HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Propulsion questions
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:58:07 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

ott@astroatc.UUCP (Michael Ott) writes:

> Just exactly how do you store antimatter?  I would think perhaps magnetically
> suspended in a vaccuum, but can "vaccuum-enough" vaccuums be created?

Sure.  Pump out most of the air, then spray in some antimatter to remove the
rest of the air molecules.  :-)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Xref: sparky sci.space:11041 sci.astro:8531
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Relativity in science fiction
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:32:13 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <9207250444.AA14607@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>"With the neutralization of inertia it was discovered that there is no limit
>whatever to the velocity of inertialess matter..."
>
>That's from Galactic Patrol, which was copyrighted in 1937 and 1950 (this
>comment may have been added at the later date). (I believe this was the
>first book written, though it's the third of the series.)

Galactic Patrol, Gray Lensman, Second Stage Lensman, and Children of the
Lens are the Lensman book, singular -- conceived as a single plot line
and written in four pieces for practical reasons.  The later add-ons
are inferior; even CotL, written somewhat later than the other three,
shows signs of loss of enthusiasm.

Hmm, drat.  I think I've got the issues of Astounding that serialized
Galactic Patrol, but all my SF magazines are still packed away in the
wake of my move last fall.

>I've wondered about the chronology of the "negaspheres" (first appearing
>in the series in 1951, and apparently equivalent to antimatter black
>holes) ...

They showed up in Gray Lensman, which was serialized starting in 1939
I believe.  They weren't black holes -- just antimatter, which Smith
imbued with some with very odd properties.  (For one thing, they had
negative mass.)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:39:16 GMT
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 <rwallace.712193120@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:

>A better explanation might be that the whalers trained the killer whales
>to do this, in the same way that humans can train dogs to help them hunt
>on land. Killer whales can certainly be trained to do the sort of things
>that dogs can be trained to do.

Oh?  We may not have translations of whatever records or lore whales
keep, but we certainly have plenty of diaries and records of whaling
expeditions.  I assume you can produce extracts that show whalers
training killer whales the same way we train dogs?  No?  Then your
"better explanation" sounds like the neo-nazi propaganda that explains
away the gas chambers in the Nazi concentration camps as delousing stations, 
not places for killing Jews.




















>--
>"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
>Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
>rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
Xref: sparky sci.space:10871 sci.astro:8404
From: murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Inverse Ephemeris (time as a function of position) Wanted
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:01:34 GMT
Organization: Applications Software II, MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario,
	Canada
In-reply-to: rmm@ariane.ipac.caltech.edu's message of 27 Jul 92 19:06:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.190630.15531@cco.caltech.edu> rmm@ariane.ipac.caltech.edu (Mike Melnyk) writes:

   I am in need of an inverse ephemeris for the sun. That is, I am
   looking for function that returns the time of year, given the position
   of the sun in geocentric ecliptic coordinates and a year of interest
   (e.g., 1994).

   This function only need be accurate to 1' from 1994 - 2000. 

   Yes, yes, I know that I can use a true solar ephemeris (e.g.,
   Van Flandern and Pulkkinen's formulae) to iteratively solve for
   the time of year, but I'd rather not take the time to write and test
   the code if an inverse ephemeris exists. 
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Mike Melnyk                                         rmm@ipac.caltech.edu
   Infrared Processing and Analysis Center             
   JPL/Caltech

Does this imply JPL is investigating Nostradamus? :-)

seriously (before wolf flames me for not being so ;-) ...

Elwood Downey's most excellent (and free) ephem program will do not only
this, but also return all those composite conjunctions and separations
which Michel d'Notradame was so fond of (if only he'd had a PC in 1557!)

I don't know where exactly to find them, but an archie server should be
asked to look for ephem (I think the current version is 4.13) or xephem
if you can compile for X11/Motif (I can't :-( )

I've posted this in addition to mailing it, just in case NASA and NRAO
are also looking into Nostradamus' Aug 12, 1999 predictions :-)

--
Gary Lawrence Murphy - Gary.Murphy@software.mitel.COM - (613) 592-2122 x3709
          In this very moment - what is there lacking? -- Hakuin
From: annis@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (James Annis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:57:43 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

In article <a7327850@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> derek.wee@f820.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Derek Wee) writes:
>
>Anyone have any good arguments FOR the existence of extraterrestrial 
>intelligence?
>
	       11		         9
sure:	with 10   stars in our galaxy, 10  galaxies in the observable 
	universe, the odds of us being unique start at
	  20
	10  to 1 against. 

