HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space platforms (political, not physical : -)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:07:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Followup-To: alt.censorship

In article <1992Sep29.173235.8579@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:
>...now read books that were banned 50 years ago.  But similar books
>were actually available 150 years ago.  Book banning...
>got its start in the latter part of the 19th century.  Before then
>people didn't much care what you read...

Bear in mind, though, one reason for this:  people didn't much care
what "you" read because there was a general assumption that if "you"
were reading anything, "you" were white, upper-class, and probably
male... and hence trustworthy.  Dangerous lower-class scum mostly
couldn't afford books -- which were very expensive until about the
mid-19th century (there was a *reason* why the family bible was a
treasured possession passed down from generation to generation!) --
and often were nearly illiterate anyway.  People started caring about
what others read when "others" started including people unlike them.

It's still true, too.  You don't see people campaigning to ban some
vile and disgusting type of pornography because it has a bad effect
on *them*.  It's always somebody else whose feeble, gullible mind is
going to be corrupted by that awful stuff.

This no longer has much to do with sci.space.  Followups pointed to
alt.censorship.
-- 
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: gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis)
Subject: Population here and elsewhere?
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:37:39 GMT

     With the relatively low priority and lack of basic understanding
of our environment shown by most on this board;it is indeed merciful
that none are actively in this area.
What does bringing back dinosaurs have to do with such a critical
human dilemma as uncontrolled population growth. Persons who ecourage such
must either be quite ignorant of the future consequences or so insensitive
to the situation that reason eludes them.

Rush Limbaugh was quoted recently as stating that population growth
was a "phoney" issue since if we move the entire world pouplation
as it exists presently, to the state of Texas the human density would
equal that of New York City. Pooh.. Pooh.. population growth and the
environment are a ploy of the liberals!

Aside from the fact that Limbaugh is a pompus donkey;the truly frightening
part is he has so many mindless idolators in his ranks.

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

--
                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
 References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965
Xref: sparky sci.space:13755 sci.astro:10260 talk.politics.space:1320 alt.politics.bush:7197 alt.politics.clinton:7825
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:54:24 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep29.011549.16665@colorado.edu> privette@pippin.colorado.edu (Jeff Privette) writes:
>
>TIME interviewed a group of the nation's leading economists (gee, I didn't
>see Thomas' name...) and asked them to comment on various aspects of
>both Bush's and Clinton's economic plan.  As a sneak preview, *none*
>of these professionals expressed the right-wing paranoia so beautifully
>displayed by Thomas.  They did have some doubts about both Clinton's and
>Bush's planned policies, however there was a slight majority consensus
>that Clinton's would result in better long term growth.  Of course the
>objective reader may choose to ignore the comments of talented professionals
>and accept the statements of a single armchair quarterback (read "Thomas").
>Weirder things have happened...

Taken in a vacuum, Clinton's professed economic plans don't look that
bad. Unfortunately US government economics doesn't take place in a
vacuum. The Democrat Congress dominates where, when, and how much is
spent on various programs. They have a 50 year track record of ignoring
Presidential budgets and doing as they please. A Democrat in the White
House has a slightly better chance of getting some of his programs
enacted, but only at the cost of rubber stamping a lot of other programs
demanded by Congress. The net result is much greater government spending
and a much worse deficit. Bush isn't much better, but his hands off
policy, and use of the veto, at least keeps spending down a little and
avoids destructive tinkering with the working of the business cycle.
Many of the leading economists say that the US would already be well 
into recovery if it weren't for the massive tax hike that Congress 
wrangled out of Bush. He now admits that was a tragic mistake, but
Congress hasn't. How many tax hikes do you think they can get
past Clinton? How much extra social spending? How much bigger will
the deficit be in four years? In economic terms, it's the *weasels*
in Congress that have to go, the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
is of less consequence. International affairs is the major province
of the President, and there Bush's record is much better. Do you
believe Clinton can do better than an experienced leader like Bush
with his military and spook experience?

