HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Subject: Re: Roswell
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:30:17 GMT

In article <Bw0v8v.6Dp@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <140532.2AD87F0D@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
>>... Below is a reprint of an article which appeared in a "science" magazine
>>about the crash recovery investigation being conducted by a retired Air
>>Force Intelligence officer. Although there is *no* hard evidence that the
>>vehicle recovered was an extraterrestrial spacecraft...
>
>Come now.  If you're going to reprint stuff from Air&Space, have the decency
>to at least summarize the whole article, rather than taking part of it out
>of context.  Much the most interesting thing in that article was the
>observation that a crash of a hush-hush *US* project could easily account
>for the fuss and the secrecy... especially since the location was ideal for
>such a thing to happen.  Roswell is in the middle of an area that includes
>White Sands Missile Range, Los Alamos, and an airbase that then housed the
>world's only operational nuclear-bomber force.
>
>It's silly to invoke crashed UFOs when Earthly causes provide quite an
>adequate explanation.

I have to agree most wholeheartedly with Henry.  I read UFO Crash at
Roswell a while back, and found it to be a wonder of circular reasoning
and wishful thinking.  It also seemed to be padded out by re-stating every
premise and factoid/interview summary 3 times; of course, this may have
been necessary to complete the circles noted above.

I consider myself a skeptic when it comes to UFOs and ETs - I'll admit
the possibility, and would be happy to believe in the face of *REAL* 
evidence.  (As is NASA - else why SETI?)  However, the author has no
justification for making his grandiose claims about UFOs at Roswell
based on the information he presents.  At best, he has evidence for
some sort of coverup then and there, but stretching that to "proof"
of a UFO crash is silly.


-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
From: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 21:41:17 GMT
Organization: Baldrick Fan Club
Reply-To: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au


In article <1992Oct9.091214.11323@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz writes:

 > 
 > > This is only one problem. The real reasons why we shouldn't `dispose'
 > > of nuclear waste by sending it into space are:
 > > 
 > > (1) it's far too expensive to do (even if we just want to leave it in
 > >       a parking orbit somewhere, the launch costs are absurd),
 > > (2) we may well want the waste again in the future, and it's cheaper
 > >       to get to if it's on Earth,
 > > (3) crazy politicians will scream blue murder because they think it'll
 > >       fall on their heads. It's not worth the trouble.
 > Finally, some decent reasons.  Especially that first one.  But roll on fusion
 > so we don't have to worry about what to do with waste.
 > 
 > 
 > Stephen..

Yes - launch costs are the main problem.  You may as well bury it in the
Earth's mantle - probably it would be more cost effective to dig a very
deep hole.  Alternativly bury it in a fault and let it get sucked down.

BTW - you mention fusion;  what is the current state of fusion power?
Has anybody had any success with a reactor ?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cameron (The Master)    | "I find it hard to take seriously the opinion of  |
| cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au |  someone who puts a Star Trek: TNG quote in their |
| cam@adied.oz.au         |  .sig"     --  Richard J. Rauser                  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Switching ALSEP back on
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:57:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvrH92.ABp.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> I've noticed that too. Maybe there's a fourth power of something in  
the
> equation, having to do with heat flow.
> 


That would make sense. The half life only tells us that half of the  
original atoms have decayed. It should mean that the heat wattage  
output is halved. But the output of interest is electrical so the RTG  
must be looked at as a heat engine... and heat engine efficiency  
depends on the dT between source and sink and I believe also the  
absolute T is Kelvin. Ie, you get more energy per 1K at 1000K than at  
0K... And the form of that equation is T^4.

What say Bill?
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SETI functional grammer
Keywords: SETI communication grammer and syntax Sagan
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:42:05 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <1992Oct15.050643.2763@foretune.co.jp>, trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
|> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
|> 
|> >I ran across a thought experiment once where the prototype teleporting machine
|> >ends up on an alien planet and won't come back.  How do you tell the aliens
|> >to press the right (manual override) button and not the left (self destruct)
|> >button?  I couldn't figure a way out.
|> 
|> Describe it in terms of physical properties, including the RIGHT-HAND
|> rule.
|> 

Unfortunately, the right-hand rule depends on our conventions for which way
current flows and which way a magnetic field points. The former can be
established (provided we know whether our aliens are matter or anti-matter) but
the latter cannot. Electromagnetism actually is mirror-symmetric.

There are bits of particle physics which are asymmetric. Provided we know our
aliens are matter, then we can ask them to observe the beta-decay of cobalt-60
nuclei in a magnetic field. More of the electrons emerge going North than South
(or vice versa I forget). If we don't know that the aliens are matter an even
subtler experiment is needed, but there is one. 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: orbital lifetimes
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:26:38 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <28396@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
>|How many of these moons have stable orbits?  In this case, I define stable
>|to mean that they will stay in orbit for 100+ years...
>
>Anything above 1000 km will stay up for 100+ years...

At lower altitudes there's a nice set of rules of thumb...

At 100km your orbit lasts about an hour.
At 150km your orbit lasts about a day.
At 200km your orbit lasts about a week.
At 250km your orbit lasts about a month.
At 300km your orbit lasts about a quarter.
At 350km your orbit lasts a bit under a year.

Don't plan missions on this basis. :-)  Furthermore, don't try to extrapolate
it further:  the more-or-less semilog relationship you would infer from it
is visibly failing on both ends.  It's actually more like log-log, and the
constants vary a lot with how dense your satellite is.
-- 
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: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<NICKH.92Oct7182340@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<7OCT199217142618@csa2.lbl.gov>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:45:00 GMT

In article <7OCT199217142618@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT
I CHASE) writes (about my post):

   For someone who so sharply critical of others, I would have thought that 
   you would have taken a little care to work out the numbers before you
   said this:

   >If the Earth were an apple, the whole biosphere shebang, including the
   >oceans, would be thinner than the skin on the apple. The sun would be
   >a 10-foot sphere about a mile away. The solar system would be forty
   >miles across. The nearest star would be on the moon (if you see what I
   >mean). And in all this space, there's _nothing_ except a few
   >basketballs (the gas giants), assorted small fruit (the other planets)
   >and a bit of dust. We can't pollute something that large.

   The Sun's radius is roughly 110 Earth radii.  So if the Sun is a 10-foot
   sphere, the Earth is 1.1 inch, an awfully small apple, if you ask me.
   Even if you meant the sun to be a sphere of 10-foot radius (rather than
   diameter), I'd still recommend you find yourself a better greengrocer.

Whoops, yes, I got radius/diameter screwed up. That paragraph was only
written in a final fit of pique: I don't like that sort of analogy
because it's so much less clear than the simple figures, but thought
it might get through to anyone who doesn't understand what "6e3"
means.

So that's a 6-metre sphere, just in case anybody's still reading this.

Nick
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: GMT of Sputnik 1 Launch?
Date: 10 Oct 92 11:15:36 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)

In article <roelle.718655445@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>Can someone look up the GMT of Sputnik 1's launch. 

4 October 1957 19:28:04 GMT

>						     I was born on 
>October 3, 1957 at 19:35 CST.
>
>Although the official launch date is October 4, the local time in the 
>United States was likely October 3.

Nope.

>				      How many hours & minutes
>older/younger am I than Sputnik 1?  

I've got to leave something as an exercise for the reader.

(My son was born on 4 October 1982 13:38 GMT, which was the 25th anniversary of
Sputnik 1's launch).
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
From: Keith.Stein@f118.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Keith Stein)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Landsat pictures?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:02:04 -0500

John I work at NASA Headquarters and just the other day was talking with 
a guy that knows all about getting thoses LANDSAT pictures. If you leave 
me your address I can send you some information, or you can call me at 
NASA (202) 358-0164, hope this helps.
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SETI positive?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:54:35 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <13169@ember.UUCP>, pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:
|> 
|> I suppose I'd be more worried if somebody a 100 light-years from
|> Earth WAS currently watching our TV broadcasts!
|> 

  Especially the very first high powered public broadcast, made during the 1936
Olympics, featuring a speech by Der Feuhrer himself, ol' Adolf!

 No WONDER the aliens never returned the phone call!





<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  "The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall                 |
|  victims to a big lie than to a small one."                            |
|                                          --Adolph Hitler               |
|                                                                        |
|   "All men are potential rapists, and that's _all_ they are!"          |
|                                 -- Susan Brownmiller                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: davros@acme.gen.nz (Steven Groom)
Subject: Inteligent Discussions Anyone?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:10:21 GMT
Organization: ACME BBS - Public Access Usenet, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Reply-To: davros@acme.gen.nz (Steven Groom)
Distribution: World

The  existence  of alien life forms has been on the minds of man  for  many 
years  now.   Is this all a conspiracy?  or is there actually life which is 
trying to make subtle/direct observations of mankind?

There  is  a common belief among UFO researchers that the US  military  has
indeed collected crashed alien craft and beings (dead).  As most of this is
observation/hearsay,  by a select few people,  I  do not think that we  can
regard  it  seriously.   If an advanced lifeform is capable  of  travelling
millions  of  kilometers through space then why would they crash?  That  is
like  saying  that I develop a sophisticated computer that forgets  how  to
add.

Other  claims  about  mysterious  alloys are not true  whatsoever,   as  no
spectro-analysis  was  done on the materials so how can looking  at  it  or
picking  it  up  tell you that it is not made from elements  found  on  the
periodic table!

BTW that would make it either:

A) lighter that hydrogen, and probably a gas

B) heavier than the heaviest known element,  not the sort of thing you want
to build a spacecraft out of

C)  Somewhere in the middle,  which has not been seen  not  even a tiny bit
with all the thousands of nuclei splitting, and other  forms  of  nuclear
investigation in the last 20+ years 

Many  like to think in terms of probability or chance of life  evolving  on
other worlds,  in other forms. This would have to be the most likely of all
the  theories.    Carl Sagan,  Iaasac Asimov and others  have  put  forward
calculations for life on other worlds,  but all such theories have to  have
very large assumptions,  just to get a figure which varies with many orders
of magnitude depending on which assumption you adjust.

An important issue on this topic is :-

Is life an abundant occurance or a freak of nature?

Would  anyone  like  to add/subtract information, stated in  a  logical and
methodical  way  to  try and build up a picture of what the  case  may  be?
Please, no up in the air stuff about "The Aliens" and hearsay, unless there
is clear real (and no, multiplying it by i will not help) evidence for it.
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:24:08 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Oct15.130455.9862@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>I've got you beat cold in the imagination category. 

Absolutely correct.  Just look at the cost figures you post to this group. :-)
-- 
Matthew DeLuca             "We should grant power over our affairs only to
Georgia Tech                those who are reluctant to hold it and then only
Information Technology      under conditions that increase the reluctance."
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu              - Coda of the Bene Gesserit
From: roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:17:19 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

[lots of interesting obital mechanics deleted]

>If the nucleopaths on Earth won't agree to the best solution, which  
>is the hole in the ground on Earth, then the next best solution  
>might be a lunar hole in the ground.

As long as we're asking and answering what are probably frequently asked
questions, I'll ask one:

Are there serious technical objections to dumping suitably "leak-proof"
containers (i.e., whatever they plan to use in a Yucca Mt.-type repository)
into a subduction zone at the bottom of the ocean? Assuming no leaks, we
have a much cheaper version of the "dump it on Venus" or "dump it into the
Sun" approach. Assuming small leaks *do* develop, the stuff would be pretty
well diluted, yes?

Personally, I prefer salt mines, or some other approach that allows us to
keep an eye on the stuff, and have access to it if it ever proves useful.
But it's a thought. Comments?

I guess I should know the answer, but I'm a plasma physicist by training,
and we can't produce enough radioactivity to make a good watch-dial...yet.
--
 Dr. Donald W. Roberts
   University of California                                     Physicist
   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory        Recreational Bodybuilder
   dwr@llnl.gov                                          Renaissance Dude

 The ideas and opinions expressed here do not represent official policies
 of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,  the University of California,
                or the United States Department of Energy.
From: rrr@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Rudi Rynders)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:22:09 GMT
Subject: Re: V-2 anniversary
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: sci.space

###/ hpdmd48:sci.space / techno@zelator.in-berlin.de (Frank Dahncke) / 10:37 am  Oct  4, 1992 /
###In <28165@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
###
###>Trivia question: Which city was targeted and hit by the most number
###>of V-2s?
###
###Amsterdam, Holland.
###
###							  Techno
###-- 
###| techno@zelator.in-berlin.de ||| Please do not e-mail from outside Germany ! |
###| techno@lime.in-berlin.de   / | \  Hardcore ST user ! ====================== | 
###| Nothing that's real is ever for free, you just have to pay for it sometime. |
###|                                       (Al Stewart)                          | 
###----------
You can be sure that is was NOT Amsterdam. I witnessed many launchings of V-2's
during 1944 and the first half of 1945 from around The Hague, and while some
malfunctioning ones landed in The Hague, I can not remember any falling on
Amsterdam. Furthermore Amsterdam is more than 90 degrees from the bearing for
England from  most launching sites.
London was the biggest target within the actionradius of the V-2,
and it took quite a few hits. However since this is a trivia question , the poser
is probably thinking of one the industrial cities in southern England.

