HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:14:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Let's see, ole Chris landed in the New World in 1492, the first viable
>colony landed in 1620. Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969. So we should
>expect private enterprise to land a commercial colony on the Moon about
>2097.

Sorry, Gary, back to the history books.  Columbus's first voyage was
financed by his uncle, who had made money on earlier Portugese voyages,
and a fringe religious group with large real estate holdings.  
Spanish colonies were founded in the second and subsequent voyages, 
which were underwritten by Isabel under the mistaken belief that Columbus 
had found a new route to India.  The colonies were made possible in no
small part because air, water, food and energy were native, not
imported.  There were hundreds of thousands of people of primarily 
Spanish descent living in the New World by 1629, along the the world's 
largest gold & silver operations and some rather spectacular cathedrals.

Portugal really had found a route to India, and the cost of spices, a 
significant chunk of the GNP in those days, dropped by a factor of five.  
Portugal was raking in the bucks, and Spain wanted in on it.  The 
Portugese-India trade was where the real action was, and why folks from 
Columbus to Magellan took their voyages, until Spain started bringing back 
the gold about 50 years later.

The reason commerce isn't colonizing the moon is quite simple really;
there isn't anything there to make one wealthy.  It's an obstacle, like 
Death Valley was an obstacle to the 49ers -- the borax came later and
didn't convince very many people to live in Death Valley.

Meanwhile, it is useful to put comsats in GEO, and commerce has spent $10's 
of billions on that; it is useful to keep watchtowers in space and
the military has spent $10's of billions on that.  Farther out beyond
Death Valley, the relatively unexplored parts of the solar system, like
asteroids and comets, could well provide the next big boost for commerce,
and both the funding and technology for truly self-sufficient space
colonies.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: LIST OF SPACE LAUNCHES WANTED
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:22:37 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalc.fnal.gov

In article <1992Oct5.135543.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>, pols051@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> I may be visiting the United States in 1993.   Since childhood I have had a
> lifelong interest in space exploration, and for this reason I would like to
> time my visit to Florida so that I can watch a shuttle launch.   

[I wrote a private reply to Andrew, then decided that portions of it
might be of more general interest, so I'm posting.]

Ken Hollis (hollis@titan.ksc.nasa.gov), who works at Kennedy Space
Center, regularly posts a manifest of upcoming Shuttle launches, along
with  advice about watching them, to sci.space.shuttle.  Watch that
newsgroup for the latest schedule.  

>Also, I may be visiting Europe and several states of the CIS.   Does anyone
>have a list of Russian launches during this period and information on how I
>might get to see them?   Alternatively, are there any other historic or
>significant launches anywhere else in the world?

This is harder.  You can watch American launches from any parking lot
in Titusville, but it's more difficult to get to Tyuratam and get
permission to watch.  George Hastings, ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu,
has been through the Russian equivalent of "Space Camp;" perhaps he
can give some advice.  There is also a company called

Aerospace Ambassadors 
PO Box 12603
Huntsville AL 35815
(205)883-9922

which runs launch tours in the CIS.  Write them and ask about it.  Hope you've
got plenty of money...

[Then I appended a copy of <1992Sep25.145516.3514@titan.ksc.nasa.gov>,
which is Ken Hollis's manifest posting.]

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | Here Lies Bill Higgins:
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | He Never Ever Learned 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | To Play Guitar So Well
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | But He Could Read and Write
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | Just Like Ringing A Bell
From: darknite@camelot.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:06:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: camelot.darknite.718412768
Organization: Bradley University

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

>                           UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan

[...]

Come now, Robert, repeating the same postings?
How boring.  Make up something new.

>               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
>          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 

Uh-huh.

--
"Whoever designed that building probably puts flowers over their "i"'s."
	  -Robert Parker
John S. Novak, III		darknite@camelot.bradley.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:19:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.091031.18150@astro.as.utexas.edu> anita@astro.as.utexas.edu (Anita Cochran) writes:

>...So one has to ask what is the next logical mission
>to a body such as Saturn?  Well, one could go back and study just the
>satellites or the rings or the atmosphere but the most important
>science comes from a study of the system as a whole -- the details
>of the bodies and the interactions of the different parts.  Also,
>once you are in the system, it pays to do a complete tour.  This
>conclusion on the most important science was elaborated in a document
>a number of years ago by the National Research Council's Committee
>on Planetary and Lunar Exploration.  I should note that this is not
>a NASA committee.

