HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: spacesuits
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:51:02 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep11.021458.21788@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> coopride@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Amy L. Cooprider) writes:
>Does anyone know the latest figures for how much a spacesuit weighs??
>I`ve heard of figures between 150 and 300 pounds.  This is somewhat trivial...
>I only need the values to compute the payload of a vehicle for my senior 
>design course.

That depends on which suit you mean: The current Shuttle suit masses
131 kg. The Apollo lunar suit massed 100 kg. The suit designs for
the space station would mass 189 to 250 kg (depending on which design
were used, and on the entire project having funding...) I was involved
in a study of space suits for use on Mars, and we set a target mass
of 44 kg (due to the martian gravity, this was to make a Mars suit
no heavier, on Mars, than the Apollo suits were on the Moon.) Meeting
the 44kg goal should be possible, but requires fairly radical departures
from the current suit design philosophy.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:09:20 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> In article <1992Sep10.135754.1491@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
> writes:
>+> ... Pluto is *a long way away*; to get there in under a decade, the probe
>+> has to be fast.  Killing all that velocity is inordinately expensive in
>+> mass.
>+ 
>+ Aerobrake?
> 
> In what? :-)  Pluto does have an atmosphere of sorts at the moment, but I'd
> guess it's too thin to do much aerobraking in, even if we knew its properties
> well enough to plan an aerobraking mission, which we don't.

Would it be possible to aerobrake at Uranus or Neptune, perhaps also using the
atmosphere to change trajectory significantly?  This would provide a fast
flight for much of the journey and have the remaining part at a speed slow
enough for aerobraking in Pluto's atmosphere, or at least a much slower pass by
Pluto.  It would also allow a mission at Uranus or Neptune.

I can see lots of problems with this, but sometimes wild ideas are workable.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: new name for NASA?
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:25:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep13.014825.10331@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>> ... North American Space Agency.
>
>'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea.  Since we have a 
>North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine
>our efforts in space as well.

The main problem with this would be the "elephant among the chickens"
syndrome.  The other North American nations aren't going to buy into
a "combined effort" where the US makes all the decisions, while the
US is not going to be interested in a "one nation, one vote" policy
unless the budget shares are also equal, which the others can't afford.

Canada actually has already figured out what it wants to do about this:
it is an associate member of the European Space Agency ("associate"
because only European nations can be full members).
-- 
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: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:13:12 GMT

Ian Taylor writes:

> My understanding is that our current knowledge about Pluto is minimal, is it
> established that Pluto even has an atmosphere?

Absolutely.  The 1988 stellar occultation experiment is the evidence.  Check
out Elliot et al. in, if I remember correctly, the first 1989 issue of Icarus.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options Part II: The Silly Season
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:14:10 GMT

higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:


>>pgf: 
>> Lithobrake!

>Believe it or not, this has actually been proposed for the Moon, I
>think by Kraft Ehricke.  See his "Lunar Slide Lander" proposals, in
>early-80s *Acta Astronautica*, among other places.

It's been done before on the moon, we just don't get radio signals
back very well afterward ;-) (Ranger probes)...

Heck, Lithobreaking has been done time and time again on Earth.
By a variety of airborne vehicles. It's a time-honored way of
stopping a flying vehicle, although it's helpful if everyone jumps
out of it first (and aerobrakes)...

>Moira Higgins on entertainment:      Bill Higgins
>"The effects on the new              Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
>*Star Trek* make the old one         Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
>look like a Sixties TV show!"        Bitnet:   HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET

Yah, but the new one doesn't have anyone with pointy ears.

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:41:36 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
-Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars
-Date: 10 Sep 92 06:58:13 GMT
-Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

-roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
-> It's probably harder than you think. The main challenge on Mars is not
-> necessarily the scarcity of water (though that is a major problem), but
-> finding a location where they can get the energy to support life processes
-> without being killed by the UV in the sunlight or the reducing soil that
-> destroys organic matter.

-Does it destroy _all_ organic material (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen material),
-or is there a molecule that can convert UV photons to chemical energy without
-being destroyed?  Even if no organic molecule could manage that, there are
-other possibilities.  What of a microorganism (similar to Terran types) that
-fills a silicone or silica bubble with inorganic chemicals that can be split to
-form useful chemical energy (H2 and O2, for example)?  It could shove the
-bubbles above the sand, while the body is deep below, connected by silicone
-tubes.

I believe that portion of the discussion involved a search for terrestrial
organisms that could live on Mars unmodified. I believe the Viking tests
found *no* organic material, and they should have found some from meteorite
impacts.

-The entire organism could be underground, using silica fibres to the surface as
-light pipes.  I think some Terran life forms use something like this (there are
-plants that use light pipes).

There's a desert plant (related to cactus, I think) that's mainly underground,
with a transparent upper coating to let light through. However, in that case,
I'm pretty sure the transparent coating is living tissue.

-Limiting your thoughts to Terran organic processes leaves out a _lot_ of
-possibilities.

Like I said, designing new organisms that are capable of living on Mars 
should be done only with great caution and advance planning. (Remember the
fire ant, European mussels, African bees, gypsy moth, dandelion, etc.) Maybe
with a little modification, we could set up a stable kudzu / fire ant
ecosystem on Mars. Of course, we'd have to make them a lot tougher than they
are now, and we'd probably want to test them on Earth by releasing them into
the environment. :-)  :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Storage of Lunar Orbiter data
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:32:14 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
-Date: 5 Sep 92 13:24:10 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

-As a side note, most of the data from lunar probes, and some probes of
-other bodies, lies rusting away on reels of magnetic tape that no current
-machine can read in some musty warehouse. The most cost effective way to
-do lunar scientific research would be to mine that warehouse first before
-launching more probes.

The Lunar Orbiter data was also recorded on film as it came in, and assuming
a good choice of film, it could last for centuries. Dennis Wingo has access
to a copy.

Also, I believe there's been an ongoing project to convert old magnetic
tape storage to optical format. As I recall, it is thought that *some* of the
CD-ROM media will last for a century or more. There was a discussion of this
topic on sci.space several months ago, but I don't remember the details.
[Do the new SPACE Digest archives include the sci.space messages from the
months when SPACE Digest was down?]

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:28:24 GMT

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

A fairly legitimate attack on NASA's return to the moon program.

>Those expecting a lunar base out of NASA's proposed "return to the
>moon" are in for a big disappointment, according to a recent Aviation
>Week article.  It describes FLO, which stands for "First Lunar
>Operations", apparently because it repeats in form and function
>our first lunar operations, Apollo.

[stuff deleted]

Included in a list of criticisms was:

>  The space suits would be designed 
>from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS.

Nick, talk to _anyone_ who know's what they're talking about and you'll see
that new suits are high on the list of required technology for the Moon.  
Both the astronauts and the suits suffered significant wear and tear on the 
Moon.  They (both the suits and the wearers) just plain wouldn't last 45 days.
-- 
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a 
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: RL-10
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:55:56 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep11.172322.2177@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <9209111320.AA13915@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>>-Neither.  The recent failures have been Centaur problems.  They're a bit
>>-surprising, since the RL10 has been a very reliable engine.
>
>>RL-10 failures? What does that do to Allen's statistics for the reliability
>>of the engine to be used for DCX?
>
>Even with the failures it's still extreemly reliable. However, it is not
>a problem because in both cases the problem was that the engine failed
>to fire, not go boom. So all DCX need is enough engines for an engine
>out capability (which it has).
>
>  Allen

On Atlas' first flight, June 11, 1957, it went boom. On Atlas-Centaur's
first flight, May 8, 1962 the Centaur went boom. The next to last Centaur
went boom on a March 26, 1987 launch attempt. The last Atlas-Centaur
was so badly damaged on the pad while technicians were trying to repair
a stubborn leak in the Centaur that it was scrapped. In between, the 
Ranger and Surveyor programs were delayed by numerous problems with the 
Centaur. And the Centaur was replaced by the PAM or IUS designs for all 
Shuttle launches since the Centaur was considered too dangerous to fly 
on the Shuttle.

