HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: DSN Update - 07/23/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:33:54 GMT

                         Deep Space Network Status Report
                                July 23, 1992

     The 70 meter antenna at Goldstone (near Barstow in California) returned
to operations early this morning, supporting the Galileo mission with no
problems.  The antenna has been down since June 28 when the two large
earthquakes damaged its subreflector.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: glennc@cs.sfu.ca (Glenn Chapman)
Subject: Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 docks with Mir space station
Keywords: Space, Russian, French
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:54:15 GMT


     The Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 mission successfully docked with the CIS 
(Commonwealth of Independent States) Mir space station today (July 29).  
Docking time was not stated after the fact but was expected at 11:05 am 
Moscow time (1:05 am PDT).  Lunched on July 27th the Soyuz crew transferred to 
the station were cosmonauts Anatoli Solovyov, Sergei Avdeyev from CIS, plus 
French "spationaut" Michel Tognini.  The mission is now stated as lasting 12 
days on board the station.  Greeting them were Alexander Viktorenko and 
Alexander Kaleri, who spent 134 days in orbit.  The Radio Moscow report 
stated that contracts for an additional 4 French missions during the 
next decade were currently proceeding.
     One interesting opportunity is open for people who have access on their 
cable to a TV channel from France, as we do here in Vancouver.  French TV 
naturally gives this mission much more coverage than the regular news.  
Indeed last night there was an lively presentation about the cosmonaut 
spacesuits in a "Johnny Carson" like show.  Keep an eye on that channel if 
you can get it.
                                                        Glenn Chapman
                                                        School Eng. Science
                                                        Simon Fraser U.
                                                        Burnaby, B.C., Canada
                                                        glennc@cs.sfu.ca
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:49:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul29.155611.40921
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> 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.
> 


I strongly disagree. Much of the literature I have been reading over  
the last ten years seems to be leaning more towards a view that given
the chemical conditions, life is pretty likely. Just add a few  
chemicals, stir for a few billion years and let sit without major  
impacts for awhile :-)

There are suggestions that life on Earth actually evolved multiple  
times. During the late stages of heavy bombardment, the time interval  
between strikes that would evaporite water in the ocean deeps was  
sufficient that such could have been the case.

I don't think chemistry is the problem. I think one has to think more  
in terms of more major conditions, like the effect of lunar tides,  
the stability of the solar constant, the size of the life zone, the  
impact rates, the spectrum of energy, the energy sources, the  
metallicity, etc...

The primary error in the above is the assumption that life requires a  
massive number of things to come togetherat once. This may not at all  
be true. There are some facts like the self-assembly of RNA that  
indicate very much the contrary. Some of the lowest starting levels  
of chemical evolution are not well understood, but I think it will be  
found that they do not require any blind watchmaker, just a soup of  
chemicals with energy input and a few hundred million years or less.

Given that, the probability of life is the probability of finding a  
planet with an environment that is stable and satisfactory for a  
sufficient length of time. I think the argument of number of stars in  
the universe makes other life probable is quite a powerful. 


The question of evolution of microbe life to an intelligence we could  
understand seems a bit more difficult, so I won't.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: TRUFFA@AGRCAM.ST.IT ("Truffa Giancarlo,Agrate B.,Italy * 39-39-6035.815")
Subject: ASTRONOMY LAB BETA TESTER
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 12:13:31 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

I WOULD BE BETA TESTER OF ASTRONOMY LAB PROGRAM.
I WASN'T ABLE TO USE DIRECTLY BOTH ADDRESSES.
MY INFORMATIONS ARE:

Name:	GIANCARLO TRUFFA
US Mail Address: NONE
MAIL Address: via Rombon,29/ 20134 MILAN/ITALY
E-Mail Address: TRUFFA@AGRCAM.ST.IT
Version of MS-Windows: 3.1
Version of MS-DOS: 5.0
CPU: 80386 SX
Math Coprocessor (not required): 80387
Memory: 4 MB
Graphics Card: SVGA TSENG 4000
Printer: EPSON LX800

THANK'S
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:05:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

> If the concept of "proof" is to have any meaning at all, the proof that
> whales don't have greater-than-animal intelligence is similar to the proof
> that chairs don't have greater-than-none intelligence.  For all practical
> purposes, both of these are proven; the burden of proof is on the person who
> claims that they are intelligent, not the one who claims that they're not.

