HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: perot's stand on space funding
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:48:10 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <BvIHL0.n1u.1@cs.cmu.edu> ST7759@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU (Alex Falkenberg) writes:
>Does Perot have a position on space funding?  Not that I'm going to vote
>for him or anything, but it would be interesting to know given the other
>questionable stances he has taken...       -agf (just a lowly student,
>perhaps forever...)

According to his recent statements, we should not spend any money on 
anything "impractical" until the deficit and budget problems are 
completely resolved.  Space was specifically mentioned here.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SETI
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:37:19 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:
: 
: 
: 	Are there any SETI projects due to come on line within the 
: next year?

Guess I should have looked closer at the other lines in the group.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Laser Space Mirror
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:26:57 GMT
Keywords: Progress Mir Russian Energia

In article <1992Oct6.011403.28784@eng.cam.ac.uk> dscy@eng.cam.ac.uk (D.S.C. Yap) writes:
>sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>>New Scientist this week (No 1841, 3 October 1992) reports that next month a
>>>crewless Progress spacecraft will open a space mirror after resupplying Mir
>>>at an altitude of 350 km. 
>
>.... I think the solar sail experiment they were planning was intended to 
>test the viability of using a solar sail for attitude control. I haven't
>seen the New Scientist article or (more importantly) any pictures but
>I have a suspicion that their sail/mirror design has a lot in common
>with the 2m diameter test rig that I'm doing dynamic tests on in the
>lab.  The company that originally got me interested in my Ph.D. topic...

At the World Space Congress, Yuri Semenov - Director NPO Energia, showed a
simple drawing of the Progress with the circular sail deployed.  Apparently
the cosmonauts will replace the Progress docking probe with the sail 
assembly just before undocking and the sail will deploy parallel to the 
docking collar with its center where the docking probe would normally be.

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.controls,comp.robotics
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Robot Rovers: Big or Small?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:12:46 GMT

In article <20670@plains.NoDak.edu> altenbur@plains.NoDak.edu (Karl Altenburg) writes:
>I would like to know peoples ideas on which types of robots should be
>used in possible, future Lunar and Mars missions. 
>
>Some support the traditional large rover.  An example would be Carnegie
>Mellon's Ambler, which has 6 legs legs (non-traditional), complex vision 
>system, stands around 14 feet tall, and weighs a ton (I think?).
>It would be launched and work as a solitary rover.
>
>

I hate to say it, but I can't imagine this thing having any sort of
usefulness in space.  It would cost $hundreds of millions just to
launch it to the moon, and then its leg-balancing software wouldn't 
work in 1/6 gravity (and couldn't be tested beforehand).  A subsumption
architecture that could adapt to the new gravity conditions would
have much to say for it, as would a much smaller more affordable
walker.

That said, I think the whole emphasis on robots and rovers is a bit
overdone.  For most bodies, including the moon, a hopper is competitive
or superior for sampling a wide variety of locations.  Sampling itself
is only one out of many tasks we profit from automating.  A much larger
if longer-term task is automatic processing of native materials, such as
propellant production from the Martian atmosphere or native ices.
These can radically reduce the cost of operating in space; the
technology has a future value in the $100's of billions.

These don't require robotics so much as they require very reliable
and robust control systems, self-cleaning, and deployment.  Claims that we
absolutely can or can't do these things are bogus; nobody's spent
any significant effort to try them.  Albeit, oil companies have
successfully automated similar tasks on a large scale, but with
quicker feedback and more room for trial-and-error.  These kinds
of space automation will be a very productive field for automation 
researchers.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:17:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <29SEP199217433989@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>This is essentially a government-organized sounding-rocket service that
>>happens to be implemented by private contractors...
>
>... what about the Space Vector Corporation? They have been flying, selling
>and using the Minuteman I platform in various forms since the late 70's. 
>Actually Deke Slayton's company (Now EER Systems) started by launching a 
>Minuteman I second stage from Matagorda Island ...

There are other people using hardware designed for missiles too.  For
example, Orbital Sciences's Taurus launcher is basically a wingless
Pegasus on top of an MX first stage.

>... The issue is not nearly as black and white as you suggest.

Crucial difference:  as I understand it, these folks are basically paying
market prices for the rocket stages.  They're not getting large-scale
government handouts of surplus rocket hardware at fire-sale prices.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Is Mars 94 on track? (was Re: Mars Observer info?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:11:48 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1992Oct5.193214.21355@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
> In article <niininen.718157139@messi.uku.fi> niininen@messi.uku.fi (Kristian Niininen) writes: (in *only* sci.space...shrug) 
> 
>>How big is the Mars Observer? (weight, length etc.)
>>What kinds of instruments it has?   
> Also carries French radio system to support robotic missions by the Russians.
> Two Russian craft to lauch, one in '94, one in '96. MO supports these missions.
> MO will also serve as data relay from the Russian surface instruments.

