake P. Wood - bpw@ctxsys.lanl.gov (505) 665-6524
                 Group P-1, MS-E526, LANL, Los Alamos, NM  87545
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales and dolphins
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:00:25 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
-Subject: Re: Whales and Dolphins
-Date: 23 Jul 92 10:53:24 GMT

-There is a difference. You are talking about a group breaking up in a 
-free for all. Dolphins are the only other society in which GROUP A 
-gets support of GROUP B against GROUP C for a specific project but
-when the situation changes, GROUP A will double cross GROUP B with 
-the assistance GROUP C. The groups are basically stable. I do not
-remember enough details of the paper to say whether they are kinship 
-groups or not. The situations do not appear to be random accident,
-but much more sophisticated plotting of actions. Probably closer to 
-the relations between feudal lords than to a gang of hoods who fight
-for the loot among themselves after cooperating to get it...

Sounds reasonable.

So - if we manage to decode dolphin and killer whale communications, and
open diplomatic relations with them, will we have to "rehabilitate" them? :-)

John Roberts              | Dolphin researcher: "Matthews - we're getting
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov | another one of those strange 'aw blah es span yol'
                          | sounds."
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:38:56 GMT

In article <24766@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>>_both_ Star Trek series... Hell, if anyone ever starts a terraforming
>>project somewhere, you know some Professional Idiot over in Congress
>>or Parlaiment or the Diet or the Supreme Soviet is going to stand up
>>and say "But how do we know there isn't some life there we can't even
>>begin to imagine, like that episode of Star Trek?"
>No need.  I'll stand up and ask it.  It is such a ridiculous question?
>Would you want something from a nearby star system to come here and
>accidentally reterraform Earth to their liking because they didn't notice
>we were here?  Until we meet a new life form or two from another planet 
>I don't think you can make a convincing case for our ability to know
>them when we see them.

So we only terraform planets that don't have life on it.

And if you reply "but how do we know what's life?  Maybe Venus has some
completely unknown life forms based on molten lava or on sulfuric acid gas.
Maybe mountains have some sort of life that we don't know about.  Maybe the
whole planet Mars is alive, and we just can't detect it.", let me point out
that this applys even to Earth: maybe metal ores are really alive and mining is
murder....
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: jack@cscdec.cs.com (Jack Hudler)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 07/21/92
Keywords: Galileo, JPL
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:11:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Support Corporation,  Dallas, Texas.

In article <1992Jul21.180050.29150@news.arc.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Forwarded from Bill O'Neil, Galileo Project Manager
>
>     Today, July 21, 1992, the turn to the warming attitude in preparation for
>the Dual Drive Actuator (DDA) pulse is scheduled to begin at approximately
>10:57 PDT.  The first of the two Dual Drive Actuator pulse turn ons is
>scheduled at 12:46 PDT for approximately a 2-second duration.

This pulsing method, is its frequency fixed or are they going to vary it.
I understand that this method is solely for driving the motor in a PWM 
mode in order to get more power to the actuator, correct?
Seems to me that varying the pulse freq. would cause the antenna array
to vibrate through its natural resonance. This assumes the motor could
have such effects.
This might be safer than trying to shake the spacecraft.

-- 
Jack Hudler - Computer Support Corporation - Dallas,Texas - jack@cs.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:18:20 GMT
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.

In <2182@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
[quotes description of voltage induction in a conductor]

>it seems that this must operate with about an 80% efficiency to get 5KV
>over 15KM.  That seems like alot to hope for.

Not applicable: efficiency won't come into it unless you try to extract
power from this long skinny generator. A static voltage will be created 
without any worry about efficiency.

> And isn't there an inverse
>square rule governing magnetic strength?  Is this accounted for in that .5
>Gauss figure?

More like inverse cubed, since the Earth's field is mostly dipole, but it
still doesn't matter much: the shuttle is already 8000 km away from the
center of the magnet, so the 15 km length of the tether makes little 
difference. (8015/8000)**3 = 1.00562
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pands@cix.compulink.co.uk (P & S Ltd - Accounts Dept)
Subject: Does anyone know ..
Reply-To: pands@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:11:00 +0000

I've got a question for the collected experts out there ..

I've been reading the current issue of Space News (July 27 - August 9),
and the article on secrecy of military launches (page 12) mentioned a
book by Jeff Richelson called "America's Secret Eyes in Space" published
in 1990.  I'd like to get a copy,  does anyone know the ISBN and publisher
please?

Thanks,

Paul

--------------------------< Who 'zat >-----------------------------------
    Paul Wilson,  P-and-S Ltd, P O Box 54, Macclesfield, SK10 5EH, UK
                     pands@cix.compulink.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Origin of Life
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:39:35 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci


>How is an RNA cluster actually going to go about tapping this
>energy to synthesize amino acids, without already having a complex set
>of enzymes?

Luck.  Enzymes are catalysts.

>Has an RNA cluster unsupported by enzymes been demonstrated to
>synthesize amino acids or peptide chains (actually, stringing amino
>acids together into proteins is more important, because there would be
>plenty of amino acid molecules already floating around)?

>Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin

Say, Russell, this question of yours lends support to the idea that you do
want the entire story handed to you on a silver platter.  You were correct
about that criticism adding little to the discussion, but only since it
left out a crucial question...What do YOU think is the origin of life?
(Since a system of simple replicators, whether 'trivial' or not, which
evolved into something more seems unacceptable to you)

P.S- Please include a defintion of 'non-trivial self-replication.'

