HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Martino)
Subject: Re: message from Space Digest
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:35:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.202613.268441@cs.cmu.edu> TSURAH01@asntsu.asn.net writes:
>To Anyone on this list who would enjoy answering my question about outer
>space:
>   I am an artist and independent producer. I am going to the Space and Rocket
>Center in Huntsville, Al. this Thursday to videotape people's answers to my
>question. I am also collecting written answers which I may incorporate in my
>narrative on the video. I begin putting all this together in post-production
>the week of July 27th.
>   The question is:
>   The year is 2010. This is your last day on earth. Tomorrow you leave with
>the first civilian crew hand-picked by NASA to colonize the moon. NASA
>prepares your OFK - Offical Flight Kit - with all you need to survive
>physically on the moon. You are also allowed to take your PPK - Personal
>Preference Kit. It is the size of a traveler's shaving kit and must weigh no
>more than a pound. In it you must pack whatever you need to sustain you
             ^^^^^                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>emotionally and spiritually in outer space.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^
>   What will you choose??

     You're kidding, right??

     I'd take a small ceremonial knife from some far away eastern
nation so that I could slit my wrists and/or throat.
If ONE POUND is all that I was allowed for personal effects,
including entertainment and spiritual comfort, I'd go absolutely
bonkers inside of a couple of months.  Same would be true for
any normal human.

     Sorry to rain on your parade, but the question might need
adjustment.

_________________________________________________________________________
                                    | "...for since the creation of the
      - that Bob Martino guy -      |  world His invisible attributes,
 bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu |  His eternal power and divine
                                    |  nature, have been clearly seen,
   God invented science.  so there. |  being understood through what
       ^^^^^^^^                     |  has been made        -Romans 1:20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "That's the whole problem with science.  You've got a bunch of
  empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."
                                                  -Calvin
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Antiproton-boosted fission
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:20:22 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BruzF2.2Kw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent) writes:
>>...Another E.E. Smith idea...
>
>Unrelated: Weren't books like the Skylark series and the Lensman series
>(both by E.E. Smith) written sometime in the thirties?  As in, he was
>simply ignoring the physics which said one simply could not accelerate
>to a speed faster than that of light?

Most of the Skylark and Lensman books do indeed date to the 30s.  However,
Smith wasn't ignoring relativity, just asserting -- for fictional purposes --
that it was wrong.  (Remember that it was somewhat less solidly established
at the time.)  Although it may have been the result of later revision, in
at least one of the books, the characters comment on this.  "We're [a long
way] from home."  "Didn't Einstein say we couldn't exceed the speed of
light?"  "That was theory; this distance is experimental fact."
-- 
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: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:10:32 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Hi all.

Can someone explain how that works?  I saw reference to this on the AP
wire, and they must think this is perfectly normal, since no-one is
bothering to explain it.

Is there an article on this some kind soul can direct me towards?

Thanks,

--f2
----------------------------------
  Hey, Mother Earth, won't you bring me back down,
  safely to the sea?
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:36:09 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Followup-To: talk.politics.space

In article <1992Jul28.143654.17945@walter.bellcore.com> ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com writes:
>> >NASA has been saddled with more missions than it can successfully
>> >accomplish.
>> Translation:  we're going to kill some of the NASA programs, although
>> of course we're not going to tell you which ones.
>[ Several more "translations" deleted. ]
>
>...I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
>nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
>of political statements from the USAian election campaign...

Political analyses?  Heaven forbid.  I don't understand US politics well
enough to analyze them. :-)  I was merely translating some of the Clinton
position from campaignspeak (which is as international as graft, stupidity,
shortsightedness, and voter ignorance and apathy) into the sci.space
vernacular.  I wasn't making any attempt to read between the lines or infer
an overall position -- just pointing out what the statement's own words
clearly mean.  Do you really think any of my translations are wrong?

I would, in any case, defend my right to comment on issues that affect
all mankind, such as the fate of what is now our species' leading space
program.  The previous clear holder of that title has now been largely
destroyed by politics in *its* homeland.  Having lost our redundant
backup system :-), and with the US program clearly in deep trouble
already due to mismanagement, USAnian space politics are unfortunately
of considerable interest to all.