Rudi Rynders (rrr@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs])
Subject: Re: what use is Freedom?
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:16:52 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct7.031717.19507@den.mmc.com> whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) writes:
: >1.   How come the interior appointments create the same impact on the senses
: >     as my new Kenmore fridge?  I mean, were's the softness? Any wood grain?
: 
: NASA and their contractors have no style? No, seriously, that kind of 
: detail can be good or bad: The guy who has to live there might _hate_
: wood furnature (or whatever other nice detail was added). The idea is
: to make something the astronaut could live with, without knowing anything
: about the astronaut's tastes or preferences. That means bland is the
: solution...

Well, thats what posters are for, just get some Scotch tape, and voila -
instant wall decoration. :-)

On a slightly more serious note, I'm curious as to how much personal gear
will be able to be carried up and kept by long duration crews? 

What about the Shuttle at the moment - can crew members take personal 
belongings up?

:                                                Frank Crary
:                                                CU Boulder

The Wigs of Oz,
Aaron Wigley
ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: 7 Oct 92 06:43:26 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <5OCT199216173458@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Mfsc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.133115.10677@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes...
>>In article <1OCT199219492037@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>>
>>>The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon.
>> 
>
>>Anyone willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars could receive
>>a 1 watt signal from the Moon with sufficient margin to decode digital
>>data, or copy analog voice. An EME grade station is probably still
>>required to pick up video, or high bandwidth data.
>> 
>>Gary KE4ZV
>
>Gary my figure if from the Lunar Observer mission baseline published at JPL
>in 1991.  This is the baselne for all future missions and the link margin
>is discussed extensively in there.  What is your source? I will look it up
>in the ARRL hanbook just to see what they have.

Indeed Dennis, the 1991 ARRL Handbook is my source. -278 db is the
*roundtrip* loss for EME work at 2304 MHz. Note that path loss is
a function of frequency. I don't know what frequency the LO is planning
to use. Note also that path loss increases directly with frequency, but 
also that antenna gain increases directly with frequency for a given 
physical size antenna. The effects cancel. Finally, note that EME requires
the Moon to be a passive reflector. One way loss for an active radiator
is *not* just 3 db less than round trip EME loss because the substantial
losses of passive reflection are deleted.

The excellent Microwave Handbook from the RSGB lists the following
formula for calculating free space path loss:

path loss (db) = 92.45 + 20*log(f) + 20*log(d)

where f is in gigahertz and d is in kilometers. 

At 2.3 GHz, the path loss one way from the Moon is -210.7 db. That
means roundtrip loss would be -216.7 db, so the scattering loss due
to lunar reflection is 61.3 db. Getting rid of the Moon as a passive
reflector makes a big difference.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:47:59 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct9.091214.11323@waikato.ac.nz> sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:
>... if we placed a satellite
>in an identical orbit as the earth, but at a slower orbital velocity
>(by firing it off in an opposite direction to that way which the earth is
>going) what will happen.  Will its orbit decay until it falls into the sun, or
>will its orbit merely change to a different one...

Orbits don't decay without a good reason (e.g. part of the orbit is within
an atmosphere).  If you fire an object off "rearward" from Earth, the big
question is *how fast?*.  Earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/s.  If
your object, once it escapes from Earth's gravitational field, is only
going, say 1-2 km/s slower than Earth, it will end up in an elliptical
orbit with the low end somewhat inside Earth's orbit and the high end
touching Earth's orbit.  This is not a good place for dangerous cargo,
because sooner or later, when the object is at the high point of its
orbit, Earth will be nearby again and there is some chance of a collision.
Not very much for an individual object, but if you're launching lots of
these things, the odds of having one of them come back unexpectedly do
start to climb...

>... If it falls into the Sun (or indeed hit Venus, Mercury or some
>other body) the problem is gone forever...

The odds of any noticeable fraction of the objects hitting one of the
planets are negligible.  The planets are very small and the solar system,
even the inner solar system, is very large.  (The only reason for concern
about them hitting the Earth is that we care about even *one* doing so.)

To get it into the Sun's atmosphere, so the orbit will decay into the
Sun in a reasonable time, you will have to kill *most* of that 30 km/s.
This is hard.  Launching entirely out of the solar system is easier;
for that we only have to add about 12 km/s.
-- 
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