HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Whales and Dolphins
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:58:11 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <9208081935.AA29109@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>Reread what I posted. Humans take calculated risks, and sometimes there
>are mistakes in the calculations. 

Reread what I posted.  There are many people whose job is to save other
people's lives *regardless* of the risk to their own.

Suppose, for example, the President of United States, or one of his
family, was kidnapped by a foreign power.  Do you believe that the
United States government would not try to rescue him if it believed
more than one soldier would die in the attempt?


>Whales that beach themselves entirely seldom if ever survive (though on 
>the "R-rated Gory Animal Videos" series commercials on television, they 
>show a killer whale getting its head out on the beach to chomp a sea lion). 

Nope.  Not true.  Not even close.  Killer whales have been known to
deliberately wash schools of fish up onto the beach, then beach themselves
to snatch up the helpless, flopping fish, and roll back into the water.
They have been observed and photographed doing this.  You aren't proving
that whales aren't intelligent.  You're simply showing how little you
know about whales.


>If whales have anything akin to human intelligence, and if they have a 
>community that communicates and passes down lore, then they must realize 
>that if they beach themselves, they're going to die, 

If humans have anything akin to intelligence, and if they have a 
community that communicates and passes down lore, then they must 
realize that if they beach themselves, they're going to be exposed
to dangerous levels of UV radiation, contract skin cancer and die.
Ergo, humans cannot be intelligent.
 

>If what the whales do is deliberate suicide, it's even less akin to normal
>human behavior. 

Of course. One human being may voluntarily expose himself to
dangerous levels of UV radiation at the beach, but certainly
his entire family wouldn't follow, would they?  If one human 
is out drinking with his buddies, gets drunk and jumps into 
his car, his friends aren't going to pile in with him, are they?
Nah, that could never happen, could it?



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: waelder@navaho.uucp (25612-waelder)
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 12:40:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.063842.2065@nntp.uoregon.edu>, dcutter@oregon.uoregon.edu (dann cutter) writes:
> Could anybody out there please tell me the current status of the private
> space industry world wide. What comapnies exist... what they have done...
> thanks
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> Dann Cutter  Stellar Enterprises /
> dcutter@oregon.uoregon.edu

I would also appreciate this info. It would be good to know
what markets & competition exists.

I personally don't consider NASA to be in a position to
compete with anyone. :-)

Thanks

Stephen Waelder
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Early Warning of missiles and meteo
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:34:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Aug19.153426.29551
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <1469100010@igc.apc.org>, Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:

>Meteoroids also travel faster than ballistic missiles -- tens of
>km/sec compared to up to 7 for missiles, at least until they get
>vey low in the atmosphere and are below the radar fan -- so
>theradar won't have as much time to look.  The United States has a
>PAVE PAWS radar in Georgia for warning of SLBM attack, which I
>think had a good chance of seeing a meteoroid off Daytona Beach.

I don't even know if they run PAVE PAWS 24 hours/day x 7 days/week anymore.
Budget cuts and our friends the Russians' ya know...

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:32:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.225903.5705@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>The DoD is constitutionally forbiden to run under allocations lasing more
>>than two years and they rarely get them. Yet they build $100 billion
>>aircraft carriers and other hardware.

>Yes, and the cost overruns are truly horrendous. 

When done according to government SOP that is true but not when companies
put their own money at risk (like the ATF development) things tend to happen
on time and on budget.

But you are missing the point. Many government agencies routinely make
multi-year commitments even though you insist that Congress will never
support it.

>Name *one* major military procurement that
>proceeded on a fixed price basis with *no* adjustments. 

The ATF prototype
LACE
RME
DC-X

I also know of a large number of other programs which where on time and
on budget but I don't know what type of contract they where. They include:

HARM
all paveway procurements I know of
a number of avionics projects I worked on
several radar systems my former employer worked on

>Congress is
>notorious for "stretching out" procurement in a way that saves money
>this year, but adds horrible extra costs in the "out years" if the
>full procurement ever is actually filled.

Not a problem here since I'm not asking the government to spend anything
for development. You still seem to have problems understanding that.

>NASA can't legally sign a binding procurement contract that promises to 
>buy X launches for Y dollars from Z corporation over multi-year periods. 

Nonsense. They do it all the time. In fact, they are legally required
to operate this way.

Now what they do lack is termination laibility. However that was passed
by the full house last week.

    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?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Organisation: European Space Technology Centre (E.S.T.E.C)
Date: Friday, 14 Aug 1992 09:14:45 CET
From: Hugh D.R. Evans <HEVANS@ESTEC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Interstellar Probes - How Fast Can We Go?