I don't think that "chairs allow people to push them around" is the main proof
that chairs lack intelligence.  Other evidence, such as lack of anything that
might support intelligence (neurons, electronic switching elements, etc) is
stronger evidence.

No, for practical purposes it is not proven that whales are not intelligent.
They don't display human-like intelligence, but judging whales by lack of
display of human thought patterns does not constitute significant proof of
non-intelligence.  By that proof, certain religious people, people who engage
in extremely dangerous activities despite the risk, people with mental
disorders, and even teenagers who commit suicide because a boyfriend/girlfriend
left them would by your  (and Russell's) definition be non-intelligent.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: gnb@duke.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Propulsion questions
Date: 29 Jul 92 09:48:03 GMT
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia

>> 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. :-)

And you certainly don't want to run out of gas....

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
``USL has never sold long distance.  You're going after the wrong men in black 
  hats.  (Or, in the case of Plan 9, black space suits)'' - Tom Limoncelli
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (tom)
Subject: Star Trek Realism
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:47:03 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

As long as we're on the Star-Trek vs. reality thread, here's a question
that used to come up before my housemate Doug said "Shut up and just watch
the show!":   When the ship is streaming through space, stars moving past
at several per second, how is it that the ship is steadily lit from one
side?  What is the source for this light?  It's pretty bad when you aren't
even into the actual show, and it's already violating known principles :-)

-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!           *
'-----------------------
From: derek.wee@f820.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Derek Wee)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Interstates
Date: 20 Jul 92 09:45:02 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au

Original to: lms
>       optimism of the US in the late 50's, and was seen as a
> sure-fire
>       economic boost.  In my own experience, for example, my
> father's
>       industrial firm got into the business of building
> asphalt plants,
>       and the news release announcing this new venture pointed
> out that
>       this would be a hedge against economic bad times:

In the early fifties, the Korean War started off a boom. So if the decision
to  build was made then, it would have been unsound economic theory. The
building
of the interstates should have been nearly completed or at least started in 
the recessions.

As I recall, Govt spending such as that should be initiated DURING bad
times.
Not in Good times so that it'll be there during recessions.

Oh what the heck, this isn't the proper newsgroup anyway......


---
 * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either. (3:680/820)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: chimps@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Jen Schacher)
Subject: Re: Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 mission launched to Mir station
Reply-To: chimps@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:53:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.001028.13734@cs.sfu.ca>, glennc@cs.sfu.ca
(Glenn Chapman) writes:
>     The Russian/French Soyuz TM-15 mission to the Mir space station was 
>launched today (July 27). Onboard this  flight were cosmonauts Anatoli 
>Solovyov and (Soyuz TM-5 to Mir June '88 for 9 days and Soyuz TM-9 to Mir in 
>Feb '90 for 180 days) Sergei Avdeyev (first mission) from CIS (Commonwealth 
>of Independent States) plus Frenchman Michel Tognini (also first flight).  
>The crew will dock with the Mir complex on July 29th to join cosmonauts 
>Alexander Viktorenko and Alexander Kaleri, who are in their 5th month in 
>space (since Mar. 17th). 

What are the physical effects, if any, of being in space for so long?
Are the men able to function normally upon return to Earth, or
can they not handle the increase in gravity?

Jen Schacher
chimps@binah.cc.brandeis.edu 
st891477@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
From: Keith.Stein@f118.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Keith Stein)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Geotail launch
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:55:21 -0500

Yes GEOTAIL was successful, no problems.

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: International Venus Colloquium
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Venus, Magellan
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 06:09:54 GMT

This is being forwarded from a Magellan team member.

