HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space,news.groups,sci.astro
Subject: Re: 2nd (last)  RFD sci.space.planets
Summary: It was backwards
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:47:29 GMT
Organization: Naval Satellite operations Center, Point Mugu, CA, USA

This is just to clarify a few things:

In article <1992Jul21.222548.23205@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU 
(David Knapp) writes:
>Another poke in the side to stimulate discussion of the formation of a
>.planets group.  The following has been discussed so far:

[...many people's worthy opinions deleted...]

> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV says that
>
>"I am interested in it, too, but planetary science is also a major component
>of sci.astro, which has an even larger bandwidth than sci.space.  It would
>help tremendously, I beleive, to have a .planets group, which would reduce
>traffic on both groups, and also tend to make the subject matter on all
>three (sci.astro, sci.space, and the new .planets group) more specific."

>In response to  slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil's saying that
>
>">Planetary science is a major component of sci.space, and I'm very interested
>>in it. If you create sci.planets, then the people who have only limited
>>Usenet access (me, for instance, at the moment, plus all the people on SPACE
>>Digest once that's working again) won't be able to read it or post to it,
>>thus limiting the participation in sci.planets and reducing the value of
>>sci.space."

The attributions on the above two quotes are backwards.  I believe the
new group would be a great help, and John Roberts is worried about limited
access.  

[...more worthy opinions deleted...]

To reiterate my POV, I think the group should be sci.space.planets; that
should help the users w/limited access.

I hope the software here lets me post this.  It tend to get upset when the 
quote is longer than the original writing.

--
  Shari L Brooks                   |   slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   shari@caspar.nosc.mil
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |   
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:17:16 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul28.105743.29096@news.Hawaii.Edu> annis@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (James Annis) writes:
>In article <a7327850@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> derek.wee@f820.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Derek Wee) writes:
>>
>>Anyone have any good arguments FOR the existence of extraterrestrial 
>>intelligence?
>>
>	       11		         9
>sure:	with 10   stars in our galaxy, 10  galaxies in the observable 
>	universe, the odds of us being unique start at
>	  20
>	10  to 1 against. 

Now subtract out all Population II stars, no heavy elements like iron,
and subtract out all multiple star systems, no stable planetary orbits,
and subtract out all blue giants and other short lived stars, now subtract
out all systems that don't have a planet in the liquid water zone, subtract
out all planets not at the correct stage of planetary evolution, ours is
billions of years old while conditions for life are a much smaller fraction
of that, now subtract out all the systems where life hasn't evolved from
primitive forms to advanced forms, life has existed on this planet for
a long time, humans much less so, etc.

That 10^20 starts shrinking mighty fast. Some "best guesses" by people
who've thought about the question say that there are perhaps 50 systems
in the galaxy that may have life as we know it. 

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ganesh@drystone.attmail.com
Subject: Astronaut Information
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 20:51:56 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

Can anybody provide me some information about where and how to apply
for being an astronaut. I would be greatful if you could provide any
information about requirements etc.

Thanks in advance.

Ganesh (ganesh@drystone.attmail.com)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:29:09 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <rwallace.712328556@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any
>complex structure to fall together by accident is extremely improbable;
>then it looks pretty much like the odds against life appearing on any
>one planet could easily be more than 10^1000 to 1 against, and the
>number of planets in the visible universe is only about 10^22.

When you place hydrogen and oxygen together in a 2:1 ratio and provide 
an energy source, what happens? Blooey! Every time? Yes, every time. 
That's the way it is with life chemicals, there is nothing accidental 
about their combination.  It's just basic organic chemistry at work. 
We have very good evidence that the primordial chemical mixtures of
early planetary bodies contain the proper precursor compounds and
elements in abundance. We know that solar UV and electrical discharges, 
lightning, will supply the necessary energy. We've done it in a test tube. 
We haven't yet made the step to the enclosed cell, but with 10^23 precursor
molecules in every cubic meter, the combination is bound to occur.

Now none of that implies that Man must be the final result. Indeed the
odds may be 10^1000 against, though it has happened at least *once*. 
But some form of evolving life is a certainty under those starting 
conditions. Carbon chemistry is carbon chemistry everywhere and everywhen.