In article <1992Aug13.203637.1@abo.fi>, mlindroos@abo.fi says:
>
--- stuff deleted ---
>My question is, how fast can we go? Wouldn't it make more sense to send a
>ion-propulsion probe towards the Sun first to obtain a gravitational boost
>(OK, I know the problems of isolating it from the heat (5000-6000K) and
>radiation near perihelion must be enormous)?

Nahh, just send it at night!   :-) :-).

Hugh.

   Standard Disclaimer...    * Inet:   hevans@estwm8.dnet.estec.esa.nl
                             *     or  hevans@estec.esa.nl
"The road to nowhere is      * SPAN:   ESTCS1::HEVANS
    shorter than you think"  * BITNET: HEVANS@ESTEC
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NASA Small business program
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:38:38 GMT
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.

On 22 Aug 92 20:14:05 GMT, EDW@cup.portal.com (Edward D Wright) said:

Ed> Initial [SBIR] grants are reported to be in the $50k range.

To be more precise, Phase I SBIRs may not exceed $50,000.  Phase II
SBIRs may not exceed $500,000.  

--
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: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:22:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BtADBF.8q3.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> "(according to the U.S. General Accounting Office) 138,490  
Americans 

> have been killed or wounded over the last 10 years by gun-wielding 

> _children_ under _six_ years of age."   Definitely Just Not Worth  
It.  

> 


I find the above figures highly questionable. That is 14K/year. The  
number of gun accidents, murders and everything else if probably not  
much larger than that. This looks more like the total figure due to  
all caueses. (This probably doesn't belong here, so I will leave me  
response at this.)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 14:46:19 GMT

In article <16eqs1INNb5k@early-bird.think.com> moravec@Think.COM (Hans Moravec) writes:
>
>The latest and greatest version of carbon fiber is Buckytubes!
>Like graphite but rolled up forming a teeny, tiny soda straw.
>No loose edges or ends (the ends are capped with a half Buckyball).
>I've read lengths of about a centimeter have been produced,
>grown on a charged sphere (radiating out like hair on a van de Graf
>generator, only much, much thinner)

So what's the volume of a Hubble buckytube ? :-)


-- 
||)) Dump the Whatzit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 !  )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What about Saturn?/Future not Past
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:50:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Aug20.173536.21955@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.014256.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>
>higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>> This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than magnetic
>> confinment fusion devices would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
>> actually built for the first time in the 50's.
>Surely you're joking, Mr. Higgins. Magnetic confinement fusion devices
>don't work so great, in the early '90s!

He didn't say they *worked* in the 50's, just that they were *built* in the
50's; I think this is in fact correct.  

Actually, they *work* just fine, in the sense of creating magnetic fields that
can (briefly) contain fusion reactions.  They just don't work well enough to
be produce more power than they use.

   Robert
From: dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Seeding Mars with life
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:16:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.153858.24328@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:

|> >|> You don't know that, and, in fact, nobody else does either. There is
|> >|> strong evidence that there exists abundant water supplies within the 
|> >|> Martian regolith.
|> >
|> >There exists abundant water of hydration, and ice, probably.  But *not*
|> >liquid water anywhere near the surface.  The pressure is simply too low.
|> 
|> I contend that the subsurface of Mars is as much on Mars as the surface is
|> and that if water exists there in liquid form, then liquid water exists on 
|> Mars, which you said was impossible.


Oh, good grief.  I said "on Mars".  Not "in Mars".


|> >Life exists at depth on earth only because it also exists at the surface.
|> 
|> I think you've suggested a cause an effect that most biologists would
|> disagree with.

Name one?



|> >Soil organisms decompose organic compounds produced by photosynthesis.
|> 
|> Photosynthesis isn't required for all life. Not all life forms consume 
|> products of photosynthesis. Deep ocean vent tube worms are one example.
|> 
|> >Deep organisms that eat oil run on fossil photosynthetic energy.
|> >Even the "vent" organisms are exploiting the chemical gradient set up
|> >by photosynthesis (they oxidize the reduced chemicals coming out of the
|> >vents), and are therefore not completely geothermally powered.
|> 
|> The do not comsume photosythesized materials. (at least according to National
|> Geographic...)