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

     From August 10-12, 1992, an "International Venus Colloquium"
will be help at the California Institute of Technology's Ramo
Auditorium in Pasadena.  More than 100 scientific researchers
from around the world will present their results based on data
from NASA's Magellan and Pioneer Venus missions and on earlier
Soviet missions to Venus.  The colloquium will be particularly
timely, as Magellan has almost completed its third radar mapping
cycle around Venus, while Pioneer Venus is nearing its final
entry into the planet's atmosphere.

     The Lunar and Planetary Institute is providing organization
for the colloquium.  Pam Jones (telephone 713-486-2150, facsimile
713-486-2160) is the point of contact for registration or
logistics questions.

     The conveners of the scientific program are Dr. R. Stephen
Saunders at JPL (telephone 818-393-0877, facsimile 818-393-0530)
and Dr. Sean C. Solomon at MIT (telephone 617-253-3786, facsimile
617-253-1699).

     Registration before August 3 through LPI is $40 (students
$20).  At the colloquium, registration will be $50 (students
$30).  A free public lecture hosted by the Planetary Society will
be held on Monday evening, August 10 at 8:00 PM.  Dr. A. T.
Basilevsky from the Vernadsky Institute, of the Russian Academy
of Sciences will speak on "Views of Venus: An Historical
Perspective".

     Those interested in more information about this colloquium
or any of a broad range of other planetary programs in which the
Lunar and Planetary Institute is involved may use an electronic
bulletin board over the national computer networks.  On SPAN
(DECNET), set host to LPI::.  On Internet, connect by "telnet" to
"lpi.jsc.nasa.gov" (192.101.147.11).  On either network, give the
username "lpi".  Among many other topics, this system gives
access to the latest announcement and registration form for the
Venus colloguium.  It also provides access to the full set of
abstracts for the papers which will be presented.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Innumeracy: Won't You Please Help?(was Re: Whales (SETI))
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:36:14 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Jul27.062105.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
> 
>Yes.  It's an affliction suffered by billions.
> 
>Or was that millions?
> 
>Anyway, "many."
> 
>Bill Higgins                           | Every so often, Innumeracy

Hrair.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: veit@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Veit Zimmermann)
Subject: Re: ESA Future
Organization: Techn. University of Berlin, Germany
Distribution: fb20
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:09:44 GMT

ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>Well, geographically it is partly in Europe, (it's as much Asian as
>European, if we want to get picky) but socially, economically, and 
>culturally it is pretty far off...I can't see them getting into the ESA, 
>especially with all the petty bickering and infighting among the member
>nations.
>
>Besides...you'd have to get Ukraine in there as well, since they make
>some of the rockets, and nobody knows how long Russia and they are going
>to remain on speaking terms...
>
>The best bet for Europe is to get their act together, decide what they 
>*really* want, and get it done, and not look to the outside for help.

In fact the russian space agency (i don't remember the name) 
DID ask for membership in the esa. I don't know if or when the esa
will decide and/or say yes.
This would make the esa easily the bigest space agency...  ;)

Hope this will shock your "great nation" a little bit :)

	CIAO
			veit

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: parkins@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (David Parkins)
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:24:14 GMT

I couldn't help but add my 2 cents:

	The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person/being making the claim.
That just the way it works. Because I can't prove a chair is not inteligent
does not make it inteligent, it only shows that I can't prove it at this
moment. Now if we want to talk about postulates instead of theories and
proofs then we have another animal, something very similiar to religion :) .

	If some unknowing person were to meet Stephan Hawking for the first
time and without and electronic aids (maybe even with them) they would
probably be tempted to think that he is uninteligent. They might even view
him as inferior to a dog. But many would claim this to be wrong, and those
that did would have the burden of proof placed upon them (and heresay or
common knowledge does not constitute a proof).

