HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:22:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bvn8vG.Fwx.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> Yes, I can.  It doesn't simply come down to "everyone has
> their own values, and everyone's are as good everyone else's."
> Nor does it simply come down to the public interest being that
> of the private intrests of the majority.  Taken to extremes, your
> statement becomes "we can't tell the Nazis they are wrong. If the
> majority of the people support them, what they are doing must
> be in the public interest."  

>

Why then democracy, if not to settle differences between different  
views and special interests?

> Besides, in a sense, isn't the above statement hypocritical.  Many
> people in America don't think space is all that important. 

> Space enthusiast have always felt that it was OK to tell them
> that they're priorities were wrong and that they should think
> more about the future.
> 


Hardly. If the majority don't want the government to do anything in  
space, the government will do nothing in space. Which is fine with me  
anyway because I'd rather it be done privately.

Some people think space is important. Many more people hug trees.  
Even more people cut them down. Each is an interest, and although  
balanced somewhat by other "ideals" in the case of most people, the  
ultimate vote is always with the wallet, ie the local personal issue  
has more to do with the typical vote than "issues" and "causes". 


"In a democracy people get exactly the government they deserve"
			-  Probably H.L. Mencken
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: niininen@messi.uku.fi (Kristian Niininen)
Subject: Mars Observer info?
Date:  4 Oct 92 00:05:39 GMT
Organization: University of Kuopio, Finland

How big is the Mars Observer? (weight, length etc.)
What kinds of instruments it has?   
I haven't been reading this group for long, so that info might have been 
here before, but slipped away from me :)
-- 
                      
                          R. Kristian Niininen
       			        niininen@messi.uku.fi.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:33:41 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep29.170516.11468@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>Wingo posted the following:
>
>> No we are not still mining huge amounts of coal. We are mining less
>> coal today than in the seventies.
>
>This is quite wrong.  From the 1992 World Almanac:
>
>	Year	US Coal Production (million metric tons)
>	-----------------------------------------------
>	1970		612.7
>	1975		654.6
>	1977		697.2
>	1979		781.1
>	...
>	1988		950.3
>	1989		980.7
>	1990	       1035.9
>
>Production is up 32% from 1979 (the top year for US coal production in
>the 70s) to 1990.  US production grew about 2.6% per year.
>Consumption by US electric utilities grew 46% over that period, or
>about 3.5% per year, to 771.5 MMT in 1990.
>
>The only grade of coal that we mine less of now than in the 70s is
>anthracite, which accounts for about 0.3% of US coal production.

Anthracite is mainly used for metallurgical purposes, steel refining. 
We're doing less of that than in the past. Another business gone to
the Far East. Most power company coal is now coming from open pit mines 
in the West. Much of Eastern coal is high sulphur that costs more to
pollution control. Subsurface mines are closing in the East. Alabama, 
West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania now have less subsurface mining 
activity than in the 1970s. SIGECO has cancelled contracts with Indiana
mines and switched to low sulphur coal from Wyoming. Two of three subsurface 
mines in my home county in Kentucky have closed in the last 5 years due to 
lack of market for their coal. Our coal exports have declined as Japan and 
other trading partners switch to more nuclear power generation and more 
modern electric steel furnaces. Our surviving steel industry is also moving 
away from coal. And home heating by coal has become almost extinct.

Coal production hasn't declined, but Eastern coal production has declined,
and coal use has switched from industrial and home heating to primarily
electric power generation thanks to TMI and the environmental movement's
fear of nuclear power. It's ironic that environmentalists fought the steel
industry's belching smokestacks, and now the belching is coming from power
plants forced to use coal by their protests. Meanwhile the primary energy 
efficiency of the steel industry has declined because of the intermediate 
conversion losses from coal to heat to electricity and back to heat. Like 
the environmental movement, Dennis was extrapolating the local situation 
to the global situation. Not always a sound methodology.

Gary
From: privette@pippin.colorado.edu (Jeff Privette)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:15:49 GMT

In article <j8#pmzm.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep27.151838.467@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> >
|> >Voodoo economics Nick. Most US military R&D is spent in the private

|> Might I suggest a short course in economics? Consider any money spent

...

|> If Clinton gets in it will all be pretty much done for anyway. His
|> tax policy coupled with his spend policy will bankrupt the U.S.A.
|> in 5 years instead of the predicted 10 and space exploration can
|> be carried out by what is left of Europe and Japan's industries.

Well Thomas, I'm no economist, but from your statements I see 
*you* aren't either (despite your rightious knocking of Nick).  
With the rash, unsubstantiated statements flying around here, however,
I guess I have as much right to talk out of my field as you do.  
...but I won't.  What I will do, for the sake of those wanting
pro and con information from *professional* economists, is recommend
they pick up this week's edition of TIME magazine.  

TIME interviewed a group of the nation's leading economists (gee, I didn't
see Thomas' name...) and asked them to comment on various aspects of
both Bush's and Clinton's economic plan.  As a sneak preview, *none*
of these professionals expressed the right-wing paranoia so beautifully
displayed by Thomas.  They did have some doubts about both Clinton's and
Bush's planned policies, however there was a slight majority consensus
that Clinton's would result in better long term growth.  Of course the
objective reader may choose to ignore the comments of talented professionals
and accept the statements of a single armchair quarterback (read "Thomas").
Weirder things have happened...


-Jeff

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: drickel@bounce.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer orbit
Originator: drickel@bounce
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 22:06:10 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


In article <1992Oct02.002723.21094@news.mentorg.com>, drickel@sjc.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel) wants an explanation of Mars Observer orbit

Thanks for the explanations.  Two-dimensional thinking again--Kirk would have
kicked my ass (:-).


david rickel
drickel@sjc.mentorg.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:07:36 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: sandy

In article <1992Sep30.211147.13160@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <BvEEwK.Joz@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>>Fifteen years ago today, for the first time, NASA deliberately switched off
>>instruments on another planet that were still returning good data and gave
>>every prospect of continuing to do so for years.  It was done to save money.
>> 
>>On 30 Sept 1977, the surviving Apollo lunar surface instruments -- left by
>>Apollos 12, 15, 16, and 17 -- were turned off by ground command, because
>>money could no longer be found to receive and record their data.
>>-- 
> 
> May 15, 1993 may mark another sad anniversary.  That's when Magellan is
> scheduled to be turned off.  It will be the first time that NASA has turned
> off a functioning spacecraft.  NASA has recently communicated to JPL that
> this will still happen.  The reason is similiar, to save money.

  With the latest in high-tech radios and computers now available, couldn't
your basic University Astronomy Department set up an Earth Station?

  If so, why not leave these spacecraft running for the students to work with?


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Socialist myths about investment
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:36:35 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep30.075012.13357@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>...the pioneers often go broke and it is those who stand on their shoulders
>who profit. You are like someone belittling Goddard because it was
>Von Braun who capitalized on his work...

Although I agree with Gary's general point, this is a poor example.  The
early practical development of rockets in both Germany and the US did not
owe much to Goddard except a few bits of basic concept and inspiration,
because Goddard published hardly anything about his later work.  Von Braun
drew much more on the early experimental work of the VfR -- which he was
personally involved in -- than on Goddard's more advanced but little-known
efforts.
-- 
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: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space platforms (political, not physical :-)
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:27:18 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: sci

In article <BvBA47.A4s.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
> Sure it is.  I see a lot of people talking about letting private  
funding do
> what it can in space, wihtout gov interference.  That's what the LP
> platform is all about.  All references to gov. 'helping' people,  
'creating'
> jobs, 'reforming' education, etc. are a side-issue to the LP, as  
all
> these goals would be fulfilled by letting the citizens keep their  
$$, and
> getting gov back to it's job:  Catching crooks, cleaning the  
environment,
> or making the jerks who [explitive] it up fix it, and generally  
protecting
> our rights; something 150 years of Rebublicrats have destroyed.

Intersting.  Our society is now freer than at any time in our
history.  Books that could not have been published 50 years ago
are published.  People can say or do things in public that would
have had them arrested in many places 100 years ago.  But, as usual,
people look at the few places where we aren't as free as they'd
like and bemoan the long lost days.  (To be fair, we have lost
a few freedoms.  Like, 150 years ago, people would chew tobacco
in public buildings and simply spit it on the walls or in the
corners. They'd probably be arrested if they did that today.  Ah,
for the long lost days of being able to spit chewing tobacco
freely, before the Rebublicrats [sic] stopped us from doing so.)

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Laser Space Mirror
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:03:45 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct3.032453.9670@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>[laser power beaming]
>I've heard a very similar idea, but beaming the power to other satellites,
>instead of back to the ground. That would reduce the mass and increase
>the available power of and involved satellite.

In this form, it makes considerable sense, and last I heard the notion was
being seriously examined.  It's particularly relevant for things in Clarke
orbit, because much of the mass of their power systems -- the batteries --
is needed solely to carry them through short midnight eclipses for a few
weeks a year.  (Except for short periods bracketing the equinoxes, the
Earth's shadow misses Clarke orbit entirely.)  A few illuminating lasers
on Earth could largely eliminate batteries from Clarke orbit, for a major
savings in weight and hassle.  (Batteries are heavy, temperature-sensitive,
temperamental, and short-lived.)
-- 
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: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:48:43 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: The Software Distillery
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <BvCFxF.5JJ.1@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

> I also think Dan Goldin is possibly NASA's last hope. It would be the  
> act of a low grade moron with the mental cabilities of an amoeba to  
> replace him.

Oh no, isn't it Quayle who's the administration's pro-space person?
Does this mean Goldin is out?

> Which is why my (absentee) vote is for Marrou/Lord.
They'll get my vote too.

--

 |_o_o|\\
 |. o.| || The           Jay Denebeim
 | .  | ||  Software
 | o  | ||   Distillery
 |    |//        Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
 ======                   Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
		 If the above bounces try: uunet.uu.net!oichq!deepthot!jay
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:26:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: mksol.1992Sep28.142611.24888
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support


In article <27SEP199216051882@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.122955.25347@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes...
>>In article <26SEP199222073863@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>> 
>> 
>>  > 1. Shuttle is not a failure 49 out of 50 ain't bad.  Look to Congress
>>  > and Cap Wineburger for the high operational costs of the shuttle.
>> 
>>In other words, "the shuttle's not a failure, and it's not NASA's
>>fault anyway!".   Can you write two sentences without contradicting
>>yourself?
>> 
>>The purpose of the shuttle was to reduce the cost of getting into
>>space.  The shuttle has been a dismal failure in meeting this,
>>its primary goal.
>
>Only half right.  The primary reason for the Shuttle is REGULAR access to
>space.  Cost was also supposed to be lowered but that went out the window
Gak!  You call every now and again regular?  The original plan called for 20-26
launches a year by now, one every other week.  We're lucky to get one every
other month!

>with Cap Wineburgers redesign, in 1971.  The shuttle has been an awesome
>success for one reason.  It keeps people interested in space.  I have not
>seen a single spacecamp set up anywhere by anybody to do planetary flybys,
>or robotic exploration.  Each year 40,000 kids go through space camp here in
>Huntsville, a similar number in Florida.  Spacecamps have been and are being
>set up in Japan, France and Russia. The stimulus for all of these as been man
>in space and execpt for the Russian the central motif is shuttle and space
>station operations. How many lives have been changed in childhood because
>of these spacecamps, especially Huntsville's? I know personally of several,
>most of them women that have dedicated their lives to the space program 
>because of your "failure". Nothing more needs to be said
How many of those 40,000 will actually acheive their goal of making it into
space?  Nobody wants to be a ground controller, everybody wants to be an
astronaut.  In a way, the Shuttle is killing dreams by letting them become
fantasies.  And NASA, with its PR machine, is the real guilty party.
>
>> 
>>  > 2. Clinch River Breeder.  Congress cut the money due to Three Mile
>>  > Island and the anti-nuclear hysteria.
On this and the other topics, I am not qualified to comment.  Which has never
stopped me or anyone else   :-)   :-)    :-)
>
>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>
>
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |"Repay kindness from a stranger by kindness 
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          | to another stranger."
PADI DM-54909
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:26:06 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

What about the gas torus that Titan orbits inside of? Isn't that made
up of escaped gas? Would that also affect the atmosphere of Titan?

No flames please, just curious.  

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:08:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvAppE.Apq.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

>  Followers of "Black" programs should also note that the relative  
ease with 

> which this could be done says a few things about what may have  
already been
> done.
> 


Instead of the Blackbird, why not use the first stage aircraft that  
has recently dipped from black to grey? (As a reader of AvLeak, I'm  
sure you know what I'm talking about)

I suspect (WAG) that the supersonic separation tests described in the  
article were a predecessor to the new vehicle.

For the non-readers of AW&ST, there have been sigthings of a very  
large aircraft with planform like an XB-70 that may be a high speed  
launch vehicle for rapid response launch of small defense satellites.  
There is a need for on demand launch of satellites into orbital  
inclinations that make its' launch and its' appearance (the first  
time at least) unpredictable.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: what use is Freedom?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:17:16 GMT

In article <Cohena-051092150616@l30346.mdc.com> Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes:
>
>Perhaps....however, how many watts does Mir provide?  I've heard it is not
>much...certainly not enough for the same number of racks and EVA/IVA
>equipment SSF will have...  OK, I guess the cosmonauts have more room to
>float around....I guess that's okay..what else can they do....We have also
>learned that Mir has regular power blackouts lasting around 15 minutes or
>so....real fun...

This is a very important point: power.  For all its volume, Skylab provided
only a small fraction of the power Freedom will be capable of producing.
From the very first flight on, Freedom will have _twice_ the power output
of Skylab.  By PMC, that will grow to six times.  Freedom also offers much
expandability beyond PMC, and more power sources will be added before EMCC.
I'm not sure if NASA plans to add the fourth solar array or go directly to the
solar powered heat engines, but even more power will be available as require-
ments and funding dictate.

Freedom's modular design is what makes this all possible.

>Frank, if you would like to debate detailed design issues email me... 
>Those reading a debate of this nature would not know who to believe.

I'm not Frank, but I'd like to talk to you about the design.  I can't
get through to your site, however, so if you could email me at
kentm@rpi.edu I'd appreciate it.

>...it will also provide us
>with a (hopefully) permanently orbiting facility which will house more
>experiments then those who are working on it can guess at...

I'd like to add some recent developments that the net may be unaware of.
The most recent configuration has added a third node containing a variable
centrifuge on MB-18 (the first flight after PMC).  Also added after PMC is
an Italian mini-lab, and two Italian mini pressurized logistics modules will
be added between MTC and PMC.  Finally, scars for four external payloads have
been put back into the baseline design.  

>It'll also give (the Japanese
>anyway) external experimental platforms for research outside..

This may be somewhat misleading.  SSF is a fully integrated space station.
All users will have access to all facilities regardless of nationality.
American researchers will have as much access to the Japanese labs as
the Japanese do.  Resources (power, computation, air, crew time) will be
divided by roughly the percentage of contribution to the station.  

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
From: whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:41:22 GMT
Organization: MMAG, VAFB
Originator: whitmeye@surf


In article <keoA5ma00Vok8uHV0J@andrew.cmu.edu>, wr0k+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Dow Rieder) writes:
|> Henry Spencer writes:
|> 
|> >I'm not sure I agree with Mary on this one.  I'd tentatively assume that
|> >most of the net participants are pretty young, given the net's roots in
|> >educational institutions... and on the occasions when I've forcefully
|> >expressed my opinions about those responsible for the Challenger disaster
|> >in particular, the responses have been at least 95% hostile, citing all
|> >manner of reasons why "I vas chust following orders" should be considered
|> >acceptable, or at least excusable, behavior.

Thanks! My 15 yr old has been telling me I'm old as dirt. How does 40 fit
into the scene? But I had thought the net's roots were governmental, for
facilitating data transfer/interchange.
 
|> 	The responses are not necessarily representative of all the people who
|> read a particular message.  People seem to be far more likely to respond to
|> something if they disagree with it, particularly if they are extremists
|> or their
|> sensibilities are offended.  Most of the time (in my experience and that
|> of people
|> I know), someone who agrees with an expressed opinion is likely to think
|> "Good point" and go on to the next post.  Responding takes time and effort, and
|> if you agree, why respond unless you have questions or points to add?
|> 
|> 					W. Dow Rieder


Good point! I also enjoy the hammer remark, below, each time I see it.

Rich Whitmeyer            Views expressed are in agreement.

|> 
|>  	When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems
|> start to look like nails...
Newsgroups: sci.space