--

James Annis   			annis@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu     
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:50:25 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <rwallace.712328556@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any
>complex structure to fall together by accident is extremely improbable...

Try applying the same argument to crystals, or even atoms.  These things
may come together by accident, but they're found together because that's
the more stable state for them to be in.  Sure, it's improbable for complex
structures to come together all at once, but it doesn't happen that way --
complex stable structures evolve from simpler ones.  A crystal doesn't
form out of its component subatomic particles all at once.

There are still fuzzy spots in our understanding of the evolution of life,
but they're shrinking steadily.  Nothing that is *understood* about the
way it happened looks particularly unlikely.  The biggest question mark
at the moment is not the development of self-reproducing, evolving
molecules, but the development of the cell (which drastically speeds
up evolution, because then molecules not involved in producing better
machinery don't benefit from it).

We suspect the presence of extraterrestrial life, and extraterrestrial
intelligence, because nobody has come up with a compelling explanation
of why it is vanishingly unlikely.  Given the number of stars out there,
anything less is just quibbling over how frequently it occurs.
-- 
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,talk.politics.space
From: seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward)
Subject: Happy Birthday!
Reply-To: seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU
Organization: Surely you jest.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:43:28 GMT

According to my "Wonders of the Universe" calandar, on this day in 1958,
NASA was founded.

Happy Birthday NASA!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill Seward               |                                                 |
| SEWARD@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU | Pithy saying wanted.  Inquire within.           | 
| SEWARD@NCSUVAX.BITNET     |                                                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wsj@triton.wpd.sgi.com (Bill Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Star Trek Realism
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:55:39 GMT
Reply-To: wsj@wpd.sgi.com
Distribution: sci
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.165309.106551@cs.cmu.edu>, 18084TM@msu.edu (tom) writes:
|> As long as we're on the Star-Trek vs. reality thread, here's a question
|> that used to come up before my housemate Doug said "Shut up and just watch
|> the show!":   When the ship is streaming through space, stars moving past
|> at several per second, how is it that the ship is steadily lit from one
|> side?  What is the source for this light?  It's pretty bad when you aren't
|> even into the actual show, and it's already violating known principles :-)

Much as I enjoy Star Trek, this has always bugged me.  Another thing
which bugs me is the way stars stream rapidly past the ship when they're
traveling within the same star system.  AND the "whoosh" noise you hear
when they're showing the Enterprise (from the outside) cruising through
interstellar space.  AND the way the shuttles bank and turn as if they're
airplanes.  AND the fact that the Enterprise can accelerate at accelerations
which *must* be many multiples of one gravity, with no perceived acceleration
inside the ship, but a phaser hit knocks the crew out of their chairs.
AND...

-- 
Bill Johnson                    9U-530                   wsj@wpd.sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.                             Office:(415) 390-1440
Systems Software Technology Center                    Fax:(415) 969-2314
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: paulg@griffin.demon.co.uk ("Paul J. Gravestock")
Subject: Odds of Life 
Distribution: world
Organization: Where's the beach ?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:48:21 +0000


In article <ceS9ElO00WB6Egy2J_@andrew.cmu.edu> dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:

>But wait!  We've proven something that can't be proven.  And so God
>vanishes in a puff of logic (with apologies to D. Adams).
>
>Ergo, we aren't alive at all!  :P

Actually we are all figments of our imagination

B-)

Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Gravestock                  | email: paulg@griffin.demon.co.uk
Hertfordshire                       |        pgravestock@cix.compulink.co.uk
England                             |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:47:10 GMT

In article <BD.92Jul27092220@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>In article <BR1ioB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>>I'm disappointed in Clinton.  I thought he was just a national socialist.
>>I didn't realize he had gone all the way to being a communist.
>
>I'm a little confused...
>
>Clinton plans to cut a bunch of public money for NASP, SSTO, and "a few
>other launch systems" and this makes him a commie?  Jim, I'd love to hear 
>your line of reasoning.  Reagan's defense build-up was the largest 
>welfare program in history!
>
>I'm not saying I support Clinton's position (haven't read enough about it
>to know) but I am curious as to how cutting public spending makes one
>a communist.
>
>-- 
>    Brice Dowaliby         |    I may speak fluently, but 
>(bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu)  |    I don't speak for Fluent