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.space:14044 sci.astro:10431
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Asteroid Toutatis Closes In On Earth
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:21:44 GMT
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 October 5, 1992
(Phone:  202/358-1547)

Jim Doyle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone:  818/354-5011)

RELEASE:  92-164

ASTEROID'S ORBIT "CLOSES IN" ON EARTH

     One of the largest near-Earth objects, an asteroid named
"Toutatis," will make a close Earth approach on Dec. 8, 1992,
passing by at about 2.2 million miles (3.6 million kilometers)
distance.

     Dr. Donald Yeomans, Head of the Near Earth Object Center
at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., said
the object, formally known as Asteroid 4179 Toutatis, passes
Earth less than one degree above Earth's orbital plane every 4
years, making it an excellent object for study.  The asteroid,
at 2 miles (3.5 kilometers) diameter, is one of the largest to
cross the Earth's orbit on a regular basis.

     Yeomans said the ground-based viewing conditions will be
excellent for infrared optical and radar observations just
before, during and well after the close Earth passage, and he
notes that astronomers in many areas of the world
simultaneously will study the body using several different
techniques.

     Toutatis again will make close Earth approaches in 1996
and 2000.  In 2004, it will come as close as about four Earth-
Moon distances or about a million miles (about 1.6 million
kilometers).  Its orbit takes it almost to the distance of
Jupiter's orbit before the sun's gravitational attraction
pulls it back.

     The approach of Toutatis this year and the one in 2004
represent the two closest Earth passages of any known asteroid
for the next 30 years, said Yeomans.

     Toutatis was discovered Jan. 4, 1989, by Astronomer
Christian Pollas at Caussols, France, and was named after a
Gallic deity called "protector of the tribe."

- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Einstein's brain is stored
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | in a mason jar in a lab
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | in Wichita, Kansas.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:35:46 GMT

In article <mikew.717692440@kpc.com> mikew@kpc.com writes:
>Imagine instead of a Mariner Mark II class mission you have a series of
>missions starting with a relay satellite and following up with separate
>craft with imagine, IR, UV and fields and particle instruments. And with
>the quick turn around you can send updated instruments based on knowledge
>gained by early instruments. 


>You can afford to try more risky techniques
>like ion propulsion and aerobraking. How about a Titan probe that uses
>aerobraking in Titan's atmosphere instead of slowing down with a rocket, 
>for instance.

Are they planning to use retrtrockets for the Huygens probe? If so, 
_why_? The Galileo probe makes a direct entry into Jupiter and I'd
think the entry velocities for Huygens would be lower...

>Could someone with a better idea of the costs involved come up with a
>quick estimate of the previous two approaches for a similar set
>of overall goals.

The proposed Pluto mission will spend no more than $400 million on two
spacecraft. That would suggest a ~$200 - $250 cost for a single instrument
sapcecraft. I suspect the Galileo mission (which I have a detailed
instrument breakdown for) would require about seven or eight such
spacecraft to meet the same goals. That would suggest $1.5-2 billion
dollars to accoplish a Mariner Mark II mission using several small
spacecraft. I don't recall the current Cassini/Huygens budget, but
I don't think this is a huge savings.

However, small spacecraft offer two additional advantages: They permit
more frequent missions (there are many diagvantages to 20-year desing
to use missions) and they are much less vunerable to a failure: With
A Mariner Mark II, a single major failure could ruin the entire mission
(witness Galileo's antenna), whereas such a failure on a series of
small crafts would only jeperdize one of many parts of the mission.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:39:41 GMT
Reply-To: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Oct6.170715.1564@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>          
>          
>                           UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
[ drivel and blather deleted... ]

>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
>
>                                                            
Robert - why don't you take this and other such threads to alt.alien.visitors,
where you'll find rapt and willing stooges.. um, advocates?  You'll still
catch your share of flames, of course, but it'll all be in fun.  Right?

kbq


--
Kevin Quinn                         | kevinq@ingres.com
                                    | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com
My opinions are my own.  Should you think otherwise, think again.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:00:05 GMT

In article <80827@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
>What about the gas torus that Titan orbits inside of? Isn't that made
>up of escaped gas? Would that also affect the atmosphere of Titan?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the density of the Titan torus are very
low. I doubt they have any significant effect on the atmosphere (though
they might contribute to Saturn's plasma environment, where even extremely
low densities are important.)