-Tommy Mac                     .  "  Malcolm X:      +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .  You've seen the hat,  "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,  *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '  now catch the movie!           *
'-----------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Keywords: Zodiak
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 20:32:41 GMT

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

This is an interesting question.  I just looked in my desktop database
(actually the paperback 1991 Information Please Almanac, 10Mb equiv, 
$7.95 cheap) and on the subject of calendars it deals only with drift
due to the solar year not being a whole number of solar days, and the
various systems for correcting for that, adding days under various
rules.

This being the case, I will stick my neck out and say that the length
of the solar day must be governed by three things: the Earths rotation
period, its orbital speed (which causes a shift of the Sun's apparent
position in the sky) and the rate of precession of the rotation axis.
Thus a calendar based on the solar day must automatically be corrected
for precession.

I'll stick it out even further and assert that the sidereal day (which
is not affected by the orbital speed) also incorporates precession.

P.S.  Don't make those nooses too small: I've a size 17 neck.


-- 
||))) If you build it                          )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))) They will cancel it   - Field of Dweebs. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Date: 30 Jul 92 04:56:42 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <20149@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de:, dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
: In article <Brp9H4.3GM@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
: |> Antimatter isn't a very efficient explosive.  If you dropped an anti-iron
: |> cannonball, it would just sit there and sizzle.  (The radiation would make
: |> the immediate neighborhood very unhealthy, mind you.)
: No.  Dropping an anti-iron cannonball -- or, indeed, exposing it to air
: -- would vaporize it in short order.  The antiiron vapor would then quickly
: mix with very hot air, and most of the antimatter would annihilate in
: short order.

What would happen in a weightless environment?  Would it kind of do something
like what the candle in the shuttle did?

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
From: mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov (Marc Sarrel)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: first man on moon date and time
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:52:30 GMT
	<BrssuF.DKH@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In article <BrssuF.DKH@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

   2256 EDT 20 July 1969.  The TV coverage was live (well, subject to the
   speed-of-light lag...).

Hey, Neil just made it in Prime Time coast to coast. :-)
--
Marc Sarrel			"Strange as it seems,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory	 There's been a run of crazy dreams,
mas@mipl8.jpl.nasa.gov		 And a man who can interpret could go far --
				 Could become a star."
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: GE AstroSpace Hightstown - mail contact wanted
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:06:46 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Does GE AstroSpace have Internet access? If so, please reply. I have
some friends on the Mars Observer project there who'd like to get Ron
Baalke's MO status reports, but am now forced to relay them through a
Bitnet address at Princeton.

Thanks,
- Steve Masticola (masticol@cs.rutgers.edu).
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:53:38 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <711790218snx@osea.demon.co.uk> andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>>... It's hot hydrogen.  The Sun pumps out billions of tons
>>of hot hydrogen every second.
>
>But that's on the Sun, not in the Earth's atmosphere!

The Earth's (outer) atmosphere is in contact with the Sun's (outer)
atmosphere.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the current talk of antimatter is for
*in-space* propulsion, not Earth-to-orbit launches.

In any case, hot hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere is a hydrogen flame,
which ends up as water vapor in short order.
-- 
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: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Biogenesis (was: ETs and Radio)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:18:18 GMT

In <schumach.712514642@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Obvoiusly Mr. Wallace wants to have the exact story of biogenesis
>handed to him. We'd all like to see it, but the chemists and
>biologists have not yet worked it out. In the meantime, us lay
>people (of whom Mr. Wallace most certainly is one) will either have
>to be content with the partial answers and plausibility arguments
>that the professionals find compelling, or undertake serious reasearch
>on their own. Trotting out old arguments or well-known current
>problems to the Net does not constitute research.

There is a serious question as to the actual probability of the
appearance of life on a planet like Earth. I consider that this
probability is very low, as do a number of people who know a lot more
about biochemistry than I do (there's a book called "Seven Clues to the
Origin of Life", where the author puts the case better than I have for
the improbability of the appearance of organic life; he then goes on to
suggest that the first life forms were silicon-based, which I find even
more improbable...). On the other hand, many biochemists consider that
this probability is quite high, and that there are only a few missing
pieces left in the puzzle. This is what the current argument is about.
If you have something to contribute to one position or the other
(presumably the other, from the tone of your post :-), by all means go
ahead, but I don't find that your post does much to advance the
argument.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody )
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:33:37 GMT

ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings) writes:

>To make up the VERY small difference due to precession, as well
>as to adjust for the slowing of the Earth's rotation due to
>tidal drag of the oceans (caused by the moon's gravitation),
>from time to time they declare "leap-seconds" there was one
>this year.
>-- 

Has this really been going on consistently for 2000 years so that
there was never any noticeable jump?
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Tethersat visible? (was Re: TSS-1 launch time)
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:11:28 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Jul24.163952.23514@technology.com>, richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:
> TSS-1 is set for launch at 13:56 GMT July 31. The satellite
> deployment should begin early on Aug. 2.

Hmm... when TSS is deployed, will ground observers be able to see two
little dots?  

If the satellite is not a naked-eye object, will it be possible to
spot *Atlantis* by eyeball, track with binoculars, and find the TSS?

The orbit is 28.5 degree inclination, so Chicagoans can't play. :-( If
you live in between, oh, latitude 35 and the Equator (either
direction), fire up those prediction programs and subscribe to
elements-request@telesoft.com... 

Engineer of Hijacked Train:      Bill Higgins
"Is this a holdup?"                 
                                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Masked Gunman:                      
(Hesitates, looks at partner,    Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
looks at engineer again)         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"     Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro