HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sk4i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Samuel John Kass)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Dante
Date: 13 Nov 92 08:51:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.0f0zZ1a00UzxI2tsJr
Distribution: sci
Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

On 13-Nov-92 in Re: Dante                    
user John Roberts@cmr.ncsl.ni writes:
>-From: lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio)
>-Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
>-Date: 12 Nov 92 04:24:24 GMT
>-Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie
Mellon, Pit
>tsburgh, PA
> 
>-Is this rover the same robot we at CMU call, AMBLER? Big red sucker?
>-Legs arranged like eggbeaters?

I hadn't seen that post... no, Lawrence, our Ambler is different than
Dante.  The ambler is about 5x higher and looks more like a huge, red
ant on stilts.  It's main feature is that it can constantly lift it's
back feet off the ground, bring them around it's side to the front, and
put them down, then lift the new back feet off the ground, etc etc. 
Dante moves like a bug, the Ambler moves like a tank (a tank with legs,
mind you.

On 13-Nov-92 in Re: Dante                    
user John Roberts@cmr.ncsl.ni writes:
>It's very, *very* purple - I saw it on display at the rover exposition in
>Washington, D.C. a few months ago. (Is the color functional?)

From what I remember in talking to the people down at the Planetary
Robotics lab here, the color was chosen for style.  It is REEEALY
purple.  I mean, purple, okay, but wow, CMU isn't known for going
halfway :).

    --Sam

-- Disclaimer:  Everything is true. - sk4i+@andrew.cmu.edu               --
-- A Math/CS major at Carnegie Mellon University --  Beward the fnords.  --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space suit research???
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:27:59 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov10.232320.4521@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> stanczyk@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (STANCZYK MICHAEL B) writes:
>With all the talk about US space suits being at 5 psi and pure O2 I was 
>wondering what the current state of research is in space suits using
>1 atm and normal air?

Advanced spacesuit research is basically stalled for lack of funding.
A high-pressure suit (probably 8psi or so rather than full normal
pressure -- most people can take a certain amount of pressure change
without much risk of the bends) was planned for the space station but
scuttled by funding cuts.  It would still be useful, because prebreathing
greatly increases the time needed for a spacewalk.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:14:27 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 <Bx732s.IzB.1@cs.cmu.edu> ssi!lfa@uunet.UU.NET ("Louis F. Adornato") writes:

>communities in this country have, IMHO, paid for those programs.  If
>you want to think that the NASA bias toward crewed programs is based on
>funding, I'm certainly not going to change your mind.  However, there
>are an awful lot of people who just don't think that firing toys into
>the solar system is as awe inspiring as having _people_ out there,
>regardless of the volume of raw data rerturned.

Well, NASA's current (shuttle) and planned (Fred) manned programs manage
to spend awe-inspiring amounts of money and keep awe-inspiring numbers
of people employed in proportion to the amount of work done and 
data returned, but I can't seem to find these particulars in NASA's 
charter. I thought that exploring space was the whole idea? Yet Fred
has consumed eight billion dollars so far without one piece of flight
hardware being bolted to another, while Magellan is about to be turned
off in the middle of collecting new and unique data on the structure of
Venus for want of a miserable $20 million.

If NASA can't get out of the astronaut, aerospace worker and bureaucrat 
welfare business it's liable to find its plug unceremoniously pulled one 
day.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Galileo Cleared of Heresy Charges by Vatican
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:39:28 GMT

Maybe the high gain antenna will deploy now.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:39:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.143903.17831@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs) writes:
>From article <1992Nov11.020940.4767@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, by mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas):
>> 
>> This is true for the most part, but at high O2 pressure, normally inflammable
>> objects burn quite well.  So in that respect, it is indirectly a fire 
>> hazard...sort of.  :)
>> 
>
>Actually, normally inflammable objects burn quite well at sea-level pressure
>of pure *air*.  However, you need the high pressure to get normally 
>*non*flammable objects to burn.       [high pressure O2]

I guess that explains why I'm not an English major, huh?  :)  I'll get this
"in-" "non-" thing straigthened out one of these days...

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Media report on Swift-Tuttle threat.
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:34:25 GMT

> The article goes on to say that the "International Astronomical Union then
> warned its member nations that Swift-Tuttle would cross earth's path in
> August 2126."
> 
> News to me!  Anyone care to comment?

An IAU Circular was issued.

On the other hand, issuance of an IAU Circular is hardly a warning from the
IAU to member nations!  A reporter has, once again, misinterpreted the facts.

Of course, P/Swift-Tuttle will cross Earth's path in 1992 as well.  It's just
that Earth won't be anywhere near the intersection point when it does cross.
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:41:00 GMT

davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.180901@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov> giglio@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Louis Giglio) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov9.192439.1354@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W.
>>Sherzer) writes:
>>
>>|> >* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.
>>|> 
>>|> Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived
>>|> weeks on end on pure oxygen.

>>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either party, but I want to point
>>out that
>>this can't possibly be correct.  The oxygen had to be diluted with
>>something.
>>They would have died otherwise.

>Suffice it to say that Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts worked in a
>5 psi pure O2 environment.  This simplified the environmental control system
>and eliminated the need to purge N2 prior to EVA.  

Are you certain that Apollo astronauts breathed pure O2?  I thought that
after the fatal Apollo 1 fire, which killed astronauts Grissom, White, and
Chaffee on January 27, 1967, pure O2 was no longer used because it was a
proven fire hazard.  Or did NASA simply reduce the cabin pressure as
suggested by Carl Lydick?

Curt Roelle
Xref: sparky sci.space:15662 alt.sci.planetary:271
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:59:37 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Nov9.180901@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov> giglio@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Louis Giglio) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.192439.1354@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W.
>Sherzer) writes:
>
>|> >* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.
>|> 
>|> Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived
>|> weeks on end on pure oxygen.
>                   ^^^^ ^^^^^^
>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either party, but I want to point
>out that
>this can't possibly be correct.  The oxygen had to be diluted with
>something.
>They would have died otherwise.

At one atmosphere pressure, maybe so...but the U.S. manned space missions
up through Apollo used pure O2 at 3.5psi or so.

It reduced the total weight of the capsules, what with smaller pressure
loading, reduced tankage requirements (no nitrogen need be carried), and
so on.

It also contributed to problems such as the Apollo 1 pad fire, which was
conducted at >1atm O2...

The astronauts lived in pure O2 for extended periods quite nicely, thanks,
with some trouble from dehydration 'cause their "air" was too dry.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give them away |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------
From: jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Man in space ...
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:46:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: jpl-devv.1992Nov11.054620.17509
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

In article <BxGsFI.BD4.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>Isn't the point of hyperventilating to boost stores of ATP? Clearly
>you're not going to do much to increase the oxygen in the blood, but
>the brain doesn't need oxygen, it needs energy.

Well, *my* brain insists on oxygen.  Accept no substitutes!  The brain
has no capacity for anaerobic metabolism; its production of ATP is by
oxidative phosphorylation of ADP.  Hyperventilation does not raise the
amount of oxygen in the blood by any significant amount, and therefore
does not speed the production of ATP.

The key is the shape of the curve that relates oxygen content in blood
to oxygen partial pressure.  It's s-shaped (sigmoid, they say), and
the normal arterial PO2 of 90-100 mmHg is way up on the flat part of
the curve.  You can raise the partial pressure much higher without
appreciably increasing the O2 content.  As I said, hemoglobin is
pretty wonderful stuff.

>This is what I've always thought hyperventilating does, and it seems
>to work for me :-)

I suspect this is a higher cortical phenomenon that cannot be
explained in terms of cellular energetics. :-)

-- 
Steve Jenkins      			jenkins@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory	(818) 306-6438
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: reality check (2)
Date: 10 Nov 92 05:39:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxHJsu.D5G.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
-Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
-Date: 9 Nov 92 19:24:39 GMT

-In article <BxEt07.G32@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
->* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.

-Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived for
-weeks on end on pure oxygen.

They also had some health problems that were probably related to the lack
of full atmospheric pressure. There's been talk of using helium as a "filler"
gas, but I suspect the first long-term lunar settlements will use nitrogen.

->finished steel, ton	40,000
->automobiles, unit	12,000
->trucks, buses, unit	20,000
->ref: Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 1987

-Most of this is for processes which will have lunar equivalents which
-don't use water. Abundant and cheap solar energy will provide alternatives.

Abundant - yes, cheap - no (at least by Earth standards). It may actually
make sense to start with fission and imported fuel (or a combination of
fission and solar power - performing the energy-intensive tasks only
during the day), until large power storage facilities can be brought on line.