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:56:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.172850.6058@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>Mars is colder but lost most everything because of its size. 

This isn't the usual explanation for Mars' thin atmosphere: The theoretical
loss rates for gases escaping the atmosphere are too slow to account
for the planet's atmosphere.

I think the accepted theory starts with the loss of carbon dioxide to 
geological processes: This gas disolves into oceans (Mars of 3.7 billion
years ago had such oceans), and reacts with disolved calcium to form
calcium carbonate rock. On Earth, there is a balance, because plate 
techtonics result in the subduction of ocean floors, the melting of 
calcium carbonate rock and the subsequent venting of carbon dioxide out
of volcanoes. On Mars, which lacking such an active geology, the carbon
dioxide is simply removed from the atmosphere and sits on the bottom of
the oceans (while they last). By pulling a major greenhouse gas out
of the atmosphere causes a major drop in temperature and other 
atmospheric components (such as water and more carbon dioxide during the
winter) freeze out. The result is an trend a colder and thiner 
atmosphere. (Of course, this mechanism works only as long as there are
oceans. After a point, the atmosphere is too cold and thin to sustain
them, and other loss mechanisms must have taken over.)

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle,alt.sci.planetary
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: The Latest on DC-X Funding
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:17:17 GMT


The Defense Appropriations Conference Committee is nearing completion of its
work. The person responsible for transfering DC-X funds to NLS has
told a couple of people that he has removed the section of the report
which transfers the funds. If this doesn't change, then DC-X is safe for
the forseeable future. However, things can happen so keep those cards
and letters coming in.

Thanks to those who have written and called. You did make a difference.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------206 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:46:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Sep30.064629.12949
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <6858@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <BvCFxF.5JJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk  
>writes:
>> As has been said before, the sum total of everyone's special  
>> interests is the public interest, NOT what the political pundits  
>> claim is the public interest. For some on this news group space  
>> (read: the future) IS the defining issue. That is their right and  
>> perogative. Who gives a damn what the Washington Post says anyway?
>
>The problem with this is that I've met some space enthusiasts
>over the years who would vote for Adolf Hitler if they thought
>he would support a strong space program.  Almost ANY issue has
>to be put in perspective, and balanced off against others. A
>candidates view of space explorations is ONE issue by which I 
>judge the candidate.  You can argue about whether it should be 
>one of the most important ones or one of the minor ones, but it
>certainly should not be the ONLY one.

Single issue voting has a long and distinguished history. It *is*
true that the public interest is the sum of everyone's special
interests and single issue voting is the best way to express
that. I'm certainly not going to vote for a candidate who opposes
my special interests any more than I expect others to do so.
*I'm* not the public interest. *I* can't speak for the public
interest. Only the *sum* of individual voter interests can do
that. Attempting to play statesman in the voting booth is a
sure way to let the media and campaign advertising dominate
the election process as voters base their votes on what they
are *told* rather than on what they *know*. I say stick to the
issues you know when making up your mind about whom to vote
for or against, and let others do the same. The result will be
a true expression of the public's interests.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.space:13626 sci.astro:10167 talk.politics.space:1294 alt.politics.bush:6812 alt.politics.clinton:7352
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:02:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.Bv90sJ.C3F
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Sep27.141056.13@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.231446.20605@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

			....................

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

>Indeed. As I remarked in another post to Dennis comparing private lunar
>exploitation to the Hudson's Bay Company model, "Where's the beaver pelts?"
>The Moon may have considerable scientific and military value, and the
>gravity may be *necessary* for long term human occupation as opposed to
>free flight colonies, but there's little of commercial interest to Earth
>bound companies that we have discovered so far. The Moon is not well
>explored, however, and something equivalent to borax may be waiting there
>for us to find.