Xref: sparky sci.space:10741 news.answers:2242
From: me@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:09:40 CST
Organization: system 6626 BBS, Winnipeg MB

ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com (Doug Davey) writes:

> Henry, your technical postings are probably the best things in sci.space.*.
> However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
> nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
> of political statements from the USAian election campaign.  If you have a
> technical reason why something a candidate proposes is a good or bad idea,
> fine.  However, a cross border political analysis is rude at best.  Thanks.
> Stop Canadian Imperialism!  Yankee Go Home! :-)
> 
> -- 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>   Doug Davey        ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com         bcr!iscp!ddavey
> 


 I think you'll find that most Canadains that keep up at all on world 
events are very well versed on the American campaign. Furthermore, I ask 
you if you made no comments on the effects of the political coup in the 
former U.S.S.R. on space developements.
 I take a great deal of interest in the campaign, as all Canadians 
should. After all 90% of us live within 2 hours of the boarder, the USA 
is our largest trading partner by far, and our economy is intertwined 
with it's. 
 If you think that a cross border political analysis is rude, then 
imagine my chagrin(spelling?) when I learned that American presidents 
send there campaign staffs and advisers to Canada to help the Canadian 
priministereal canadate of there preference get into power. 
 I think that when the most influencial power in the world's leader 
starts using phrases like "NEW WORLD ORDER" you can't blame us aliens for 
taking part in pre-election talks.

 Also, allow me to remind you that this is an _international_ newsgroup 
and I think anything brought up here is free for all to comment on.

Stop Candada Bashing!! End political protectionism!! ;-)

ME

;--- (Michael Ellis) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64
;E-mail: me@sys6626.bison.mb.ca
;system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8
From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Date: 22 Jul 92 08:00:44 GMT
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com

In <24766@dog.ee.lbl.gov> SCOTT I CHASE writes:
>Would you want something from a nearby star system to come here and
>accidentally reterraform Earth to their liking because they didn't notice
>we were here?
  Oh I dunno. There's not much difference between that, and being
obliterated to make way for an interstellar bypass ...
  I could die happy knowing that the aliens were being tormented by
their own versions of eco-nazis for destroying a peacful primitive
species .... :-)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk
                  voice/fax: 44-794-516038
Xref: sparky sci.space:10727 sci.astro:8286 news.answers:2228
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ET's, life in space
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:58:44 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

>>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any

Not accident.  Think in statistics.  Given umpteen billion gallons
of warm, super gunky sea, what are the possibilities that any one
group of amino acids could form self-replicating protiens...

They wouldn't even have to self-replicate, just affect each other.
If one set of reactions happened to get into some kind of positive
feedback....

Check out 'protien spheres' in some biology book, BTW.  It's not
that unusual for non-life to mimic life.  Also, remember that
protiens are building blocks, information, and catalysts in the
cell.  And yet the basis for protiens (amino acids) are really
easy to form, as the Miller experiment back in the 50's showed.

>>complex structure to fall together by accident is extremely improbable;
>>then it looks pretty much like the odds against life appearing on any
>>one planet could easily be more than 10^1000 to 1 against, and the
>>number of planets in the visible universe is only about 10^22.

>It seems patently obvious to me that all of this back-of-the-envelope
>estimation is just a waste of time.

Then you'd better get off this group right away! :-)

There has been observed, in the cold, rarified regions of space
between the stars, complex organic molecules, including stuff like
methane, cyanide, and formaldyhyde.  If these things can form with the
relatively few reactions that occur in cold, near vacuum environments,
and if the Miller experiment is proof that more complex organics need
only water and energy to form, then isn't it reasonable to conclude
that life is actually quite *probable* wherever there is liquid water?
Perhaps it doesn't require water, but only fluid, like in the atmosphere
of Jupiter, or the oceans of Titan?  Or the gas between the stars?

Even if it's only possible in water, how pessimistic does one have
to be to conclude that life is still rare?  How rare is a water-
bearing planet anyway?  Careful of the anthropic principles here.

'Course that still doesn't deal with the question about the value of
intelligence as a survival factor...maybe we should ask the whales :-)

-Tommy Mac                     .  "  Malcolm X:      +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .  You've seen the hat,  "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,  *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '  now catch the movie!           *
'-----------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: afwendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK)
Subject: Re: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Jul 1992 11:49 EST  

In article <1447@tnc.UUCP>, m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes...
> 
>If memory serves me correctly, a SF short story was written on this
>premise and was made into a show during the 'Golden Age' of radio.
> 
>I forget the author, but the title was "A Bucket of Air."

Don't know about the radio part, but Orson Scott Card wrote a short story 
about all this.

				wendy
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Visual acuity in microgravity
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:05:56 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Visual acuity in microgravity
-Date: 24 Jul 92 02:27:00 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

-In article <9207221207.AA29101@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
->Many of the astronauts wear glasses while in orbit. There are ongoing tests
->of changes in visual acuity in microgravity, but I don't know whether anything
->definitive has been found yet. I think the current theory is that fluid
->shift may have some influence on the shape of the eyeball, rather than direct
->gravitational distortion.

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

It ought to be fairly consistent from astronaut to astronaut, at least in
the general direction. If the eye gets longer or the lens gets thicker, the
astronauts will get more near-sighted. It the eye gets shorter or the lens
gets thinner, they'll be more far-sighted. 

With a good *range* of focus, you ought to get by correcting to 20-20, or
perhaps the lens diopters should be made a little more negative, since it's
harder for the eyes to adjust to near-sightedness.

I don't know what role astigmatism might play.

This is an ongoing field of study, with experiments on the recent Columbia
mission.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Whale killing for "science" -- so for what?
Keywords: Whales, whale killing
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:57:28 GMT

A side remark on sci.space, as the discussion swept over from sci.misc:
(Prof. Carl Sagan said similar things in COSMOS)

I assume that many of the readers here are deeply interested in SETI, 
extra-terrestrial life (in particular, intelligent), etc.. How can one hope
that there may be *any* useful (and peaceful) contact with ETI's if we
are not even able to peaceful co-existence with the other TI's (the whales) ?

Please, no flames here. The discussion should stay on sci.misc.
--
 Hartmut Frommert, LS Dehnen, Physics, | E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet>
 Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60,     |     or  <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 D-W-7750 Constance, Germany  | + SAVE THE WHALES ! BOYCOTT NORWAY !        +
 Phone: +49-(0)7531-88-3747   | + Whales R intelligent. Whale killers not.  +
+ Whale killing is murder. Eating whales is cannibalism. Eat whale killers. +
From: dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine)
Subject: Re: Galileo Antenna. What's left to try?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:31:49 GMT
Reply-To: dwl@watson.ibm.com 
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center

What's the time frame for the "Pulse Hammering?" I know it's after
the second Earth flyby, but how soon after? 


David W. Levine      -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
dwl@watson.ibm.com   -- (914) 784-7427 

My Opinions, IBM's hardware. -- 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wollman@sal.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:42:08 GMT

[note followups!]

In article <1992Jul28.143654.17945@walter.bellcore.com> ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com writes:
>However, I would respectfully ask that those who neither pay the taxes
>nor vote in the elections kindly refrain from posting politcal analyses
>of political statements from the USAian election campaign.

While I agree in principle with what Doug is saying here, I would like
to come to Henry's defense in that at least he is *aware* of what is
going on around here; I suspect that most USAnians---even smart ones
like the kind that tend to post to sci.space---would be hard pressed
to name what Brian Mulrooney, Jean Chr{\'e}tien, Audrey McLaughlin,
and Preston Manning have in common(*).  And I would submit that, with
reference to space exploration and development, the next president of
the United States will have quite a bit more effect than the next
Prime Minister of Canada.

Besides, now that Templeton has moved to California, who else will we
have to pick on?  :-)

-GAWollman


(*)They are the leaders of the four largest political parties in
Canada (Conservative [governing], Liberal, New Democratic, and Reform,
respectively).


-- 
   Garrett A. Wollman  = wollman@emba.uvm.edu = UVM is welcome to my opinions
                       =    uvm-gen!wollman   =
   That's what being alive is all about.  No deity, no higher goal
   exists, than to bring joy to another person.    - Elf Sternberg
Newsgroups: sci.space