HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikew@kpc.com (Mike Wexler)
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) 
Reply-To: mikew@kpc.com
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computers Inc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:06:59 GMT

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>	Given that one can mix the antimatter-reaction mass ratio to get
>the Vexhaust one wants, the dangers of standing in the vicinity of the
>exhaust of an antimatter powered ship could be *identical* to that of
>standing inthe vicinity of a conventional ship.
Actually there is one piece of information missing here. In a conventional
rocket most of the exhaust is being used to push more fuel closer to orbit.
In an antimatter rocket, you have a much higher payload/fuel ratio, so for
the same payload, there will be much less exhaust.
--
Mike Wexler (mikew@kpc.com)
Newsgroups: sci.space,news.groups,sci.astro
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: 2nd (last)  RFD sci.space.planets
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:36:02 GMT

I would just like to point out that David Knapp appears to have either
gotten me confused with someone else (partially) or mis-edited an article
I followed up, as he has credited me with a few words I did not write.  
His quotes of my email and articles are basically correct, except I
did not say:

>"...I agreed to withdraw my objection
>if (1) an effort be made to allow access by non-Usenet people (comparable to
>SPACE Digest), and (2) Earth be excluded from discussions involving politically
>hot topics like ozone depletion and global warming, not because these topics
>are unworthy, but so this won't become yet another fiery political group."

He has correctly stated my basic position (that I would only support
sci.space.planets if it would not duplicate sci.geo.meteorology).

-- 
/\        Ilana Stern DoD#009 | Whoever first said, "Things are seldom as they 
  \_][    ilana@ncar.ucar.edu | seem," was wrong.  Things are usually as they
      \_______________________| seem.  Otherwise, they wouldn't seem that way.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Magellan successors? (was Re: Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.041320.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
> 
>I asked Dr. Gordon Pettengill this question last year: "Is there a
>successor to Magellan?"  The answer is no.  Magellan is giving such a
>stupefying quantity of radar mapping data that it will take decades to
>sort it out, and no system giving, say, higher spatial resolution is
>currently planned.

The former Soviet Union was planning a Venera mission to Venus around
the year 2005, but those plans apparently have been dropped.  NASA has
no plans for a followup mission to Venus.  Because there won't be any
more Venus missions for at least 15 to 20 years, this is a good enough
reason to keep the Magellan mission going as long as possible, and to not 
turn off the spacecraft next May which is what is currently planned.

>I think Mars Observer and Mars 94 are appropriate, but I'm really
>unhappy about the lack of priority given to studies of small bodies. 
>CRAF is dead, Vesta doesn't look too healthy, and Rosetta seems
>awfully far away.  Maybe there is hope in the new smaller, faster,
>allegedly-cheaper probes like SDIO's Clementine or the one APL is
>supposed to be cooking up for NASA (LEAP, was it?).

Galileo's flyby of the asteroid Ida has been approved and will occur
on August 28, 1993.  The proposed NEAR mission has a very high likelyhood
of being approved and will be launched in 1998 and arrive at the Nereus
asteroid in 2000.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Relativity in science fiction
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:44:05 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: Antiproton-boosted fission
-Date: 24 Jul 92 16:20:22 GMT

-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."

"With the neutralization of inertia it was discovered that there is no limit
whatever to the velocity of inertialess matter. A free ship takes on
instantaneously the velocity at which the force of her drive is exactly
equalled by the friction of the medium.  E.E.S."

That's from Galactic Patrol, which was copyrighted in 1937 and 1950 (this
comment may have been added at the later date). (I believe this was the
first book written, though it's the third of the series.)

I've wondered about the chronology of the "negaspheres" (first appearing
in the series in 1951, and apparently equivalent to antimatter black
holes) and the development of theories on black holes. When did serious
theorization on black holes come along?

John Roberts              | "I do not like thought-screens. I prefer that my
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov | mind be left free to roam." - K. Kinnison

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kemper@leland.Stanford.EDU (Brian Robert Kemper)
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Keywords: Zodiak
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:24:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.194736.11509@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>>
>>Today in the Northern Hemisphere's summer, the earth is at the apogee of its 
>>orbit around the sun.  As the precession continues on its merry way this will
>>be the main parameter that will change. In 12,900 years the northern hemisphere
>>will be in its summer when the Earth is at perigee. (I know these are the wrong
>>terms, I just don't remember the right ones for sun centered orbits).
>>
>Aphelion and Perihelion.  We're going to need generic terms for nearest
>& farthest points from the primary.  Perigee, periselenion, perihelion,
>perijove, periarion (?)........betcha everyone just says apogee and
>perigee in the end.
>
The generic terms are apoapse and periapse.















Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Galileo Antenna. What's left to try?
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:20:19 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <l70u0fINNdvp@pollux.usc.edu> srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner) writes:
>Has anyone considered the possibility of spinning the probe
>very fast along the axis of the antenna?  Perhaps the centriptal force
>might pull the antenna into place.

You'd probably tear Galileo's long booms off well before you exerted
any useful force on the antenna.  The stuck antenna ribs are inches from
the axis; the booms go out many feet.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: opus@pioneer.unm.edu (Colby Kraybill)
Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 07:48:46 GMT
Organization: Space and Planetary Image Facility
Distribution: na

In article <13200@pogo.wv.tek.com> bobt@pogo.wv.tek.com (Bob Tidrick) writes:
>
>it alone!" We have no business disturbing something which may one day evolve
>into a more complex form. However if nothing is found than it is a mear rock
>and we have dibs.


Wait a second.  Just by existing on *this* planet do we disturb the way 
everything else evolves.  By your logic, we should halt our existance on 
Earth.  

-- 
Colby Kraybill
Space and Planetary Image Facility
University of New Mexico
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: st17a@judy.uh.edu (University Space Society)
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:48:00 GMT

In article <14223@ksr.com>, jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes...
>ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com (Doug Davey) writes:
>>Henry, your technical postings are probably the best things in sci.space.*.
>> However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.
> 
>Especially when he has the gall to be dead on the mark.
> 
>>Stop Canadian Imperialism!
> 
>Keep that up and they'll take back the Canadarm.

Go for it Henry. It is nice to see an outside opinion sometimes. The BBC 
world report had a wonderful report on how the democratic party manipulates
the U.S. news media by having congressional staffers "interview" their bosses
as if they were reporters asking real questions. Lots of other chicanery
was reported on that will never be shown here. 

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revive the Saturn V!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 01:15:53 GMT

To make up the VERY small difference due to precession, as well
as to adjust for the slowing of the Earth's rotation due to
tidal drag of the oceans (caused by the moon's gravitation),
from time to time they declare "leap-seconds" there was one
this year.
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: stu5s33@bnr (Robert Nychka)
Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of spa
Summary: ST
Keywords: Terraform
Reply-To: stu5s33@bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:54:27 GMT

>     About the terra-forming thing, and someone saying we shouldn't
>do it unless we're *SURE* we're not killing any strange life forms...

>     unless someone is first willing to define "life", this
>discussion borders on meaningless.  Now don't look at me, I
>wouldn't begin to even try to formulate such a definition.

>     Just so we all are aware of limitations here.

This is assuming that if terraforming WAS an alternative to discovering 'ready made' planets that the juristiction of existing government and the ability for an individual NOT to terraform will exist.  As it stands now, life forms are by no means an excuse to stop development of private concerns, let alone a deterent in starting a new world.

Species of animals are presently destroyed every year for expansion, the quest for a new world isn't going to make someone more concerned about the concept of destroying life.  It will probably make us less tolerant due to the fact that HUMAN survival preceeds that of ANY race or animal.

Robert Nychka
-these opinions are my own and not that of my boss.
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:12:02 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <1992Jul28.143654.17945@walter.bellcore.com>, ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com (Doug Davey) writes:

>Stop Canadian Imperialism!  Yankee Go Home! :-)

*waves flag* It's Canuk go home! Suck a maple leaf! 

   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA. 
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.     
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What happens to unused RTG power on space probes?
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:22:32 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
-Subject: What happens to unused RTG power on space probes?
-Date: 24 Jul 92 22:21:43 GMT
-Organization: AT&T

-From time to time, I see reports on various space probes.  One of the topics
-reported is power generation (from RTG's) and power consumption by the
-probe's equipment.  As I (mis)understand it :-), an RTG generates an exact 
-amount of power (declines over the years though).  If the RTG generates
-700 watts, and the probe uses 600watts, what happens to the extra 100watts?
-Does the RTG get hotter then if all 700 watts were used?  An RTG is based
-on the radioactive decay of plutonium, which decays at some fixed rate
-and generates power at some fixed rate.  So, what happens if I don't use
-all the power?

[This is only a partial answer. Somebody who knows more on the subject
please correct/augment as needed.]

The RTG has a constant *heat* output, which can be used in conjunction
with a proper heat sink to produce electrical power, and at any given time
there is a maximum rated *electrical power* output. Whether the full amount
of power is used is a separate question.

I seem to recall that some spacecraft have an external power resistor (with
radiator fins), so that when not all the power is needed by the spacecraft,
some of it is used to heat the resistor. I don't know whether these are used
with RTG generators, solar cells, chemical batteries, or more than one of
the above. I also don't know why it's considered necessary - maybe it has
something to do with thermal management.

Another mystery - the power margin of Galileo (RTG powered) goes up and
down - it doesn't just steadily decrease. I would guess that this is because
different instruments and other devices are in use at different times. Is
this correct?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: Antiproton-Boosted Microfission (was: Antimatter ...)
Summary: Does this really make sense?
Organization: Ford Motor Company Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:18:56 GMT

I'm skeptical about this microfission concept; the data
presented don't seem to support the conclusions.  For
instance, 70 mg of plutonium contains about 1.76e20
nuclei.  If each antiproton causes emission of 16
neutrons, then 2e8 p-bars creates 3.2e9 neutrons from
the interactions.  How is one neutron per 5.5e10 nuclei
in a micropellet going to cause a significant rate of
fission, even if it is compressed?  There is no unusual
chaining or other amplification effect; once the p-bars
are used up, the usual chain-reaction has to suffice.  A
few billion neutrons could jump-start the process, but I
don't see how a chain reaction can be sustained in only
70 mg of fissile material.

While this concept has some extremely neat consequences
if it is feasible (micropellet pulsed fission drives with
magnetic nozzles, anyone?), I'm skeptical about the claims.
Does anyone know more about the principles, such as the
effect of pellet compression on the critical mass?
-- 
Russ Cage   wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com  russ%rsi.uucp@destroyer.rs.itd.umich.edu
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
From: egates@triton.unm.edu (EL GATES)
Subject: Re: shuttle --ufo?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 16:58:52 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Jul30.155312.4122@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> SPS@helios (Bill Jamerson SPS Pres.) writes:
>a friend of mine reports having seen on WCMH evening news from Columbus,oh,
>a report about the space shuttle seeing something like unto a UFO while up
>earlier this year. He thinks it was either the last Columbia mission or 
>the Endeavor mission (more likely). 
> The footage shown (taken from orbit by the shuttle) was a shiny object 
>apparently in orbit below the shuttle, which suddenly darted in a different
>direction. immediately following, the footage showed a flash of light 
>originating form below where the object had been.  THere was some speculation
>that it may have been a UFO.
>  Did anyone else see or hear about this? if so, what else do you know?
>  If someone from NASA could give us any info, that would be greatly
>appreciated. 
>  THank you.


The video you are refering to was shown on Hard Copy and Larry King 
(I believe).  I've seen this video and the objects in question are
simply ice.  These objects change direction because one of the 
manuevering jets on the shuttle was fired (this can be seen in the 
video as a flash right before everything changes direction).  
There is nothing in the video that suggests to me that it is an ETI
spaceship.


El

egates@triton.unm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales
From: billm@tokyo07.info.com (Bill Martens)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:12:49 GMT
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan

In article <1992Jul22.123505.217861@cs.cmu.edu> warhaug@dhmolde.no (Geir Warhaug) writes:
>Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul22.123505.217861
>Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
>Distribution: sci
>Organization: [via International Space University]
>Lines: 6
>Approved: bboard-news_gateway
>X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
>Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
>
>Thanks to John Robert.
>
>The whale we now hunt, is treathning to wipe out the Bluewhale.
>There are more than one side in this case.
>
>Geir

I happen to read this group for it's information about space and space
science.  If you guys insist on continuing this thread, please quit
wasting my and others time with this garbage about whether or not
whales are intelligent and post it where it belongs (i.e. SCI.BIO)
-- 
=======================================================================
[  Bill Martens           |       reply to       billm@fujisan.info.com  
[  Iwamotocho 2-15-10 3F  | 
[  Tokyo, Japan  101      | In Japan reply to    billm@twics.co.jp
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Visual acuity in microgravity
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:27:00 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <9207221207.AA29101@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>-From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
>-Subject: Re: Visual acuity for MS
>-Date: 21 Jul 92 22:49:05 GMT
>-Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
>
>-As a side note, even astronauts with perfect vision (on Earth)
>-usually wear contact lenses on orbit because the shape of the
>-eyeball changes when there is no gravity to distort it.
[munch]
>Many of the astronauts wear glasses while in orbit. There are ongoing tests
>of changes in visual acuity in microgravity, but I don't know whether anything
>definitive has been found yet. I think the current theory is that fluid
>shift may have some influence on the shape of the eyeball, rather than direct
>gravitational distortion.

What I'd like to know is how they figure out the prescription. If their
vision is perfect on Earth, how do they predict how much, and in what 
direction, their vision will change in orbit? Or is there a branch of
Opti-World on MIR with one hour service?

Gary
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:03:34 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Any creature that doesn't grasp mathematics can't be said to be intelligent.

Well, that lets out a lot of high school graduates.  :-)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:47:29 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul20.193116.20779@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> sherwood@fenris.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford) writes:
>Mark Schlegel writes
>> 
>> But hypothetically removing all sources of energy and miraculously
>> removing all the thermal energy from the sun so it's a cold body,
>> we have to remember that the earth is in a state of equilibrium of
>> receiving solar energy and emitting or reflecting visible or infrared 
>> radiation.  The flux on the top of the atmosphere from the sun is
>> about 1300 W per square meter so the average loss is ~ 650 W per m2 per day
>> (but only a normal temp. at cold temps this is less).  So figure out
>> the total heat capacity of the whole mass of the atmosphere, include
>> the latent heat from the liquifaction of all the different gases,
>> water first, then CO2, O2, N2, etc.  I'm not going to do it!
>> 
>
>A first approximation could be to look at the cooling rate when the sun is  
>turned off each night.  If the air is clear, this is typically 10-15 C.  With  
>heavy overcast it's 5 C.  If 0 happens to be in the range, you can deduct about  
>4-6 degrees from that range due to latent heat effects.  
>
>Using those two as bounds, it would take 3-5 weeks before atmospheric gasses  
>started to liquify.  However, most of the civilized world would stop in a week. 

The latent heat of the atmosphere is roughly 5.3E20 kWh. Radiative
loss to maintain current equilibrium is 1.28E14 kW. That would require
1.1E3 days to drop the temperature to 0 Kelvin, or 2.12 years to drop the 
average temperature to the liquification temperature of nitrogen, if 
radiative loss remained constant. Of course it does not. It varies with 
the square of the black body temperature. Plus latent heats must be 
considered. For water vapor, that's a factor of 1000. Plus there is 
conductive transfer to the atmosphere from the land and water
to consider.

So the atmosphere wouldn't start to liquify in 3-5 weeks. It might start
to liquify the nitrogen in the upper atmosphere in about 2-5 *years*. Sorry 
for using kW and kWh, it's easier for me to think in those units.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward)
Subject: Astonomy Lab posted on comp.binaries.ibm.pc
Reply-To: seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU
Organization: Surely you jest.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:31:49 GMT

I'm not sure if this is the program that has raised all the hoopla, but
a program called Astronomy Lab has been posted in 5 uuencoded parts on
comp.binaries.ibm.pc.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill Seward               |                                                 |
| SEWARD@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU | Pithy saying wanted.  Inquire within.           | 
| SEWARD@NCSUVAX.BITNET     |                                                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: ET's amd Radio
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 07:11:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.061601.7861@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (ryan korniloff) writes:
>My only arument is simply this. In the typical galaxy there are 10's of
>BILLIONS of stars and there is something like a billion trillion galaxies
>in the observable universe. Don't you think that aout of all of thoes
>possible combinations that there would be AT LEAST ONE other life form
>with higher intellegence?

No.  At least not from your argument.

Your argument is basically "Sure, the odds of getting life might be one/a very
large number, but we also have a very large number of stars and galaxies, so
there's got to be life out there".  Your argument gives no reason to belive
that these large numbers are anywhere close in size, and seems instead to
appeal to an (erroneous) intuition that tends to think large numbers are a lot
like other large numbers....
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)