Perhaps you had better get your biological information from
a different source, then.  Oxygen is a photosynthesized material,
you know.  If all photosynthesizing organisms on Earth were
to be killed, the tube worms would die out when the
atmosphere's oxygen was depleted (which would take a few million years)
or when the oceans became anoxic.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Mehrtens_T@msm.cdx.mot.com
Subject: Re: Persied Shower
Organization: Motorola_Codex
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:53:25 GMT

I was looking at the sky last evening, and I noticed that a bright star (like
the North star) was moving!  It was "travelling" from north to south, approx.
75 degrees across the horizon, at 10:25 p.m. EST in Massachusettes, at a speed
faster than our intercontinental jumbo jets.  It dimmed, and faded from view,
before it reached the center of the sky and never reappeared.  I wonder if this
was the soviet spacestation?  I remember, as a teenager, viewing our
spacestation (which travelled at a slower rate as viewed from the ground.) and
ours may have been brighter.

Hmmmm.  Just thinking...
"insert disclaimers here"
Tom Mehrtens <Mehrtens_T@msm.cdx.mot.com> Motorola Codex
 ////\\
  _  _
 (o)(o)
   .)
 )-_-(


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn)
Subject: Re: Germans drop European Shuttle ?
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, Germany
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:08:46 GMT

<RFLOOD@ESOC.BITNET> writes:

>Whilst skimming thru the TV channels last week, I caught sight of the
>German research minister, Riesenhuber, saying that Hermes was 'unacceptable'
>(not exact translation) to the German government in either manned or unmanned
>form.

The chances that Germany will further support development of an european
manned space system are very low at the moment. The German reunification
has been and is still VERY expensive (you can't remove the consequences of
40 years socialistic economy in a few months :-) and so several high cost/
low spin off projects like Hermes and the Eurofighter 90 have been shut down
or will be.

Markus

-- 
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -=-=- University of Erlangen, Germany
Internet: mskuhn@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de  |  X.500 entry available
------------------ ISO?  Nicht immer. Aber immer fter! -------------------
Xref: sparky sci.space:11758 sci.space.shuttle:2091
From: tking@eng.auburn.edu (Thomas L. King)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Tethered Satellite
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:37:57 GMT
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Te: Thu Aug 13 13:22:56 CDT 1992

Everything I've read about the tethered satellite's electric generation
capacity has been that it will be able to generate up to 4000 volts.  This
in itself doesn't tell me very much.  Has anyone heard how much POWER it
will generate (or how much current will be generated)?  In addition, does
anyone know the current carrying capacity of the tether?  I can't imagine
any significant amount of current flowing through a wire as thin as a
"bootlace".  And one last wonder of mine:  how will the heat generated
by the current be dissipated in space without an atmosphere?

Any answers (or attempted explinations) will be appreciated.


Lee King
tking@eng.auburn.edu
From: moravec@Think.COM (Hans Moravec)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:22:41 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: turing.think.com

In article <1992Aug13.210449.29829@pixel.kodak.com>, dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
|> >
|> I don't remember diamond featuring as tether material.  However, since
|> it is (theoretically) a single-molecule solid, the answer is
|> (theoretically) yes.  What weakens diamond (and metals, other crystals
|> etc.) is the existence of defects in the structure, where the regular
|> patterns of interatomic bonds are disrupted.  These defects act as
|> focus points for stress, and propagate themselves under that stress,
|> so most crystalline materials are much much (I forget how many orders
|> of magnitude) weaker than you'd expect if you did a theoretical
|> calculation based on the strengths of the bonds.

Thin fibers have lower probability of defects, so get stronger
per cross section as they get thinner (also more flexible).

Graphite fibers are stronger than diamond in 2 directions
(two out of three ain't bad!)
Graphite fibers with over 50% of the theoretical strength
have been grown several millimeters in length.  (Plenty
strong for Earth skyhooks, but not enough of them).

The latest and greatest version of carbon fiber is Buckytubes!
Like graphite but rolled up forming a teeny, tiny soda straw.
No loose edges or ends (the ends are capped with a half Buckyball).
I've read lengths of about a centimeter have been produced,
grown on a charged sphere (radiating out like hair on a van de Graf
generator, only much, much thinner)
From: jw7348@norway.medtronic.com (Jeff Wilkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:19:07 GMT
Organization: Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN

In article <12AUG199210574228@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov> bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert S. Hill) writes:

>>>|> Please forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is a parsec?
>>>|> Richard.
>> A star with a parallax of 'p' arc seconds is at a distance
>> 'd' parsecs, given by  d=1/p (accurate up to distances of about 30pc).
>> One parsec equals  30.857x10**12 km, 206265 astronomical units, and
>> 3.2616 light-years.
>
>Fun facts:  206265 is also the number of arcsec in a radian

Actually, its not so astounding, I think. The definition of a parsec
that I learned, is that it is the length of the "opposite" side of a
right triangle whose base is 1 AU, and whose included angle is 89
degrees 59' 59" (that is, its other angle is 1 arcsecond). So the
number of AU above is a natural consequence (tan 89-59-59 = 
1 parsec / 1 AU).


There is nothing wrong with making        | Jeff Wilkinson at Medtronic
.signatures, but... make *new* ones! :-)  | wilk@medtronic.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Organization: Carp Systems International, Kanata, ON
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:41:35 GMT

In article <10319@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <ZOWIE.92Aug12004854@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>>
>>This talk of parsecs and so forth reminds me of my favorite volumetric unit:
>>the barn megaparsec.
>>
>>A barn is a unit of atomic cross-section, 10^-20 cm^2.  A barn megaparsec is
>>about 1.6 teaspoons!
>
>Cute, but I have always preferred the Hubble-barn.  Granted, the exact 
>value of the Hubble constant is not exactly agreed upon, but I like 
>the fact that if you multiply the size of the universe (one uses the 
>Hubble length, obviously) by 1 barn you get something like 16 liters. 
>My notes are scribbled in the back of "Gravitation", which is at work, 
>but memory says that a Hubble-barn is the volume of a straw that has an 
>opening the size of the nucleus of silver and reaches to the edge of 
>the universe.  BTW, a barn is 10^{-24} cm^2 -- 1 fm^2 = 10 mb.

I don't know about that definition, but I'd like to see the question
from this year's SIN (Sir Isaac Newton) Contest put up here.  Anybody
from Waterloo in a mood to put it up?  We were asked to figure out what
the conversion from carats/(barn*yard) to metric was...it was sort of 
cute, and the first I'd ever heard of the barn.
Richard.  =) Thanks for the interest, and the explanations!
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:48:51 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL


>In article <5969.409.uupcb@matrix.sbs.com>, george.gassaway@matrix.sbs.com (George Gassaway)  writes:
>> If "Estes" rocekts are not enough for you folk, try some of the
>> commercially made larger rocket motors. Notably, Aerotech, who makes
>> engines for consumers in the that go to E and F power. FAR more snesible
>> than making your own. I've been into this hobby for 22 years and know
>> better than to try to make up my own. Eventually, somebody gets injured
>> of killed making up their own stuff. Just not worth it!!!
>>

Even 'professionals' sometimes have accidents.  I recall Thiokol, who
makes the Solid Rocket Motors for the Space Shuttle having a fire
in one of their casting pits that wiped out the building it was
in.  The casting pit is where you mix and pour the solid fuel, far
away from any humans, in Utah.

Dani Eder

-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:17:32 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, +1 515 226 2156

george.gassaway@matrix.sbs.com (George Gassaway)  writes:

> If "Estes" rocekts are not enough for you folk, try some of the
> commercially made larger rocket motors. Notably, Aerotech, who makes
> engines for consumers in the that go to E and F power. FAR more snesible
> than making your own. I've been into this hobby for 22 years and know
> better than to try to make up my own. Eventually, somebody gets injured
> of killed making up their own stuff. Just not worth it!!!
>                                                                              


George,

        Every day I commute to work.  I see at least one accident 
on the way every day.  I know that there is a good chance that 
someday I could be one of those killed in a serious auto accident. 
I probably could say "it is just not worth it" and go on welfare, 
but I keep driving my inherently dangerous automobile, each and 
every day.  I hope I have made my point...............sq

(is it more dangerous to mix fuel and stuff it into an engine, or 
is it more dangerous to store the finished product in your home- 
be it homemade engines or commercially available engines.  As soon 
as oxidizer meets fuel, you have a combustable solid- and is 
dangerous from that point, until the rocket is launched and the 
fuel consumed.  I just don't see what everyone is so uptight 
about.  Homemade engines CAN be safe, and if you don't feel you 
are engineer enough to design your own nozzles or tubes, simply 
COPY the commercial engine design!  A special level of pride goes 
with the knowledge that you made the WHOLE rocket, engine 
included.  How can you have any pride in your work knowing someone 
ELSE made the primary propulsion device?  Say, there are people 
like you and me at Estes making thousands of engines every day.  
If they were to go home and make engines in their basement, would 
THEY be considered dangerous?  Hmmm?)
Newsgroups: sci.space