HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antarctica (was: SPS)
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:27:04
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Sep2.144506.19052@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
	<1992Sep2.224907.1937@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>,<67523@hydra.gatech.EDU>
	<1992Sep03.165156.13662@eng.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sartre.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu's message of Thu, 03 Sep 92 16:51:56 GMT

Glenn Reynolds' essay in the current Ad Astra provides a good reply to
the "Antarctica Argument":

GR> Don't waste your time on the Moon or Mars.  If you want the rough and
GR> manly experience of settling harsh, desolate places, try the Gobi
GR> Desert or Antarctica.  At least that's Tom Rogers' message...

GR> Rogers is like a bus driver who keeps insisting that there is "plenty
GR> of room in the back" when what passengers are asking is to be let off
GR> the bus.  To those who support human expansion beyond Earth, not all
GR> "harsh and remote" areas are created equal: those off-planet are
GR> inherently desirable, while those on-planet are beside the point...

GR> Very few of us want to do it solely for the dubious pleasure of pitting
GR> outselves against a hostile nature, any more than the pioneers of the
GR> American West endured their hardships because they enjoyed them.  Like
GR> those pioneers, we are willing to face the hardships because of our
GR> ultimate goal.  But the hardships are not the goal, and those who do
GR> not understand this are missing the point.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Asteroid explorer
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:04:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:26:42 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Asteroid explorer
Distribution: usa

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

>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

Might you possibly be refering to Robert Farquar of the JHU Applied Physics
Laboratory (APL).  His style of presentation matches your description.  He
was behind the 1985 Interplanetary Cometary Explorer (ICE) mission to Comet
P/Giacobini-Zinner, which included something like two earth gravity assists 
and five from the moon.  He's currently involved with the Near Earth Asteroid 
Rondezvous (NEAR) mission (Forgot which asteroid -- the target changed a
couple  months back).  The NEAR spacecraft will orbit the asteroid at 
various stand-off distances.

Farquar presented a plan at last year's Montreal meeting of the IAF which
proposed launching dual spacecraft in 2003, arriving at Comet P/Encke 
four months later.  Following the Encke encounter both spacecraft
would use Earth gravity-assist maneuvers to reach other targets.  S/C 1 
would encounter P/Schwassman-Wachmann-3 in 2006.  S/C 2 is retargeted
to rendezvous with 433 Eros in 2005.  

These types of missions are relatively cheap.  The ICE mission was a new
name given to the International Sun Earth Explorer (ISEE-3) spacecraft.
Farquhar keeps his eye open for unused spacecraft at or near the end of their
missions, that he can play billiards with, shooting bank shots about
the solar system.  Parents, do you know where your spacecraft is?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:29:47 GMT

> 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  
of MIPS.

I really don't think the eventual use of ETM's is questionable. The only  
possible argument between optimists and pessimists is whether the have a  
big impact in the next couple decades or whether it is a hundred or a  
thousand years in the future. Is there anyone out there dumb enough to make  
a bet that there won't be significant imports to Earth from Mars by 2992?

PS: I think I'd win the bet if I lived even until 2050.



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:31:14 GMT

Ron Baalke writes:

> The launches of the two spacecraft will be staggered by 3.2
> days to allow observations of both sides of Pluto and Charon.

Actually, the launches don't have to be 3.2 days apart.  You can easily
adjust the arrival times enroute.  Also, it is quite likely that the
arrival times would be perhaps as much as a year apart, though still
designed to image the opposite hemisphere.  The reason for the delay is
to permit the data from the first encounter to be played back and
analyzed before designing the details of the second encounter.  The bit
rate is quite low in the current design, so playback could take several
weeks.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
From: ray@gyro (Ray Soo)
Subject: apollo 13 LEM, CSM names?
Reply-To: ray@exicom.OZ.AU (ray)
Organization: Exicom (Aust) Pty Ltd
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:03:54 GMT


Does anybody know the names given to the Lunar Module 
and Command/Service Modules for the apollo 13 mission?
( i think this mission did not get to land on the moon 
due to technical problems )

email replies to :

ray@exicom.oz.au


thanks in advance,

ray

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Venus orbiters
Organization: UDSI
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:59:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.151711.23979@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>aerobraking next year for Cycle 5.  Of course, this is assuming that Magellan 
>isn't turned off at the end of Cycle 4.  Magellan is in Cycle 3 right now with
>Cycle 4 due to start on September 14.  Each cycle lasts 243 days, or one
>Venusian day.  
>     ___    _____     ___


Rumour has it that COngress and certain unnamed NASA Brass want to keep magellan
alive for as long as possible.  
The DDTE for Magellan was $600 million (appx) so why not burn 60 million
more to get better gravity data..

also word is that small light probes are hot for funding in the near future.
cheap fast missions are being experimented with to avoid cost problems
with  heavy big birds.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 11:57:52 GMT

> The general idea of moving ice to Mars is good, but this is really
> the roundabout to go about it.  By the time we've moved the ice  
into
> Earth orbit, then lunar orbit, then back to Mars, we will have used  
up
> 


Since the purpose is to get the ice to Mars rather than to get an  
intact object to Mars, why not simply accelerate bits of ice with a  
mass driver so that they end up burning up in the Martian atmosphere  
as small meteorites? Under this scenario you don't really care where  
you end up. You just keep thrusting until the asteroid has been  
completely used up. At that point you write off your mass driver, and  
you have created a couple year long queue of particles bound for Mars  
by whatever direct or indirect orbit you have set them on.

Obviously it will be done robotically, at least after the mass driver  
is turned on, since it is a one way trip to who knows where...

Copyright 1992 DMA :-)
From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: New lunar spacecraft
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:33:53 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <2AB11BA8.AE2@deneva.sdd.trw.com>

> data ... stored on punch cards

So what's the problem? Surely they can find a card reader.

Can't they?

    ++PLS
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:13:38 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep10.135754.1491@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>... Pluto is *a long way away*; to
>>get there in under a decade, the probe has to be fast.  Killing all that
>>velocity is inordinately expensive in mass. 
>
>Aerobrake? 

In what? :-)  Pluto does have an atmosphere of sorts at the moment, but
I'd guess it's too thin to do much aerobraking in, even if we knew its
properties well enough to plan an aerobraking mission, which we don't.
And we'd have to kill a lot of velocity; Pluto is roughly 150 km/s-years
away (how's that for strange units? :-)), so for a reasonable trip time
we're talking about killing maybe 20 km/s, which is high.
-- 
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
From: brettvs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Brett Vansteenwyk)
Subject: 3 booster questions
Reply-To: brettvs@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:23:22 GMT

[1].What makes Titan so expensive?  I would think that this would be a
mature launch system where no one needs to masturbate the machinery before
launch.  Is there something inherent in its properties (such as long storage
fuel tanks?) or is it in the way the system is managed?

[2].Atlas still goes *boom* a lot?  Is this inherent to the design of having
two of the engines fall off and the difficulty in shutting off the fuel flow
to these engines?

[3].It seems, like it or not, that the Shuttle will be flying for at least 10
more years.  Perhaps developing an LRB for the Shuttle will not be justified
on its own.  Perhaps developing an HLV will not be justified on its own.
However, if you have an HLV whose first stage will also serve as an LRB
you could amortise development costs pretty fast.  Is there something wrong
with this idea?
    For example, a single engine "Baby Saturn" based on the F1A may qualify.
If modifying the External Tank design for 3 boosters instead of 2 is not
difficult, and if there is no particular reason that you cannot ride the
Shuttle on "top" of the stack instead of the the bottom (angle of attack
considerations would force this change), then you would have a ready use
for 25-30 of these vehicles per year.  Why not?

			--Brett Van Steenwyk

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Armstrong's boots
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:30:50 GMT

Sort of related to this topic...

I heard a piece this weekend on NPR about the problem that the
Smithsonian is having with its collection of spacesuits, including
the Apollo gear.  It seems that the polymers in many of the materials
are degrading and the suits are, albeit gradually, falling apart.
(Imagine, in the year 3000, a display case at NASM containing a small
pile of dust "This was worn by Neil Armstrong"... :-( ).

I imagine that the suits currently in use aboard the shuttle have
a limited life due to such problems - can space.sources tell us
what the servide life of a Shuttle suit is?

What is the current status of the new suit design.  The last I heard
they were having a 'shoot-out' between a hard shell design and a
soft design - or have they nixed it because of $$ and are going with
improved Shuttle suits?

(Inquiring minds want to know the latest in exoatmospheric haut couture
and sartorial splendor...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: Rick's Home-Grown Un*x
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:44:03 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <samw.715971213@bucket> samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) writes:
>>Were Venus ever to cool off, I would expect ferocious amounts of
>>oxidation/carbonation weathering to occur, for example.

>Remember that chemical reactions like oxidation proceed at a rate 
>proportional to temperature. 
>... a hell of battery acid and acidic complexes. Nearly every member of 
>the metal group is bound to be fully oxidized. Venus is a natural
>toxic waste dump.
 
The surface is above the decomposition temperature of most sulfates,
carbonates, and some oxides.  That's why all that stuff is in the
atmosphere.  

-- 
 
samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) -- and not a mere Device.
 
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: SSTO Mailing List Formed
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:44:18 GMT


                    SSTO Mailing List Charter

This group is for people interested in promoting the development of
Single Stage to Orbit vehicles in general and the current SDIO Single
Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program (DCX and DCY) in particular. 
The group will disseminate technical and political information on the
project and promote discussions on both the technology and how best
to promote this technology to the government and general public.

Members are expected to be ACTIVE supporters who will be willing do
work in their communities and with their elected representatives to
publicize this program. If you sign up you WILL be expected to help
(writing to and perhaps meeting with your representatives at the very
least). If you simply want to read about it, stick to sci.space or
space-tech.

How to sign up:

Send mail to ssto-request@hela.iti.org. In the message include:

1. Your name
2. Address
3. Phone number
4. New congressional district (if known)
5. New congresscritter's name (if known)

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------226 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
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: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:13:07 GMT

In article <BuB3MG.CLy@trystro.uucp> rick@trystro.uucp (Richard Nickle) writes:
>In article <jvrnh5#.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>>Without references it is difficult to remember, but isn't there
>>water, water vapor and possible liquid water along the interface of
>>the Martian north pole? 
>>
>>If so, shouldn't this represent a possible seeding area for life forms?
>>
>>I also seem to remember that the upper atmosphere of Venus was
>>mostly water vapor even though the bulk of the atmosphere was
>>sulphuric acid.
>>
>>Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I don't believe that
>>Venus could ever be made earthlike. I see the chance, however,
>>of seeding life there and letting it make it's own way.
>>
>>The same with Mars. All of the grandiose plans aside I can't see
>>the bulk of the necessary machinery being transported to Mars to
>>terraform it and then the project continued for thousands of years.
>I never understood this machinery bit though...my understanding of
>Martian terraforming was that the timescale would be large, but the
>steps taken would be rather simplistic:  slamming large ice blocks
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
>from the belt or Saturn's rings (though why anybody would want to
>throw away all that nice water, I don't know...maybe they could just
>send the low-grade ore towards mars), using orbiting mirrors to melt
>the poles, or covering the poles with dark matter to assist in raising
>the surface temperature.

I think you and I have different ideas of what is 'simplistic'

>  Once you begin to raise atmospheric pressure
>and water vapor content, you can begin seeding microbes....
>
>But all of these steps, no matter how gartantuan the time scale, are
>pretty passive. 

How are you calling going to Saturn and bringing back chunks of ring big
enough to supply an atmosphere *passive*?

> You just build the stuff and leave it operating autonomously,
>and fiddle with it every decade or so.  No massive focus of manpower,
>just one hell of a long view would be necessary.

Do you understand how many 'mirrors' would be required to raise the polar
caps one degree centigrade?



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:20:02 GMT

tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:

>...And as someone else correctly pointed out, using such
>a drive for a orbital mission, as opposed to a flyby, would require that
>you start to slow down after reaching roughly the halfway point.  Flight
>times would be much longer, and there is a sense of urgency to get there
>as soon as possible, for a variety of reasons.

I was thinking of it for an accelerated flyby, but I've said that already
by now, so I'll just slip back into lurker mode again for a short
--
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
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: farthest Laser signal
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:07:50 GMT

In article <BuC4sA.3EB@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <199209041812.AA18322@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@CS.ARIZONA.EDU ("Richard Schroeppel") writes:
>>Note that radar signals have been bounced off Venus, and were
>>actually used for some mapping...
> 
>I believe JPL has done interplanetary radar work as far as Jupiter.

Try a little further out, like Saturn.  Radar has been bounced off of
Titan using the high power transmitter on the 70 meter antenna at Goldstone.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Technology development
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:10:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bu4wqp.A5L.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


[Telepresence and robotics may be the fastest way to make affordable
space technology...but may require a totally new technology...]

>An example of how hard it is to replace existing technologies is current
>household refridgeration. These are largely based on CFCs and will have
>to be replaced due to ozone depletion. The current CFC replacements are
>also not safe, and it may take a total rethink of the technology to get
>something that works properly.

An example of the best way to develop this new technology can also be
seen in the fridge example.  Currently, GE is offering a huge cash
prize for refridgeration technology based on something other than CFCs,
with comparable or better efficiency.  I think the prize is $3 million,
with a bonus for improved efficiency, but is was a while since I heard
about it, so I may have the exact figure wrong.

If the goals in space were as easily defined, this would probably be a
cheaper way for NASA to develop launchers, etc., than the current system.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro
From: guest@iat.holonet.net (HoloNet Guest Services)
Subject: Re: Space Calendar
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:58:21 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<BuD57x.MAs@trystro.uucp> <1992Sep11.091657.19639@techbook.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:40:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.091657.19639@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

   In article <BuD57x.MAs@trystro.uucp> rick@trystro.uucp (Richard Nickle) writes:
   >Adding water requires small robot probes to go retrieve ice
   >and move it to mars.  The robots would attach themselves to the appropriate
   >piece of ice, and use the ice itself as reaction mass to move them from
   >wherever you got them (Saturn, the belt) to Mars, whereupon they would
   >fall onto mars and release tons of water.  You just set up your ice-retriever
   >robot factory someplace convenient:  Lunar orbit? 

   The general idea of moving ice to Mars is good, but this is really
   the roundabout to go about it.  By the time we've moved the ice into
   Earth orbit, then lunar orbit, then back to Mars, we will have used up
   over 95% of the ice

You're misreading the idea: set up a factory in Lunar orbit which
makes robots. Send the robots out to where the ice is. The robots take
the ice directly to Mars. Do not pass Earth, Do not collect $200. The
main purpose of the robots is to take ice to Luna, but the factory
owner is _so_ generous (?!) that some go to Mars instead.

[...]

					Best of all, the ice can be used
   to transport even more robot plants to the comets, a bootstrapping
   process that can reduce the cost of deep space transportation by five
   orders of magnitude in two decades.  

We'll see.

Nick
Newsgroups: sci.space