Is Mars 94 still on track, or has it been delayed?  I missed the
relevant sessions at the World Space Congress.  An abstract submitted
to next week's the Division of Planetary Sciences meeting by Valery
Barsukov suggests there are still two missions flying in 1994 and
another in 1996.  He writes:

> Plans of Future Russian Planetary Missions [...]
>3. For the next astronomical window the launch of two spacecraft  
>to Mars is planned: the first will provide the deployment of the  
>balloon drifting in the atmosphere and the Mars rover landing on  
>its surface; the second one is expected to deploy the Mars  
>Network of small stations and further on to fly by a number of  
>asteroids of the Main Belt and deploy penetrators on one of them. 
>
>4. Phobos sample return to Earth is planned as the next future  
>mission. Projects on Mars Sample Return and missions to Mercury 
>via Venus are also being developed. 

But I *also* heard (don't remember where) that
Barsukov died recently, so who knows whether this is up to date?

Back to Dave Knapp:

> The MOC (camera) has <*2* meter resolution! (loud gasp of amazement.) This will
> allow for detailed study of mass transport over the surface with seasonal 
> variations. (and some very impressive photos indeed.)

It will also allow us to distinguish between different types of
Martian ICBMs and tanks.

(And, of course, find new, smaller, faces.) 

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "I'm gonna keep on writing
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | songs until I write the song
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | Detroit who make the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine
From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:52 PDT
Subject: Space and Presidential Politics
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1469100016:000:2758
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Sep 27 16:52:00 1992


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 and that the issue is rightly
peripheral to the campaign.  Most reasonable people understand
this.

I would like to comment on some of the more egregious
extrapolations that have been made.  For example, Allen Sherzer
accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the
space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and
Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in
years.  All the action in the Senate takes place in the full
committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more
properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and
Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings.  In fact, the real
action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where
Barbara Mikulski is the main player.

Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are
relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses
of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO
technology.  Consorting with a known agnostic!  I know John Pike,
and if he has a fault it is that he is too much of a space
enthusiast.

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.  If anything the true
political logic works the other way: be kind to NASA so aerospace
doesn't suffer too much.

I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you
would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and

2) loose marbles.  Get real!  Space is not and should not be a big
issue in this Presidential election.  The issues are how to
strengthen the economy and give people real opportunities to
improve their lot while reducing the deficit and the burden of the
national debt and healing the divisions in our society.  Without
that, NASA is going nowhere.  Only a prosperous and united society
will support space exploration.

So don't lose the forest for the trees.  Vote on the big issues.
Vote for Bush and Quayle if you really believe that they are
better for the country as a whole (I certainly don't), but don't
vote on the basis of dimly defined space policies.

Mark W. Goodman
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 10/01/92
Date: 1 Oct 1992 23:23:25 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu
Keywords: Galileo, JPL


>     As of noon Thursday, October 1, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
>status was as follows:

>        Distance from Earth         43,166,200 miles (.46 AU)
>        Distance from Sun           129,476,400 miles (1.39 AU)
>        Heliocentric Speed           59,800 miles per hour
>        Distance from Jupiter        625,618,900 miles
>        Round Trip Light Time        7 minutes, 50 seconds

Well, if you guys at JPL can't give out the elements for Galileo's
next Earth flyby, I can deduce them anyway, using the above and the
previously published Galileo trajectory reports.

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: galileo antenna status?
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 21:31:45 GMT
Organization: Baldrick Fan Club
Reply-To: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au

I have been off the net for 6 weeks.  What is currently happening with the
attempts to unstick the Galileo antenna ?  I haven't heard anything about
it in the papers so I assume it is still stuck.

Has there been any success with the heating/cooling treatment?  What happened
with the attempts to use the deployment motors?  Last I heard was that there
was a small amount of movement when they were pulsed.  Has this been retried?

Thanks.

Cameron.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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                  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Government and private R&D (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:54:17 GMT

In article <26SEP199222073863@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.001600.22606@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>>In article <1992Sep23.184518.25122@medtron.medtronic.com> rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes:

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

>When Government R&D has been given a specific, concrete goal and has been 
>given the resources to carry it out, (Early American canal system, Railroads,
>Panama canal, WWII, A bombs, H Bombs, Apollo) it has been wildly successful.
>The common denomonator in the above so called failures is a lack of will and
>lack of vision (sense of purpose) in carrying the effort to its finish.

>Where government has been a dismal failure is in pursing general goals using
>the specific goal approach, (war on poverty, Great Society, Welfare system,
>income redistribution,)  This was very well laid out in the book " Heavens and
>the Earth".

Railroads were not done with much of government money until the private sector
had proved them workable.  But all of these successes cited were essentially
development, where the research had already been done.  There was a little
research involved in the development of the A bomb, and some more in the 
development of the H bomb, but relatively little.  And when social dreamers
say that something can be done without considering the state of the universe,
disaster is almost certain.

But research is a tricky business, and the more basic the research, the less
one can even predict whether there will be success.  The research which led
to nuclear fission was Meitner's observation of the presence of such things
as strontium in uranium ore, and the leap to fission from that.  Such
observations have been present throughout history; the principle of
serendipity is everpresent, and surprise is the norm.  Sure, the Van Allen
belts could have been foreseen, but they were not.  Relativity, hardly; the
Michelson-Morley experiment, supposed to measure the velocity of earth 
relative to the ether, turned up nothing, which was even more important!
On page 63 of this week's _Time_, there is a report of a medical contribution
uncovered by research rejected by the government.  In case you do not know,
Congress is right now considering greatly restricting NSF funding for pure
research, which BTW NSF has already reduced.  I believe that if 5% of the
money now going into attempts to cure cancer and AIDS were diverted into
blue-sky basic medical research the results would be far greater than from
the other 95%.
-- 
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)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.geology
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Amber (Was: Re: Population)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:48:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.055751.19337@news.Hawaii.Edu>, joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu (Joe Dellinger) writes...
>In article <9210010007.AA08683@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes...
>> I believe the current (and recent) record for DNA extraction is ~25 million
>> years, for a termite trapped in amber. Reconstructing the entire genetic
>> code from DNA fragments and using that code to produce a living organism
>> are additional challenges.
> 
>	In the Sept 1992 "Natural History" magazine, Stephen J. Gould
>writes that the "current" record is for chloroplast DNA from preserved tree
>leaves in the Clarkia lake beds, 17-22 Million years old. The Clarkia
>preservation is extremely unusual: leaves falling right into an anoxic lake
>bottom, rapid burial, and an anoxic environment continuously maintained until
>present. Even so they still haven't managed to get nuclear DNA.... yet.

I've heard that Dr. Poiner from UC Berkeley cloned some blood cells from
a stingless bee from amber recently.  I've heard this from word of mouth, so
I'm trying to find out the details.  Dr. Poiner, by the way, was the first
to extract DNA from amber in 1982.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: what use is Fred?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:37:31 GMT

> the area in skylab where the crew exercise equipment was.....  With  
all the
> hatches open, within the US areas alone, the crew will be able to  
have
> great frisbee games or races....if they had the time.....
> 


If any of them went to CMU when I did, they are great hall frisbee  
"football" players. You'd be amazed at the ricochet's you can get. I  
hope the switches and screens are cut out for it :-)

> More importantly, as I alluded to in my prior post, a complete SSF  
provides
> a HUGE structure.  This structure is almost 300 feet long.....Thats  
a
> football field..... It also has power panels and radiators which  
stick
> 


You mean it's SO big that it would have fit into the stadium of the  
Coraopolis High School!! ;-)


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:16:59 GMT

On 6 Oct 92 04:54:52 GMT, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) said:

[Lots of really good comment deleted, but this is _sci_.space and I
can't stay on my high moral horse and complain about the signal to
noise ratio when I'm part of the (non-sci) noise.]

John> I don't recall the extensive V-2 display you mention seeing 
John> at the NASM -is that near the missile?

It's not an extensive display.  There are just a few photos near
the base of the missile.  They've got the covers off one fin and
that's how I could see the bicycle chain.  I'm always interested
in hardware.

The museum has redone the rocketry gallery and it's really nice,
too.  I'd just spent the week at Langley Research Center, learning
about single- and two-stage-to-orbit airbreather and rocket vehicles
and I decided that the NASM was _research_.  The new gallery was
extremely informative, although I was surprised to see that Goddard
thought that the fuel system could be pressurized with oxygen.

It's incredibly depressing to see aircraft that I saw flying in the
museum!  Especially when I saw the first flight.  Visiting the NASM
and the Air Force Museum make me feel so old.

Does anyone know if the Goddard that was lauded in the aerial
photography/reconnaisance gallery is related to the rocket Goddard?

Just a bit more on the V-2 commemoration: I was reading the stack of
papers that accumulated in my absence and found the story about this
controversy.  The article stated that over 60,000 slave laborers were
involved and that at least 30,000 did not survive.  A German
person/group proposed that a memorial to these people be erected at
Peenemunde.  I inferred (but it was not explicitly stated) that were
this to be done, many German or European objections would vanish.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Clinto and Space Funding
Followup-To: sci.space.smoking
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:49:17 GMT

In article <maguire-300992162151@128.149.100.151> maguire@copland.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin Maguire) writes:

>> I can't let this old chestnut pass. Tobacco is the *one* agricultural...

Perhaps this thread should be moved to sci.space.smoking? Or maybe
talk.politics.space.smoking?

  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?"                               |
+----------------------205 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: paul.nimmo@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Paul Nimmo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:15:02 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au

Original to: Hangfore@Spf.Trw.Com
Hi all, now someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but, isn't the fundamentl
problem with sending waste to the sun the energy requirements? If my
schoolboy physics memory serves me correctly it would take more energy to
toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar
system. this being true it certainly does *not* present itself as a fesible
alternative.
see ya, paul.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World -Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
Xref: sparky sci.space:13974 alt.conspiracy:10959
From: bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:44:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


Was that for real? 

[as in, was it serious; I *know* the content was a fairy tale]

How sad for people who live their lives in constant fear like that.
-- 
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |       bafta@cats.ucsc.edu
     ------> shari brooks <-------       |       bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu
                             All opinions are my own.