There is another, and extremely important, reason for colonization, namely,
escape from an oppressive government.  The Spanish colonies were moderately
successful only where they were eminently profitable; the missions in
California must be considered a failure.  The French colonies in Canada
and Louisiana were not particularly successful.  On the other hand, the
English colonies to escape oppression were generally quite successful,
even bringing in others.  A major part of the US immigration in the 19th
century was to escape oppression.

There are very many of us who consider government oppression the norm in
the world today, including in the US, one of the least oppressive.  If it
turns out that man can survive on a reasonable scale out there, this group
will want to go, even at considerable financial cost to them.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Psalms from outer space?
Date: Fri,  2 Oct 92 03:41:41 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

: A friend has stumped me with the following question:
: 
: >  Which Psalm was it that was read from space by an astronaut?        
: >My mom was wondering  (she guessed Psalm 8).                          

If my memory serves, it was "The Lord Is My Shepherd" - the 23rd Psalm,
again from memory.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant |  Would You Like Space Potatoes With That?       |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:03:32 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman)
-Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
-Date: 27 Sep 92 23:52:00 GMT
-Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org

-This newsgroup has recently contained some rather absurd opinion
-and speculation about the effect of a Clinton/Gore administration
-on the space program.  The simple facts are that neither party has
-said much about what they would do 

Actually, both the Bush and Clinton space platforms have been posted.
The observation that most people apparently don't read them before posting on
the subject (or else make comical "translations" and insist on regarding
only those) is a separate issue.

-and that the issue is rightly peripheral to the campaign.  

In practice that has been the case because the two platforms are so similar
that there's not a whole lot to discuss. Either Clinton or Bush could have
written the numerous speeches at the World Space Congress on what directions
the space program needs to take.

-Others have followed the bizarre chain of logic that 1) Clinton
-wants to spend a little bit of money on what appear to be sensible
-things, 2) he will have to cut something else and 3) NASA is the
-only game in town (ever hear of agricultural subsidies?), so 4)
-Clinton will clobber NASA.  Another chain of logic seems to go
-like this 1) Clinton wants to cut military spending a tad more
-than Bush does, 2) a lot of defense is aerospace, 3) NASA is
-aerospace, so 4) Clinton wants to cut NASA.  

I would call these examples of the popular game of "The Candidate Said".
Somebody makes up a statement or position and attributes it to a candidate,
then everybody else holds the candidate responsible for that statement or
position, because "the candidate said it". Almost all of the hundreds of
political analyses posted to sci.space have been of this type.

Any comments on the political situation are my own opinions/interpretations,
and are not intended to be campaigning or an endorsement of any party 
or candidate.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:19:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep30.082723.13517@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Actually, catalysts aren't consumables by definition. There doesn't really
> look like a viable demand for a tenfold increase in catalyst use in the
> chemical industry even with a tenfold price decrease.

In practice, catalysts do degrade.  Everything is slightly soluble in
everything, especially at higher temperature.  When you are running
thousands of tons of reactants a day past a catalysts bed, you will
lose some of the materials.

An example is selective oxidation of ammonia to make nitric acid.
This is done on platinum-group element catalysts.  The plants are
designed with devices to recover metals eroded from the catalysts.
The recycling rate is very good, but not perfect.

Anyway, there *are* applications of PGEs today that are not feasible
because of the expense of the metals.  One important one is acid fuel
cells.  We can build fuel cells that run directly on methanol, without
reforming.  The problem is that they require too much platinum to be
practical, at today's platinum prices, for many potential applications
(like electric vehicles).  A drop in price by a factor of (say) 10
would be a huge help.

All this begs the question of how you recover the platinum at <<
today's market prices.  Never mind how one could economically mine
asteroidal *iron*.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu