HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith)
Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:16:05 GMT

In article <1ig234INNs78@agate.berkeley.edu> tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers) writes:
>In response to this question, a group called the Lunar Society appears
>to be interested funding space colonization.  I would like to know
>whether they are for real.  Does anyone know if this group is
>legitimate and whether they have any chance of reaching their stated
>goals?
>
>Text of a old message describing this group follows.
[...]

>
><1992Aug24.200917.8618@news.media.mit.edu> jeanie@media.mit.edu

Well, as a charter member of the Lunar Society, I can tell you it
doesn't exist.  I'm not out the $100 I sent in, as Jerry Pournelle
(and/or his minions) never cashed my check.  My wife _is_ out her
$100, as she had to send in a money order (we have no idea if that was
ever cashed).  Either way we never heard _anything_ from them in
response, other than a couple of "We haven't gotten fired up yet, but
we'll be getting to it RSN" type responses to Email queries.

The Lunar Society was a great idea, and a bunch of people were fired
up about it, but I've only heard vague references to it since I
dropped my BIX subscription.  Jerry (IMHO) went downhill rapidly in
that era, but I'm told he's on the wagon now, so it's marginally
possible the Lunar Society exists, is for real, and is nonprofit
501(c) or whatever.  If so I wish them all the luck in the world, but
we'll not have anything further to do with them.

On the plus side, the concept of the Lunar Society is what got me
interested in my Simulated Lunar Teleoperations projects, which is a
_whole_ lot of fun.  Their concepts of low cost (Jerry has bandied
about numbers like $800M (yes, that's an M) for a lunar colony),
off-the-shelf hardware, and a real break with the usual gold-plated,
triply redundant, no holds barred, "mass of the paperwork exceeds mass
of the vehicle" ways of doing space travel were at the very least,
refreshing.

Willie Smith
wpns@pictel.com
My opinions only!!!
-- 
Willie Smith     wpns@pictel.com     N1JBJ@amsat.org
"That's the wonderful thing about crayons, they can take
you to more places than a starship."  Guinan - STNG
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Solar Sail Race. Was Russian Solar Sailer
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:51:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.041527.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>IS the solar sail race supposed to be a manned mission or what.. Why must it be
>a manned mission? Why not a robot mission.. A race in miniture.. Why not to
>test the concept.. After all the race would neewd some form of chase plane to
>be there incase of a accident.. So why not a unmanned mission. Unless I missed
>the point or mentioned of unmanned. IF I did, forgive my ignorance..
>

ALL solar sails are designed to be unmanned.  They take too long to
get from A to B to even think about putting people aboard.  The life support
requirements would be horrendous otherwise.
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Question about SETI
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:32:13 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <C0JJ6K.KnJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:
>In answer to Francois Yergeau (8 Jan 93 04:10:48 GMT):
>>
>> [ false affirmations in a New Scientist article by N.Henbest, and
>>   my rebuttal deleted ]
>
>Rather obvious. I think (at least, I hope) that Nigel Henbest was making
>some kind of journalistic approximation. Most New Scientist's readers
>are not professional scientists, just amateurs.

Right.  And possibly some of the sci.space readership is not well
versed in optics, and thus not in a position to judge the veracity of
Henbest's prose.  I thought it was worth the trouble to debunk his
extravagant claims about laser communications.  And you would be very
generous to qualify his assertion that a laser does not spread out as a
"journalistic approximation", when it is patently false.  The
journalist's role is to inform the reader, not mislead him.

>It seems that you have about the same credentials as Stuart Kingsley:
>
>< [ Kinsgley CV deleted ]
>
>It seems also that you disagree with him (see EJASA, January 1993).

I didn't read much of Mr Kingsley's paper, because I don't have much
interest in SETI.  My disagreement, however, is not so much with the
idea of optical SETI as with the case Henbest made for it, using either
false or misleading statements, or, if you prefer, too much
journalistic approximation.  Optical SETI may be a good idea, but
defending it with bogus arguments implies either ignorance or
dishonesty.

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:12:56 GMT

In article <ewright.726434023@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
[Stuff about Saturn V deleted]
>
>In fact, there were plenty of missions that could have justified
>its expense: the follow-on Apollo missions, additional Skylabs,
>Space Base, nuclear-powered space tugs, and the manned Mars mission,
>to name a few.  The Saturn was cancelled because Congress didn't
>want to do those missions and NASA didn't want anything to compete
>with Shuttle.
>

The Urban/Orbital Legend that Will Not Die!

BZZZT! 50% wrong. The Saturn V production line was closed down well
before the shuttle became anything other than one of a number of
competing ideas for later launchers (including SSTOs derived from the
Saturn Ib).  The S-V line was terminated in either CY or FY 68 as I
recall.  STS was seriously started a few years later.  

Congress did make the decision to kill S-V and all the later projects
you mention, although several (such as manned Mars missions) were more
along the lines of wish lists and paper studies.

-- 
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Making Antimatter (was: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:01:41 GMT

Several postings ago, I referred to an article in a recent issue of
Scientific American that might be of interest.  The complete citation is:
 
Gerald Gabrielse, ``Extremely Cold Antriprotons,'' Scientific American,
vol. 267, no. 6, pp. 78-80, 85-89, Dec. 1992.

`Cooling and trapping of these particles at energies one ten-billionth of
 what was feasible six years ago should make possible production of the
 first antimatter atoms.'

Granted, the article doesn't deal with mass production of antimatter
but it *is* both recent and topical.  An ion trap of the type described
in the article may be suitable for "bulk storage and transport" of anti
protons in the future...  Certainly it would be more convenient than
a storage ring :)

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: leech@cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Shameless distortion by APS (was Re: Shameless Hucksterism to Plague STS-54)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 03:42:25 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: mahler.cs.unc.edu

In article <C0puFv.Dro.1@cs.cmu.edu>, "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov writes:
|> Here is a report on the upcoming Shuttle mission from Francis
|> Slakey of The American Physical Society.  Is it just me, or does
|> anyone else think that NASA's Shuttle people engage in a little
|> too much hucksterism?

    No. I do think that "WHAT'S NEW" has a longstanding vendetta
against NASA (even after Robert Park stopped writing it), and this is
just another case. It's not materially different than the distortions
in Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards. "WHAT'S NEW" makes no pretense of
objectivity and is unworthy of a so-called professional society, IMO.

    The "Toys in Space" stuff may sound silly when presented in APS'
patronizing fashion, but having seen some of the videos NASA has made
in the past from such activities, I think it can produce excellent
educational material in basic mechanics. The dynamics of springs
(slinkys), magnets (marbles), airflow (paper airplanes), etc. in 0-g
are a lot closer to the idealized models in physics books than one
sees on Earth. I'd be surprised if Francis Slakey had ever seen these
videos, though.

|> I especially find the wake-up calls to
|> raucous music annoying - do those people really find that amusing?
|> Do they do their Christmas shopping at Spencer's Gifts?

    Why do you have such a big problem with a humorous tradition?
They're not playing the wakeup calls for your benefit, and it's not as
though there aren't enough real problems with NASA that people have to
invent silly excuses for bashing like this.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    Brice: "How many people don't know anything about it?"
    Andy: "About what?"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:09:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.154842.13841@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:

>	If men are part of the payload, the Shuttle is (currently) the
>only way to fly! 

I think if you consult the Russians they can show you the error in
this statement.

BTW, the team evaluating Soyuz has finished its work. They concluded that
there is no reason Soyuz couldn't be used as ACRV. It should also be
possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.

    Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gnb@duke.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Antiproton efficiency (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia
	<1993Jan8.032819.2268@bby.com.au> <1993Jan11.194531.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:53:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.194531.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

   As Jon pointed out, you gotta conserve baryon number by all known
   processes for creating antimatter

What is baryon number?  I assume this means that p-bar creation
processes also creat protons, so you spend 2mc^2 and throw away the
proton.

Greg, not a nukular physicist.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
			Dizzy Gillespie: RIP.
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:24:30 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <ewright.726345757@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

While extracting your references to nuclear weapons makes your replies look
reasonable, extracting said references changes the tone and context of 
my comments and your response...

>In <1993Jan05.172440.14403@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>	A) Raised the level of tension
>
>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
>a bit anyway, don't you think?

Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the
attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them.
>
>>	B) Invited attack on any space assets you've got
>
>So, how many nations have more space assets to lose (and
>less ability to quickly replace them) than the United States?

It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through 
air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic missile
capability, on land and at sea. 

It is unlikely the attacking third-world country would have an equalivent 
replacement capability for whatever assets it has. 

>
>>	C) Tossed public opinion and the world community off your side;
>>	   NOT a good thing. 
>
>That didn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait. 

Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
force and thereby did so accordingly. Had Iraqi troops seized anything less
than Kuwait City, or removed themselves from Kuwait City without committing
anything more than token atrocities, Iraq would not be divided into three parts
today. 
 
It is, by the way, still in three parts, mostly due to the world community
still being pissed off at Iraq's belligerant attitude. 

> A lot of 
>wars might be prevented if Americans came to realize that most 
>of the world doesn't care a fig about "public opinion and the 
>world community." 

Ah. But for anything less than a full-scale nuclear exchange (which translates
to 99.987% of the possible conflicts which will occur in the next 20 years),
public opinion and what individual nations think DOES count.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Xref: sparky sci.space:18875 sci.astro:13721 alt.sci.planetary:474
From: ref@CS.CMU.EDU (Robert Frederking)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:47:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0GnMr.5HA.2
	<1993Jan5.162900.14264@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<5JAN199314212621@vx.cis.umn.edu>
	<1993Jan6.155653.18733@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: ref@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Frederking)
Organization: Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: ref@DHAKA.MT.CS.CMU.EDU

>Congress.  That would subvert the Constitutional power of Congress to
>fund the Federal Government.  (This kind of subversion is at the heart
>of the Iran/Contra scandal, where the Executive Branch supposedly sold
>arms to Iran, then used the money to fund the Contras without going
>through Congress.)  

Since several people have been convicted of participating in this
scheme, I'd like to remind everyone that it isn't ``supposedly''.
They really did this.  The only point still under dispute is whether
Reagan somehow managed to be unaware that this was illegal.  (Sorry.)
From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** 
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:12:58 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott) writes:

> In article <1993Jan7.124608.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov writes:
> 
> >In article <C0GH9C.DA@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer
> 
> >Does a Bussard ramjet work *at all* below seriously relativistic
> >velocities?  
> >
> >Seems to me below some large speed, which I recall as
> >something much bigger than .5c, you don't gather enough interstellar
> >hydrogen to keep things stoked.  Admittedly I remember details rather
> >fuzzily, and don't know how to apply them to the "ram-augmented
> >interstellar rocket" Henry is talking about. 
> >
> 
> I don't remember now *where* I read it, but I seem to recall that a
> Bussard Ramjet starts working at speed around about 450km/sec.  Although
> this is an order of magnitude beyond the speeds of current space vehicles,
> it's certainly not unreachable eg, with ion drives.
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Chris Marriott                           | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk    |
> | Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
> | (Still awaiting inspiration              | CIX: cmarriott              |
> |  for a witty .sig .... )                 | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  

Certainly not unreachable at all.  I _believe_ that, working on pure 
kinetic energy, the speed a friend of mine figured out was .017c...

                                                Jason Cooper
From: R.KRACHT@ABBS.hanse.de (Rainer Kracht)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Distribution: world
Subject: Launch of Soyuz TM-16
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:11:55 +0100
Organization: ABBS AstroMail (FRG)
X-Gateway: ZCONNECT AB ABBS.hanse.de [UUCPfZ V3.8a U004]


 Today (Jan 10) Radio Moscow announced that Soyuz TM-16 will be
 launched on January 24. The first crew consists of Genadi Manakov
 and Alexander Polishchuk.

 r.kracht@abbs.hanse.de

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott)
Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonizati 
Distribution: world
Organization: None
Reply-To: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:13:12 +0000

In article <3954@key.COM> rburns@key.COM writes:

>
>What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how long it 
>will be until the world starts to see privately funded space colonization?
>
>I've noticed that there are some _extremely_ capital intensive schemes around
>which might make the marginal cost of launching mass to orbit fairly cheap.
>(I'm thinking of mechanisms like Clarke's space "elevator" or Bull's 
>gun). I'm more interested in technologies like the Henson Sling or SSTO
>technology that might be more useful to private citizens and less likely to
>be shelved or monopolized by governments or mega-corps.
>
>
>Thanks!
>

The "space elevator" - basically dropping a cable from a geosynchronous
satellite to Earth (and, of course, another one upwards so the centre of
mass stays still) is probably the most *lethal* device one might conceive
of building!  Imagine the cable breaks near the mid-point.  You have 38000km
of cable falling to earth at *orbital* velocities, enough to wrap itself
around the entire equator of the planet!  Go figure out the kinetic energy
involved.  How much ocean would it vaporize?  Massive medium-term climatic
changes at best - "nuclear winter" scenarios.  A new Ice Age a distinct
possibility.

These things are not good.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Marriott                           | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk    |
| Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
| (Still awaiting inspiration              | CIX: cmarriott              |
|  for a witty .sig .... )                 | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:57:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan9.043932.11081@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
>Several postings ago, I mentioned the possibility of quark-catalyzed fusion.
>As promised (and requested) here are some additional details...

Quark-catalyzed fusion is for wimps. :-)

The modern quantum version of a magnetic monopole is much more interesting
in this regard than loose quarks.  It's a very strange particle, immensely
massive by particle-physics standards, and tucked away in its center is a
small region of space with exceedingly peculiar properties.  Two small
problems exist:  we've never seen one, and the effective cross-section of
that central region is very uncertain (and there is some reason to think
it's pretty small).  But if they exist, or can be made, and if that
cross-section is substantial...

A wandering magnetic monopole brushes past a proton.  Actually, more or
less through it -- the monopole is many orders of magnitude more massive
(I said it was heavy!) and protons aren't solid.  As the monopole goes
through, one of the quarks in the proton wanders into that funny region
of space... and comes out as an antiquark.

An instant later, it meets one of the other quarks in the proton, and
the proton explodes.

When the dust has cleared, all that remains is a positron, some gamma
rays, and maybe a neutrino or two.  The monopole is unaffected, so
heavy that even its trajectory is barely altered by the fireworks.
You read it right:  the monopole catalyzes proton decay, essentially
doing matter->energy conversion without that annoying requirement for
an antiproton supply.

The problem with all this is that there is moderately convincing evidence
that either monopoles are pretty rare in nature, or that cross-section is
very small.  For one thing, if a monopole with the properties we want
passed through something like the Kamiokande neutrino/proton-decay
experiment -- the kilometer or two of rock over top wouldn't even slow
it down -- the event would be seared permanently into the memories of
the detectors.  That hasn't happened.  Other lines of evidence concur.
And all of this, of course, assumes that the theorists haven't goofed.

Still... THAT's a Bussard ramjet powerplant for you!
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Antiproton efficiency (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:45:31 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan8.032819.2268@bby.com.au>, gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 7 Jan 1993 12:03:40 PST, Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> said:
> Jon> This is about 13 orders of magnitude larger than the total number of
> Jon> antiprotons ever created and stored (about 10**14)
> So, even assuming 100% conversion efficiency, 1kg of antimatter =
> 10^19 Joules, or about 300 years output from a 1GW coal or nuclear
> power station, to produce. It will release twice this amount when
> mixed with ordinary matter.
> 
> Now if we could generate antiprotons with better than 50% efficiency,
> we have an inexhaustible energy supply......  

As Jon pointed out, you gotta conserve baryon number by all known
processes for creating antimatter (the monopole catalysis Henry
discussed is *highly* speculative and unproven).  So you can't do
better than 50%... and in fact...

> Anyone have estimates on the realistic estimates on achievable
> conversion efficiency?  10^4?

Yes, Bob Forward says the paper limit is 10^-4.  :-(  That's with perfect
collection of *all* antiprotons emerging from the target at all angles
and momenta.  If your p-bar factory is in the real world, your
efficiency will be somewhat lower (Fermilab's is around 10^-9).

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine
Newsgroups: sci.space