:)
dave parkins




Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: rmm@ariane.ipac.caltech.edu (Mike Melnyk)
Subject: Inverse Ephemeris (time as a function of position) Wanted
Keywords: Solar ephemeris
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 19:06:30 GMT


Hi Folks,

I am in need of an inverse ephemeris for the sun. That is, I am
looking for function that returns the time of year, given the position
of the sun in geocentric ecliptic coordinates and a year of interest
(e.g., 1994).

This function only need be accurate to 1' from 1994 - 2000. 

Yes, yes, I know that I can use a true solar ephemeris (e.g.,
Van Flandern and Pulkkinen's formulae) to iteratively solve for
the time of year, but I'd rather not take the time to write and test
the code if an inverse ephemeris exists. 

Please reply by email.

Thanks for any info you can provide.


Cheers,   


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Melnyk                                         rmm@ipac.caltech.edu
Infrared Processing and Analysis Center             
JPL/Caltech
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:32:01 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <pgf.711672356@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) 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.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ET's, life in space
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:39:03 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> remember, we not only need self-replication, we need non-trivial
> self-replication.)
> 


You seem to have a hangup with this "non-trivial". If you stay with  
that you have a tautology.

The whole point many people are making is that the difference between  
life and non-life (as we define it) is at somepoint where the  
"trivial" chemical replication becomes complex enough to be definable  
as your "non-trivial" replication.

The point is that competition between forms takes on different  
meanings depending on the environment and the nature of the forms. A  
chemical form that is more efficient in utilizing energy and it's  
environment (which may well be a sea of chemicals produced by itself  
and others) to replicate itself will dominate. The lack of a membrane  
is meaningless in an environment where no one else has one. But the  
first ones to utilize it will "break" the "social contract" :-) and  
wipe the oceans with the ones who don't have it. Until that time the  
fact that organisms are leaking material to their surroundings is not  
significant. And since their surroundings will most likely be their  
progeny, it might even be a bit of an advantage. And if a parasite  
evolves, it will be forced to extinction along with the "host" if it  
is too good at the job.

There were two very early sets of mass extinctions on the way to  
modern life. The first occured when the initial soup of chemicals was  
used up by more competitive organisms, probably by developing your  
cell membranes or by utilizing certain clays as an initial structure.  
The second occured when some truely nasty bug learned how to produce  
energy directly from sunlight and gave off a terribly poisonous,  
highly oxidative gas that proceeded to chemically burn the very rocks  
and very nearly wipe out most of the previously existing anaerobic  
life: Oxygen. This event is recorded in the rocks as the end of the  
formation of the Banded Irons.

There just doesn't appear to be any point at which you need to point  
to say "and then a miracle occurs". The steps aren't all known, and  
the actual ones that occured on Earth may never be known: there is  
more than one way to skin a cat, and therre is probably more than one  
way to evolve chemistry into "non-trivial" life.

Chemistry for the formation of membranes has been demonstrated in the  
lab with no need for recourse to life.

Another point of interest. It has LONG been known that the ribosomes  
are from an ENTIRELY separate evolutionary strain. They don't even  
use the same genetic code. Eukaryotic cells are nothing but a  
symbiotic relationship between independant organisms. It is thought  
that even some of the different organells may have originated from  
different organisms that formed a "colony" inside a membrane, to  
their mutual benefit, and then proceeded to evolve into closer and  
closer dependance. 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Whales and dolphins
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:33:49 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

The social structure of dolphins is among the most complex on Earth,  
right up there with Homo Sapiens and Pan.

Dolphins form small cooperative groups that will sometimes form  
coalitions with other cooperative groups. What is interesting is that  
they may be the only other species that understands the double-cross  
in the Machiavellian sense.

They will work with a group until it becomes in their interest to  
work with yet another group against the first group.

This is often used by groups of males to kidnap (forcefully) and rape  
female porpoises, and by female groups to attempt to prevent same.

So much for the peaceful, lovable porpoises... But they definitely  
are far, far up the scale of social evolution.



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: paulg@griffin.demon.co.uk ("Paul J. Gravestock")