Gary
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: U.S. Black Programs
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:13:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul21.151724.189781
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Since last January, I try to get more information about a strange
aircraft (probably an airship) which has been seen near U.S. Air Force
bases in California and/or Nevada. The point is that this craft looks
like the "UFO(s)" which thousands Belgian (and a few Dutch) citizens
claim to have seen since November 1989. The description of this U.S.
secret craft can be found in Popular Mechanics (not an UFO review!),
December 1991, in the article "America's New Secret Aircraft":
''[...]
  The big wing.
  Meanwhile, several Antelope Valley residents say they've seen a
  craft that simply strains credulity.
    According to reports over the past two years, a vast black flying
  wing, estimated at between 600 and 800 ft. in width, has passed
  silently over city streets, empty desert and rural freeways. The
  craft moved so slowly one observer said he could jog along with it.
  A pattern of seemingly random white lights on the vehicle's black
  underside provided "constellation camouflage" against the starry
  sky. Observers who followed the craft long enough detailed unlikely
  maneuvers in which the vehicle stopped, rotated in place and
  hovered vertically, presenting a thin trailing edge to the ground.
    Although such sightings encourage those who link the military
  with unearthly technology, a mammoth, quiet flying wing may have
  a conventional explanation: It could be a lighter-than-air craft
  pushed by slow-turning propellers. Certainly, such a vehicle could
  elude Doppler radar by slowing to a crawl. Alternatively, the fact
  that the craft holds station vertically suggests that it might
  serve as a huge reflector for a bistatic radar system. Other
  possible missions include troop delivery or covert surveillance.
  [...]''
I could not find any information about this aircraft in Aviation Week
& Space Technology, nor in Aerospace America. Has anybody on this list
more precise information about this aircraft-which-looks-like-an-UFO ?
If no, on what list may I find something ?

J. Pharabod
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:24:21 GMT

seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes...
> The cross plane maneouver from 51 degrees down to 28.5 degrees has an 
> enormous penalty in payload.  This is why you will NEVER see a Soyuz at
> SSF orbit unless it is on Energia.  The payload penalty will drop Energia's
> delivered payload to around 50,000 pounds.  I do not know the dynamics and 
> this estimate is based on what I have read in generalities regarding that 
> Energia could at best only deliver a Soyuz to SS Freedom. Anybody have 
> Delta V numbers for such a plane change?

To change the plane of an orbit of radius r w/ circular orbital velocity 
v by angle Da requires
    Delta-v = 2v sin(Da/2)		[ 1 ]
For 39 <= Da <= 60 degrees this can be reduced by doing the plane change
at a larger radius ra because v decreases w/ radius.  However, the energy 
required to place the vehicle in the transfer orbit increases w/ radius.  
So there is an intermediate radius that minimizes the energy requirements,
given by
	ra/r = sin(Da/2) / [ 1 - sin(Da/2) ]
When Da = 39 deg, ra/r = 1, and when Da = 60 deg, ra/r = infinite.
In this case
    Delta-v = 2v{ Sqrt[ra/r]*Sqrt[2/(1+ra/r)]*[1+sin(Da/2)/(r/ra)] - 1 } [2]
w/ ra > r.

For the case of an Energiya launch (51 deg. inclination) to reach Space 
Station Freedom (28.5 deg. inclination) Da < 39 deg. so equation [2] offers 
no advantage over [1], and from [1] you require a Delta-v = 39% on top of 
the initial circular velocity, essentially the same as that required to reach 
escape velocity (41%) from radius r! (This explains why the Apollo did all
the maneuvering during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Mission ... the SM engine had
the populsive capability and I believe that the Saturn 1B was launched
at higher inclination than 28.5 degs.  The capability was sufficiently 
marginal however, that the Apollo had insufficient fuel to reboost 
Skylab after the Soyuz rendezvous.) Energiya is capable of placing about 
105,000 kg in LEO and about 16,000 kg to escape or approximately to Space 
Station Freedom. Soyuz has a mass of about 7,600 kgs.