I can't quarrel with the scientific reasoning, but it assumes that 
science is the only reason for doing such a mission.  With that kind of 
motivation, it's hard to get funding for more than a few $1B+ projects,
shutting out most other, smaller scientific projects.  I suggest that 
there are two other motivations for exploring space: technology 
development in the present, and the promise of applications in 
the future.  For example, take a comet sample-return misssion: 
it is scientifically important, it can develop new technology
(specifically automation and electric upper stages), and it makes major
progress towards the long-term application of extracting native ices for
propellant.  If each group with an interest in space would work together 
on such shared missions, instead of scientists doing pure science, 
engineers doing pure engineering, etc. we could do quite a bit more.
For that reasoning, we can't really take the recommendations of 
a purely scientific committe too seriously when it comes to planning
NASA funding; I'd much rather see a combined committee focused on the 
needs of business, military, and pure science, and how the three can be 
combined in the same mission.  

I'd like to hold up SDIO's electric/Topaz project as explary in
this regard: it combines a science payload with a Topaz 2 and
Hall-effect plasma thruster, doing science and tech development for
military, commerce, and future exploration on the same, c. $400 million 
mission.  If it works, BTW, the cost sending large payloads into deep 
space could be dropped considerably; commercial and military satellites
also benefit.



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: GPS constellation status
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:54:50 GMT
Reply-To: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB

Is there anybody out there that could provide me with a full status of the current GPS constellation. The last one I've got is from september 1991. I know that there has been some changes since then.
================================================================================
Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
      
Thomas Enblom, just another employee.     
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:03:41 GMT


In article <1992Aug21.125501.14146@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>If and when we ever get it, come back and ask us again. For myself,
>I will juge it to be here when you allow a surgeon to do a heart bypass
>on you by teleoperation with a 1/10 second delay. If you live, we can
>talk about it.


How about brain surgery?  Robots, for example the Puma 260 robot arm,
have been doing stereotactic drilling, probe placement, and medicine 
injection in the cranium since the mid-80's.  They are quite a bit more 
precise than the neurosurgeon's hand.   The surgeon's reaction time
to halt the procedure is more than 1/10 sec.

Ref: _Robots In Service_, Joseph Engleberger, MIT Press 1989.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
Date: Sunday, 4 Oct 1992 02:33:17 EDT
From: <LABBEY@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: EASTER.BAS


Courtesy of Sky & Telescope magazine:


10 REM    EASTER
12 REM
14 INPUT "YEAR ";Y
16 IF Y<1583 THEN 14
18 Y1=Y/19
20 A=INT((Y1-INT(Y1))*19+.001)
22 B1=Y/100: B=INT(B1)
24 C=INT((B1-INT(B1))*100+.001)
26 D1=B/4: D=INT(D1)
28 E=INT((D1-INT(D1))*4+.001)
30 F=INT(((B+8)/25)+.001)
32 G=INT((B-F+1)/3)
34 H1=(19*A+B-D-G+15)/30
36 H=INT((H1-INT(H1))*30+.001)
38 C1=C/4: I=INT(C1)
40 K=INT((C1-I)*4+.001)
42 L1=(32+2*E+2*I-H-K)/7
44 L=INT((L1-INT(L1))*7+.001)
46 M=INT((A+11*H+22*L)/451)
48 N1=(H+L-7*M+114)/31: N=INT(N1)
50 P=INT((N1-N)*31+.001)
52 N$="APRIL"
54 IF N=3 THEN N$="MARCH"
56 PRINT "EASTER IS ON ";N$;P+1
58 INPUT "ANOTHER (Y OR N) ";Q$
60 IF Q$="Y" THEN 14
62 END
                                                                               


Leonard Abbey, F.R.A.S.
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
labbey@gtri01.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 03:00:58 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <26SEP199213004056@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>Apparently Ames has proposed a Mach 10 class manned research aircraft as a 
>>more conservative approach to building NASP...
>
>It has been done Josh. It was called the X-15. Just go pull one out of a 
>museum and add scramjet.  The wing attachments are identical to the ones
>that are used for Pegasus or near enough I hear.

The B-52 pylon used for launching Pegasus *is* the X-15 pylon.

However, the X-15 was not good for Mach 10, and "just add scramjet" is
much more easily said than done.  One of the X-15s flew once with a dummy
scramjet, at Mach 6.7... suffering enough damage that it never flew again.

The similarity is not accidental.  HALO is the X-15 *successor* that should
have been started twenty years ago.  But it will be a new vehicle, and
necessarily so.  Leave the X-15s in the museums, where they belong.
-- 
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: galileo antenna status?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:06:09 GMT

In article <718147905snx@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au> cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au writes:
>I have been off the net for 6 weeks.  What is currently happening with the
>attempts to unstick the Galileo antenna ?  I haven't heard anything about
>it in the papers so I assume it is still stuck.

Unfortunately, but my advisor (who is involved with the plasma team) got
some new information on the subject last week and seems quite hopefull
(compared to her earlier, might-as-well-be-hopeless, view...)

>Has there been any success with the heating/cooling treatment?  What happened
>with the attempts to use the deployment motors?  Last I heard was that there
>was a small amount of movement when they were pulsed.  Has this been retried?

It has been retried, and apparently turned 20 deg before stalling (six full
revolutions are required for deployment, so that's only ~3% of the way.)
They apparently think it will turn further if the spacecraft is warmer,
and once it has warmed up to ~30 or 40 C (around the next perihelion)
they plan to "hammer" it by repeatedly running the motor until it stalls. 
This, of course, a brute force approach, and assumes the motor will 
withstand a few dozen stalls, without failing. (I'm also not sure if
"stall" is the correct term for this sort of motor...) I should also
say that "hopefull" opinions from involved scientists (in general)
seems to mean there is _some_ as opposed to _no_ chance of deployment.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder
From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:49:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1469100016:cdp:1469100019:000:1347
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Oct  4 13:49:00 1992


Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org

Steinn Sigurdsson writes:

>In article <1469100018@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>   important issue than the space program.  I continue to believe that.
>   I find the pipedreams that human space exploration offers an economic
>   bonanza incredible, at least for the foreseeable future.  I don't think
>
>So, obvious question, how long is "foreseeable"?
>As you are working "in" [sic] Congress can we
>assume that it is order two years?

By the foreseeable future I mean my lifetime, and probably my children's
lifetime.  I am 32, and my son is 4.  I like to compare it with the
prospects for fusion reactors.  For the last 40 years, we have been
told that commercial fusion power is 40 years away.  I take that to
mean that we have no idea how long it might take, and that it may
never happen.

I take a slightly less skeptical attitude toward human space
exploration.  Although the capital costs of any large-scale continuing
human presence in space seem prohibitive, I admit that there could be
economically viable activities to overcome this barrier.  We just don't
know what they might be yet.

By the way, I think there are great economic benefits from other
space endeavors, notably communications and remote sensing.  It's
just that these don't require people.

Mark W. Goodman
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Odyssey system for cellular phone comms
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:02:00 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <92276.153453MKHAN@ESOC.BITNET> <MKHAN@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>... The way the ad was worded gave me the impression that
>the system is already up and running...

Nope, definitely not.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: what use is Freedom?
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:06:41 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <Cohena-051092150616@l30346.mdc.com> Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes:
>SSF's design provides for a fully outfitted interior of all modules and
>nodes using standardized rack and interface designs..The racks line the
>entire interior....These standard designs will likely flow down to later
>programs besides SSF....thereby minimizing nonrecurring or development
>costs and emphasizing production only....

Well... maybe.  Assuming they aren't considered obsolete by the time the
opportunity comes up, and they aren't overengineered for the other programs.
Remember what happened to the "standardized" Mariner Mk. 2.  Not to mention
the "standardized" Spacelab module (which is, in a loose way, the basis of
ESA's SSF lab module... but not the US one).
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA Daily News for 10/02/92 (Forwarded)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:16:07 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct2.195759.18661@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>... MacLean will be the third
>astronaut from the CSA to have flown on a shuttle mission.  The first,
>Patrick Baudry, flew on Discovery in June 1985 on the STS-51G mission.
>Roberta Bondar was next, flying on last January's STS-42 mission, again
>aboard Discovery.  (On Wednesday, Daily News erroneously reported
>MacLean would be the second CSA astronaut to fly.)

Okay, now it's Marc Garneau's turn to be annoyed by botched NASA reporting.
Maybe on the third try they'll get it right.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:38:19 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <6797@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>> Well, we haven't visited Mercury or Pluto *yet*. 
>
>Didn't one of the Mariner probes flyby Mercury?  

Mariner 10 was primarily a Mercury mission, in fact.  It made three Mercury
flybys after doing a Venus gravity-assist maneuver.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: eric@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Goldstein)
Subject: Re: HRMS
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:37:47 GMT

I guess I really wanted to know:  Over what range of frequencies do we
significantly leak, and are those frequencies capable of being detected
by HRMS?  The HRMS press kit that Ron Baalke posted (thanks Ron!)
said that the targeted search would search at 1,000 to 3,000 MHz.  I
know we leak significantly on the TV bands, but TV is around 10 MHz,
right?  So, I was wondering if we also leak at detectable levels at
1,000 to 3,000 MHz.  And if we do, what is the source of the leakage?
If I've displayed a real misunderstanding, please go easy on me -- this
isn't my field --  and I'd genuinely appreciate any explanations.

                   -- Eric

--
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What was the Nova booster?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:46:06 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep29.170642.14729@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>... plans during the Apollo program to construct a booster even
>larger than the Saturn V, called the Nova.  This monster would
>have had 8 F1s on the first stage and some plans called for a
>nuclear engine-propelled third stage.

There were a number of different Nova proposals; the name didn't refer
to a single well-polished design.  It was basically meant for the direct-
flight approach to a lunar landing, not involving either on-orbit assembly
or a separate lunar module.  The idea mostly died when it became clear
that it could not be ready in time for Kennedy's deadline, although it
persisted in small ways for a while thereafter (for example, there was
a "Saturn C-8" proposal which had eight F-1s).  The final death knell was
the choice of Michoud as the launcher assembly plant, since its ceilings
were only barely high enough for the Saturn V first stage and could not
have held anything bigger.

There were nuclear-final-stage proposals for the Saturn V and various
other launchers.

>what was the payload to LEO?  To the lunar surface? ...

Never well defined, since the booster design was never finalized.
Double the Saturn V's would be a reasonable guess.

>... What type of nuclear engine was proposed?

Early on, could have been almost anything.  I've seen a drawing for an
Orion third stage for a Saturn V, if memory serves.  Later, it would have
been a Nerva.

>...How far did this thing get on the drawing board?

Not very.
-- 
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: pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Population here and elsewhere?
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:53:48 GMT
Organization: ICEM Systems, Inc.

In article <gdavis.718295859@griffin>, gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes:
|> 
|>      With the relatively low priority and lack of basic understanding
|> of our environment shown by most on this board;it is indeed merciful
|> that none are actively in this area.
|> What does bringing back dinosaurs have to do with such a critical
|> human dilemma as uncontrolled population growth. Persons who ecourage such
|> must either be quite ignorant of the future consequences or so insensitive
|> to the situation that reason eludes them.
|> 
|> Rush Limbaugh was quoted recently as stating that population growth
|> was a "phoney" issue since if we move the entire world pouplation
|> as it exists presently, to the state of Texas the human density would
|> equal that of New York City. Pooh.. Pooh.. population growth and the
|> environment are a ploy of the liberals!
|> 
|> Aside from the fact that Limbaugh is a pompus donkey;the truly frightening
|> part is he has so many mindless idolators in his ranks.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It sure is scary seeing how many people actually listen to RL.  It only
proves how much some people want to not think for themselves, and have
someone else do it for them.

|> 
|> Yes, if he had his way I'm sure Earth would become the planet Gideon.

-- 
#include <std.disclaimer>
#define FULL_NAME                          "Paul Dokas"
#define EMAIL                              "pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com"
/* we are realizing infinite possibilities in exchange for our soul */