I would suggest, however, that this discussion and related ones belong
in talk.politics.space, and have redirected followups there.
-- 
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: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Magellan successors? (was Re: Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!)
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:37:47 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>In article <1992Jul22.041320.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>>Flying a Magellan-type mission to Mars or the Moon would be neat, too,
>>but synthetic-aperture radar demands a heavy committment of
>>tracking-network resources.  

>Why? 

Because there is the possibility that subsurface features could be
resolved?

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418
"There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message
"57 channels and nothing on" - Bruce Springsteen
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: afwendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK)
Subject: Re: Odds of Life
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 31 Jul 1992 12:17 EST  

In article <ceS9ElO00WB6Egy2J_@andrew.cmu.edu>, David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
>IF (big if) one assumes that the probablilty of life arising on earth is
>so small that it couldn't happen, then there are only 2 possiblities
>for our existance:
> 
>1)  That life arrived from another place (accidentally or purposefully)
> 
>2)  That "God" created us
> 
>About 1) - this only delays talk, as SOMEwhere down the line life had to
>arise spontaneously...kinda like the "turtles all the way down [to what?]"
>argument.
>About 2) - If we assume that the odds are impossibly small for life to
>have arisen anywhere, then this proves "God's" existence.

Stuff deleted

I guess more importantly about 2)....

If G-d created humans on this planet..why not anywhere else?  Why create a 
whole universe of empty planets?  I know people will say..."well!  one can 
never know the Lords mind!"  Good dead end argument...

I do not know why some people have such a hard time accepting the 
possibility that humans may not be some unique creation.

				wendy


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Realism
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Distribution: sci,world
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:34:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.074821.79@news.uwyo.edu> rtravsky@news.uwyo.edu (Rich Travsky) writes:
>In article <2A75F5E7.6C86@deneva.sdd.trw.com>, hangfore@spf.trw.com 
>   (John Stevenson) writes:
>> In article <nsmc5kc@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> wsj@triton.wpd.sgi.com (Bill  
>> Johnson) writes:
>>> (deletions for brevity)
>>> inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.
>>> 
>> And No seat belts. How many crew members have been killed or seriously  
>> injured because they didn't wear their seat belts :-o
>> 
>> John Stevenson
>> hangfore@spf.trw.com
>
>No need to worry, Starfleet later installed air bags...
>
So *that's* what's under Scotty's belt.  I did wonder.....

-- 
||))) If you build it                          )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))) They will cancel it   - Field of Dweebs. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: keith@msmri.med.ubc.ca
Subject: WANTED: Info on Pegasus Launch System
Organization: Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:47:41 GMT

A talk I attended yesterday briefly mentioned the Pegasus Launch System.   
First tested in 1990, it was described as a solid fuel rocket launched
from a B-52 which could carry 100 - 200 kg into orbit.  Could anyone please
point me to more information on this system. 

Thanks in advance.

Keith S Cover
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rupertg@cix.compulink.co.uk (Rupert Goodwins)
Subject: Current Galileo status                  
Cc: rupertg@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: rupertg@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:48:00 +0000

Apologies if this has been answered in the past few months, but my sci.space
access has been a bit limited lately.


What is the current status on Galileo and its comms problems? I assume that
it still looks most likely that it'll end up at Jupiter with nothing but the
low-gain antenna working, and that nobody's come up with a sensible scheme to
circumvent very low data rate working. If anyone has better news I'd be *so*
happy to hear it...


Also (hey, this is my annual post. Let's really go to town), are the Voyagers
still plugging away? What science is being done with them?

If this is all old hat, then please email me...


Rupert Goodwins (rupertg@cix.compulink.co.uk, the country of dying science)

>>>MATRIX version  1.20d
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:33:59 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

Dr. Zubrin pointed out some interesting facts in his luncheon talk at  
the 1992 ISDC.

If you raise the temperature of Mars by ~ 5C, it will go into a  
runaway greenhouse that will not stop until all the CO2 is gaseous.

This will leave you with ~ 5psi CO2 atmosphere at ~50F with most  
water in the liquid state. It will take less than 10 years to occur.

He had some very interesting graphs that showed how very close Mars  
is to a lower of two unstable points. I pointed out to him that  
because of the orbital changes in Mars over time, this could well  
happen naturally during the peak of the next "warm" cycle.

He stated that a nuclear power plant in the GW range synthesizing and  
releasing NH4 would be sufficient to raise the temp by the requisite  
5C in a short time.

He suggested a faster method would be to use 4 Nerva class engines to  
move a large comet to impact. The extra gases would be enough to  
raise the temparture past the unstable point.

Once the runaway occurs, the system is stable in the new  
configuration. Ie, Mars is metastable, it is in the lower  
"uninhabitable" state and it is very close to the pushover to fall  
into the the "habitable" state.

An O2 atmosphere would take generations however. But with free water  
and lots of CO2 and mild temperatures, plants will get on just fine  
and will do the job with no further intervention.

Humans could walk freely with nothing more than a scuba mask.
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Select
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:22:14 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


I tried to record the replay of the TOPEX press conference on NASA Select
at 1:00 AM EDT. The pictures and graphics were certainly very impressive.
Unfortunately, there was no sound. :-)  Apparently the NASA Select people
were aware of the problem, because the replay was abruptly cut off after
about 25 minutes. (My guess is that it was accidentally *recorded* with
no sound.)

That made me wonder - is there a "NASA Select operations" phone number that
a viewer could use to reach operations and tell them "there's no sound"
or "you're playing the tape backwards"? Occasionally I'm up late enough that
such a number would be useful, and assuming replays are from NASA Headquarters,
it wouldn't cost me much to give them a call (definitely worthwhile for an
important press conference).

NASA Select's been having some really interesting material lately, including
the Geotail launch, video of the "Rocky IV" rover (including some shots
of the stereo display screen), and many press conferences, plus the usual
historical material, "Launchbox" for kids, JPL computer animation movies,
and so on. According to Peter Yee's posts of NASA Daily News, the noon
broadcast of the NASA Today show is live - I hadn't realized that. There
seems to be an increasing trend toward replaying the press conferences in each
of the four-hour time slots, which is very useful to me. Is it true that there
are plans to cover the launch of an Ariane with a US-related payload?

In a recent press conference that I saw replayed on NASA Select, Administrator
Goldin was asked about cooperation between the US and Russian space programs.
Among the items I had heard elsewhere, he mentioned the plan to dock a Shuttle
to Mir, in order to use the living space and life support of Mir, along with
the scientific resources of the Shuttle. The thing that surprised me was the
planned duration of the rendezvous - I *think* he said four months!

Heard this morning on network news - Congress decided to continue funding for
SSF, but at half a billion dollars less than the Administration had requested.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Space Station Freedom assembly questions
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:14:57 GMT

(Reformatted to be more readable, sorry.)
I'm trying to formulate a letter on the Space Station to my Congresspeople.
I have several questions on Space Station assembly issues that I'd 
appreciate some input on.  Thanks in advance!

1. What is the current thinking on Shuttle accident probabilities and the 
impact on Space Station assembly?  I recall reading of an Air Force 
assessment Post-Challenger that compounded to near certainty of a 
disabling accident in 20 flights.  (Not necessarily an explosion, but at 
least removal of an Orbiter from the fleet.) If this is generally accepted, 
but not discussed, maybe it needs some airing here(!)

2. What is the status of Shuttle-C?  Is it supposed to play any role in 
Station assembly or for logistical support (= hauling water & hydrazine)?

3. The only NON-POLITICAL argument that I have heard as to why Space 
Station components should NOT be launched on Energia is the comparatively 
northern latitude of the launch site and consequent payload loss for 
cross-plane maneuvers.  The penalty in my estimation doesn't look that bad, 
given the large intrinsic capability of Energia, so are there
obvious bona-fide TECHNICAL problems (e.g. no engine restart capability)
that someone might care to comment on?

4. Does the present baseline Station have any real prospects for expansion?  
I'm thinking of intrinsic power or dynamic (structural) compromises that 
would prohibit additional modules.
-- 
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is 
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line on the Net costs $10 **
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 10:42:00 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

> because it's being done, but there's a point of view that there's  
some
> benefit to not being extensively involved in the politics of other  
countries.
>

I will agree with John that mucking about in other nations politics  
with guns is probably not on.

But the very media in which we are now communicating is the death  
knell of the nation state, or at least as we have known it. We are  
ONLY at the beginning of this, which may be hard for some of us to  
recognize since we have been involved with network chats for 10-20  
years (When I first connected to ARPANET there were about 20 sites on  
it)

Yes, Japanese advertisers may pull out advertising in something about  
Pearl Harbor because they don't like to be reminded that they started  
a holocaust and ended up reaping it themselves: the first time in  
their history that the "Divine Wind" was on someone else's side. You  
had better believe that was a hard knock. They not only lost the war,  
but they had their religion turned against them. Well, one of these  
days our Japanese compatriots will start taking more of a part in  
this forum and others and will have their chance to be taken to task  
... and to tell US directly what they think is wrong in the US and  
Europe and elsewhere.

That will make us all richer in understanding. There is no better way  
to have your pet ideas undermined than to get a viewpoint from  
someone outside the rhetoric of your society point them out.

I would go furthur and say that there are probably quite a few  
Japanese students and faculty that "listen in" to this forum but who  
are afraid, for cultural reasons, of taking part in the network rough  
and tumble. Well, I personally invite you to come in and express your  
ideas ... and take critique of everything you know and believe in,  
just like the rest of us do.

We are the vanguard that is taking the eraser to the silly little  
lines on the world maps. You know, the ones that you can't see from  
the moon... And we need a thousand Henry's (Hmmm, a KiloHenry?) to  
help speed up the process.

					Live Free or Die
					Dale Amon
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:46:25 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

We've been broadcasting for 70 or so years, but the early
efforts were low powered and at a very low frequency that didn't
make it out of the ionosphere very well. At stellar distances even
the DEW (Distant Early Warning) radar sets aren't all THAT bright.
You have to do something really amazing to be visible very far away.
I vote that any nearby (<30 ly) aliens haven't spotted us yet. That
may not be a bad thing. We can't build superdreadnoughts yet.

Chris Kostanick
"At 1200 hours I want you to bring every project the Galactic Patrol
can bring to bear on that dome!" (Quoted from memory)
From: ott@astroatc.UUCP (Michael Ott)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Star Trek Realism
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:33:46 GMT
Reply-To: ott@astroatc.UUCP (Michael Ott)
Distribution: sci
Organization: Astronautics Technology Cntr, Madison, WI

In article <nsmc5kc@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> wsj@wpd.sgi.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.165309.106551@cs.cmu.edu>, 18084TM@msu.edu (tom) writes:
>
>Much as I enjoy Star Trek, this has always bugged me.  Another thing
>which bugs me is the way stars stream rapidly past the ship when they're
>traveling within the same star system.  AND the "whoosh" noise you hear
>when they're showing the Enterprise (from the outside) cruising through
>interstellar space.  AND the way the shuttles bank and turn as if they're
>airplanes.  AND the fact that the Enterprise can accelerate at accelerations
>which *must* be many multiples of one gravity, with no perceived acceleration
>inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.

The last "complaint" can be argued away because when you do accelerate,
you know you are going to do it, and can compensate with your artificial
gravity devices, but phaser hits are less predictable, and aren't compensated
for.

Also, having Worf mentioning a phaser hit is rather dry compared to the entire
bridge crew being thrown about.


-michael			Nope, I'm not speaking for Astronautics...
ott%astroatc.uucp@cs.wisc.edu		No really, I'm not.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:58:55 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 <pgf.711773103@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
> 
>>No need.  I'll stand up and ask it.  It is such a ridiculous question?
> 
>Yes. If we are going to live in fear of constantly wiping out
>totally unrecognizable life forms we might as well all give up
>and mass suicide now. True, we don't know whether or not Mars

I think you're overreacting just a little.  All I suggested is that we
use some care before contaminating or sterilizing some planet which might 
harbor life that we don't immediately recognize as such.  I'm sorry
if that interrupts your plan for the new interplanetary highway offramps,
but I don't think the locals want you to raze their neighborhoods just
so that you can stay on schedule.

Besides, taking the time to make sure we understand the consequences of 
our actions might yield tremendous scientific gains and make it easier 
for use to deal with similar situations in the future.  If there is 
abundant life in our neighborhood of the galaxy, it pays to start out
our exploration of nearby planets with some respect for the life we
might find there.  It might generate some reciprocal respect which we
might well be in need of in the future.

No one suggested but you suggested that we should never move for fear
of obliterating some society of bacteria.  And I fail to see the objection to 
recognizing the limitations of our knowledge and the harm we might cause
to ourselves and others by acting precipitously.

-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