All this suggests that for Energiya to play any role in Space Station 
assembly, the Station would have to be assembled in a higher inclination
orbit, say 40 degs.
-- 
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is 
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hangfore@spf.trw.com (John Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Realism
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 01:35:34 GMT

In article <nsmc5kc@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> wsj@triton.wpd.sgi.com (Bill  
Johnson) writes:
> (deletions for brevity)
> inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.
> AND...
> 
> -- 
> Bill Johnson                    9U-530                   wsj@wpd.sgi.com
> Silicon Graphics, Inc.                             Office:(415) 390-1440
> Systems Software Technology Center                    Fax:(415) 969-2314

And No seat belts. How many crew members have been killed or seriously  
injured because they didn't wear their seat belts :-o

John Stevenson
hangfore@spf.trw.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Radiative heat loss
Date: 26 Jul 92 07:45:24 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <9207240218.AA06665@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
>
>-The latent heat of the atmosphere is roughly 5.3E20 kWh. Radiative
>-loss to maintain current equilibrium is 1.28E14 kW. That would require
>-1.1E3 days to drop the temperature to 0 Kelvin, or 2.12 years to drop the 
>-average temperature to the liquification temperature of nitrogen, if 
>-radiative loss remained constant. Of course it does not. It varies with 
>-the square of the black body temperature. 
>
>The *square*? Please double-check.

Fourth power, not a linear relationship in any event.

Gary
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:35:19 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
-Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
-Date: 23 Jul 92 21:10:39 GMT
-Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

-Whales are _not_ intelligent in any significant sense of the word. If
-they were, they could prove it in about 30 seconds, by any number of
-means (e.g. whistle the prime numbers, *-* *-*-* *-*-*-*-* etc. - for
-that matter just whistle the numbers from 1 to 10). In fact, if they
-were intelligent, since they were physically quite a lot tougher than
-the whaling ships of the 18th and 19th centuries, they could have
-developed tactics to defeat them (e.g. several whales surround a whaling
-ship and clobber it, rather than all the whales trying to dive, and the
-ship gets one of them).

Again, one shouldn't expect all whales to have the same level of intelligence.
It has been reported that there was once a group of killer whales that
cooperated with a family of Australian whalers over the course of several
generations. They would help to round up the big whales to be killed, then 
eat the leftovers. Rival whalers encroaching in the territory were driven off
by the killer whales.

Whales clearly lack some of the intellectual capabilities of humans (for
instance, humans don't appear to be prone to mass beachings). It would be
interesting to find out what capabilities they do have, for instance in the
area of abstract reasoning. Like chimpanzees and gorillas (which are fairly
intelligent, but which lack the brain structures needed for complex verbal
communications), whales may turn out to have little capability to learn
languages other than their own. (Heinlein once wrote a novel (the Star Beast)
in which a species had evolved to use a specific language. They could learn
English, but always sounded very stupid when they used it.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: McDonald Douglas Irvine CA. -Address Wanted
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:15:12 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Jul20.211659.29007@mdd.comm.mot.com>, ogden@mdd.comm.mot.com (Allen Ogden) writes:
> I would like to exchange email with a friend working
> at McDonald Douglas 
     ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
This is the company that makes that airliners with the built-in
deep-fryers, right?

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Treat your password like
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | your toothbrush.  Don't let
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | anybody else use it--
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | and get a new one every
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | six months."  --Cliff Stoll
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: antimatter explosions
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:33:52 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

According to Dr. Forward, antimatter explosions of small quantities  
are not a big problem.

Anti-matter doesn't make a good bomb because it doesn't really  
detonate. It blows itself into a cloud that annihilates over too  
large a space and time to cause damage commenserate with its' energy  
density. ie, it is a big fizzle.

Also, it is fairly clean because there are not lots of heavy  
nucleotides created. So you get a slow flash with a nasty dose of  
line of site gammas. The neutrinos flash off into the universe and  
not much else happens. If you are close enough to get hit by the  
muons,etc you are probably close enough that the muons were the least  
of your worries...