I'm in favor of establishing permanent human settlements on the moon, but I
think there's a tendency to underplay the problems (or overplay them :-).

We need vigorous technology development to make it worthwhile and affordable.
I have a neutral opinion on whether asteroid mining should be a precursor
to lunar settlement - I'm sure it will be important in the long run.

Also, I think the lunar settlement people should place more emphasis on
robotics and teleoperation from Earth. A few humans and a large number of
robots should be able to do a much better job than a large number of humans
with only a few robots.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:41:52 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov8.064256.7682@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>Is anyone looking into robots with very limited autonomy? That is,
>under direction from a human, but able to execute instructions on
>their own for periods of, say, ten seconds?
>
>                                         Frank Crary
>                                         CU Boulder

Yes. The Canadian Space Agency (who are developing the Mobile
Servicing System for SSF) are spending about CDN$50M per year 
on research into automating various aspects of MSS, through their
STEAR (Strategic TEchnologies for Automation and Robotics)
program. The work is being done by various Canadian companies,
including mine (Dynacon Enterprises Ltd.). The idea is that
the baseline MSS will use control technologies very similar to
those used in the Canadarm, in order to expedite development.
Then, improvements will be added over the life of SSF as part of
the ``Evolutionary MSS'' program (funding still TBC). The work being
done now is more in the nature of up-front research and development, 
so that the technologies that currently look interesting will have
been tested out prior to setting the requirements for the next
MSS increment. 

Actually, some of that work looks likely to see
earlier use, perhaps even incorporation into the baseline MSS:
the CSA is looking into adding ground-control capability into baseline
MSS, largely to provide a means for dealing with the predicted
external maintenance task backlog (the existence of this backlog
was the main conclusion of the ``Fisher/Price''
report a couple of years ago; this report was probably the straw
that broke the back of the previous SSF configuration, and led to the
1991 re-design). With ground control, MSS could be operated almost
full-time during the period between flight 3 (when MSS is launched)
and PMC (when SSF will be permanently inhabited); without ground control,
it could be operated during this period only when a shuttle was docked,
which will be for something like 2 weeks out of every 3 months.
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: jechilde@unccsun.uncc.edu (Jr Childers)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:10:20 GMT

In article <BxKJ3t.Dux@acsu.buffalo.edu> v071pzp4@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L. Cole) writes:
>In article <1drh9aINN91n@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes...

>>In article <1992Nov11.143433.18514@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs) writes:
>>=From article <1992Nov11.005151.15358@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins):
>>=> 
>>=> Oxygen, like many gases, has narcotic effects at very high pressures,
>>=> such as in deep-sea diving.  It can cause blindness in newborns
>>=> 
>>=
>>=Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic
>>=effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really
>>=deep dives.
>> 
>>If oxygen at high pressures DIDN'T cause the bad effects, why bother mixing it
>>with helium?  Yes, nitrogen has narcotic effects at high pressure, but so does
>>oxygen.

I am a diver but, I've never used helium underwater.  Well has anyone here 
been up over 100km? :-)  What you are refering to is mixed gas diving, 
which is mostly (only) used by professionals.  

In mixed gas systems the O2 pressure is keep at 0.2atm to maybe 0.5atm. 
The rest of the pressure is madeup  with helium and some times N2 at 0.8atm.
Note that the O2 level is above normal for a very good reason.  When 
assending the gases expand and their pressures drop.  Going from 100ft (30m)
to the surface is a drop of 4atm and professionals don't like blackouts. :-)
>
>I'm no expert at deep sea diving or anything, but don't they use the helium
>to increase to total atmospheric pressure in their submerisibles? So that
>the pressure inside and outside the craft are more equal?

Submerisibles are keep at 1 atm to avoid any need for decompression or 
mixed gases, unless of coures a  diver is going to leave the sub at depth. 

>This is the opposite of space --  these guys are trying keep there craft
>from imploding due to pressure. Increasing the pressure inside the craft
>reduces the loads on the craft's strucutre.

Adding pressure increases the sub's operating depth by only  
10m/atm (33ft/atm) and 10m is not a real improvement when 
when the sub is built to operate 1km to 10km down. 



Is anyone else amazed at how little most people know about the air they
need to survive.


John Childers				 | We're sorry,  
University of North Carolina at Charlotte| all quotes are on 
Electrical Engineering Department	 | backorder.
Charlotte NC 28223			 |
Internet? Try john@opticslab1.uncc.edu	 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  Does anyone on usenet ever offically speak for their computer?


Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: 2ftspolled@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Coverup
Date: 4 Nov 92 16:05:33 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Why do people still kling to the notion that we didn't actually go to the moon?...

I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with that...

I know our government has done some really dirty things in the past, but I really think
that they wouldn't spend billions of dollars so that they could lie to us...

Think of it this way, they all pay taxes just like the rest of us, so why would they
want to throw they're money away so that they could lie to the American people.

The government is corrupt, no doubt about that...but I think that covering up a moon
mission is far beyond anything they could do..

As for snarfy's math arguments...I don't have time to sit down and work through them
myself...but I really don't think that 100's(?) of people (the ones doing the
calculations) could be persuaded to lie for this many years....

We went to the Moon....no doubts in my mind...

				James
From: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Drop nuc waste into
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 09:36:55 GMT
Organization: Baldrick Fan Club
Reply-To: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au


In article <581.2AF8ED3B@mechanic.Fidonet.org> Lauren.Podolak@mechanic.Fidonet.org writes:

 > Why not simply dump the stuff on Luna?  Less energy involved yet and
 > frankly it makes sense since at some date we will probably come up with
 > a need for the stuff.
 > 

Oh, why not just dump the stuff on Swift-Tuttle as it flies by in 130 years
time.

:)

-cameron.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt)
Subject: Dyson Spheres
Summary: not real spheres?
Keywords: civilizations, dyson
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date:  8 Nov 92 05:54:36 GMT



  One of the recurring problems in the Dyson-sphere debate is how to hold up the
poles, which won't be orbiting in any helpful way.  This problem doesn't come
up with Niven's ringworlds, even very wide ones (significantly wider than the
diameter of the sun)  What would a very wide ringworld look like?  If seen
from the same plane as the ring, it could look very much like a Dyson Sphere
(It would completely block the star).  One can assume that any civilization
would build such a thing in it's ecliptic plane.  The question then is: Does
our sun lie in the ecliptic of nearby stars.  It seems feasible to me that
most solar systems have parallel ecliptic planes (lined up with the plane of
the Milky Way), which would mean that all but the closest stars are essentially coplanar.
  Does anybody know the relationship between the ecliptic of our solar system
and the Milky Way?

  Another possibility to avoid collapsing poles:  have two or more ringworlds,
inside each other, at various angles.  Each spot on the outer world would
periodically go into the shadow of the inner one, but this shouldn't be a 
prohibitive problem.  The mass of ringworlds would look very much like a 
Dyson Sphere from a distance.
   
     Dave Patterson, guest on this account.
From: benson@gemed (Mark Benson 5-4228)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:06:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: mr.1992Nov9.220620.18453
Reply-To: benson@gemed.ge.com (Mark Benson 5-4228)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee,  WI

In article <1992Nov8.064256.7682@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU 
(Frank Crary) writes:

>Is anyone looking into robots with very limited autonomy? That is,
>under direction from a human, but able to execute instructions on
>their own for periods of, say, ten seconds?

Yes, I believe so.  SSF had (and I believe still has) a program for the
Flight Telerobotic Servicer (FTS).  Under Phase B of the contract, various
options were studied, ranging from basically remote control to releatively
sophisticated, knowledge / rule based AI for functions ranging from task 
planning and collision avoidance functions.  Among these possible levels was
a basic "learn and play" mode, where the operator would do the first one, and 
then basically just monitor the subsequent 'n' executions of the activity.
I was working for Martin-Marietta at the time, and heard they won the
contract.  Haven't heard much since.

In fact, at the time, there was such a thing as the NASA / NBS Standard 
Reference Model (NASREM), describing various levels of control over such
a system, from task planning and resource scheduling down to individual joint
motions and limit checks (kinematics).  At the time, we evaluated just what
it meant to take control at any given level of the architecture -i.e., tell
the beast to go change out a reaction wheel at a given location, vs. moving
the control stick while watching the end effector through strereo vision gear.

Now, this was in early '88.  By now there should be flight experminents
coming up in the next year or so to prove some of this out - I haven't
checked detailed shuttle manifests lately.

I also suspect there are several production lines that have robots going for
longer than 10 sec at a stretch without manual intervention.  One could argue
that lots of NC equipment meets this definition.

Mark Benson		benson@med.ge.com
GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI
Newsgroups: sci.space