As to the Kg on the farside: It probably would not be quite the  
damaging GT explosion you are imagining. It would blow itself and the  
plant to kingdom come, but it would still be reacting as peices went  
upwards. Since the moon is surrounded in vacuum, I would guess that a  
great deal of it would not even annihilate at all, unless it went  
suborbital. If that were the case, we could follow the bouncing  
antimatter fragments...
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: O.G. want us to hear them! (was Re: ET's and Radio)
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:21:36 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Jul30.114205.75091@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
[Dale dropped the attribution on this quote:]
>> If life really is somewhat rare, the place to look for ET signals  
>> is from
>> distant galaxies, broadcast by pan-galactic supercivilizations.   
> 
> Although we'd better look for the odd laser that happens to be  
> pointing at us. Or maybe look for a source of modulated neutrinos. Or  
> maybe start opening worm holes in the Plank-scale froth to see what  
> the latest news is. The chances that advanced civilizations are  
> spewing vast amounts of energy into the void in order to transfer a  
> few Giga bits bits from point A to bit strains credulity to the  
> breaking point.

Dale, recall that the "classic" Morrison-Cocconi version of SETI
search assumes the Other Guys are intentionally beaming radio signals
at our planet, in the hope that young, technologically primitive
civilizations will be searching for such beacons (or at least doing
radio astronomy).   Obviously they could continue to do this long
after their own technology had passed the 20th-century stage.

Your last sentence implies that terrestrial SETI researchers are
fools.  I don't think so.

If I had paid more attention to the details of modern SETI searches,
I would know whether they hope to detect signals *not* intended for or
aimed at us.  But at a minimum, they should still be searching for
intentional signals.   Others on the Net could tell us more.

(Hope summer in Belfast is treating you well, and the songwriting
thing was fruitful!)

Bill Higgins                           | Every so often, Innumeracy
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | strikes.  Out of all Americans,
Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET        | a lot suffer from it.  But
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV       | we can win the fight against 
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | Innumeracy with your help.
                                       | All it takes is a few pennies a day.
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ET's and Radio
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:41:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul30.114205.75091
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> If life really is somewhat rare, the place to look for ET signals  
is from
> distant galaxies, broadcast by pan-galactic supercivilizations.   
These
> 


Although we'd better look for the odd laser that happens to be  
pointing at us. Or maybe look for a source of modulated neutrinos. Or  
maybe start opening worm holes in the Plank-scale froth to see what  
the latest news is. The chances that advanced civilizations are  
spewing vast amounts of energy into the void in order to transfer a  
few Giga bits bits from point A to bit strains credulity to the  
breaking point.

Massive radio broadcast of information with high power transmitters  
is a transient phase of civilizations. In our own case it probably  
will have a total time span of 150 years or less.

Now I left out some other uses of broadcast, ie NavAids and the like  
may be useful on a planetary surface. But the power of those if going  
to be just sufficient to do the job. And in a technology thousands of  
years advanced beyond our own, that is liable to be damned little  
ERP.

So I think the chances of seeing intelligent radio signals in a  
distant galaxy is related to the number of civilizations AT OUR STAGE  
that existed there n years ago, where n is also the number of light  
years distance.

It also makes the current SETI search on megachannels not a search  
for intelligent life per se, but a search for intelligence that is  
within +/- 75 years of our own technology.
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Bio-matter clumping
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:24:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.8eS=9yy00WB6QiD4h_
Organization: Masters student, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

There's a theory, jokingly called the "Open-Faced Sandwich Theory of Life"
in which colloidal particles of clay act as congrgating surfaces for organic
molcules.  Such an affinity has been demonstrated in a lab, and would go
far in explaining how organics ended up near each other...

The theory goes on to state that the byproducts of many reactions are
fatty acids, the stuff of membranes, which would form little domes over
the reacting proteins/genetic materials.  Eventually they get shaken off
or just cut loose in some other fashion.
David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own.          | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  dh4j@cmu.edu            Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

Democracy is based on the theory that the people know what they want...and
they deserve to get it - GOOD AND HARD!
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Propulsion questions
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:22:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul24.102312.205591
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> Interesting system - you have to keep feeding it, whether you need  
the
> drive or not, or it keeps heating up until it blows your ship to
> smithereens. :-)
> 


Hmmm. The Little Ship of Horrors? :-)

I also seem to remember hearing a Filk song about "Some Fool to Feed  
the Drive..."
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody )
Subject: Calendar and Zodiak
Summary: Where did the month over the past 2000 years go?
Keywords: Zodiak
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:32:47 GMT

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?
Xref: sparky sci.space:10614 sci.astro:8204