Titan first flew February 6, 1959 and they still go boom occasionally.
Three of five 34D's failed. Since 1960, 12 Delta boosters have gone boom. 
These 30 year old designs have not had stellar success records.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.space:12534 sci.astro:9545
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Galileo Update - 09/08/92
Keywords: Galileo, JPL
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:36:16 GMT
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109.  TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011


                     GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                        September 8, 1992

     The Galileo spacecraft is almost 107 million kilometers
(66.5 million miles) from Earth.  It is just three months until
the second Earth gravity assist, when the spacecraft will gain
enough energy to fly to Jupiter, arriving just three years later.
It is now almost 230 million kilometers (143 million miles) from
the Sun, and its speed in orbit is 24.4 kilometers per second or
54,640 miles per hour.

     Galileo is operating normally, transmitting coded telemetry
at 40 bits per second.  Today and tomorrow, the flight team are
conducting a diagnostic test of the antenna-deployment mechanism,
in preparation for activities planned for January to try to free
the stuck ribs of the high-gain antenna.

     This week's test will involve two pulses, separated by a
day-long warming period.  A similar operation was carried out in
July, when the spacecraft was farther from the Sun, and therefore
somewhat cooler.  Today, the antenna motor region is estimated to
be about -13 degrees Celsius (8.6 Fahrenheit); tomorrow, after
the warming, it is expected to be about +8 Celsius (46 F).  The
engineers are studying temperature effects on the operation; in
January, conditions will be nearly the warmest, believed most
favorable for releasing the ribs.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:42:32 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder) writes:

>two days ago I read an article on the topic of Mars in the german
>magazine 'GEO'; they talked about some of the planned missions to
>our neighbour planet and mentioned that there were still some
>dreamers at NASA that actually intended to transform Mars.

>I'd say, forget about that. Even a manned mission to Mars would cost
>*at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher).
>Terraforming is a nice SF idea and sounds like an easy thing to
>do, but IMHO we don't know enough about the involved systems
>to even think about changing a planet. It's stupid, will cost
>too much (NASA will not be given the money for 'Big Tickets' in the
>next years) and belongs to SF.

If you look back in the postings some you will find that
I made a suggestion for cheaply testing a cheap method
of terraforming. And it doesn't even belong in SF.

If you would like, I could repost it.
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: African culture, demographics (was Terraforming)
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:07:39 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

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

>Josh:

>Much of african tribal culture is based on a very stable extended  
>family. The cost of an extra child, in or out of wedlock, is not very  
>high for the child bearer. On the other hand, the increased number of  
>children is seen as a means of security in old age.

I would agree with that to an extent.  However, figures I have seen (admitedly
not from unbiased sources and not ones I can find and cite here) suggest that 
large numbers of third world women would happily have fewer children if that 
were an option.  Granted "fewer children" may mean five instead of eight, but
I think you get my point.

>I seriously doubt it will go as far as the "four horsemen", but they  
>are always there to "concentrate the mind most wonderfully". There is  
>really not much the outside world can do except keep up a gentle  
>pressure to assist those on the inside who are attempting to change  
>ancient ways of thinking. 

Agreed.  IMHO, we need to help those who are moving in the right direction.  
Since the mid 80's under Reagan, America has stopped giving any aid to the UN
agency that deals with population because they were upset about the Chinese
using abortions as a method of population control. I think we should be taking
a moderate approach, rather than "forcing Africans at gunpoint.." which was a
caricature from the laissez faire side of my point of view or the "someone will
solve it before it becomes a problem - let's go have a beer" view that the 
laissez faire side seems to have.

> Although I find this discussion quite interesting, I think it  
>is getting a bit far afield...

Agreed :)  I'm done.  I suggest anyone who wants to continue should move to 
another newsgroup or take it to e-mail.


-- 
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a 
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener   
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:24:50 GMT

Tom A Baker writes:

> Could you clarify whether this craft is supposed to just flyby (a la
> Voyager) or is truly a Pluto "orbiter"?  From the discussion, it does
> sound like a 'quick encounter' mission, which also makes more sense
> from a budgetary standpoint.

Although an orbiter has been discussed, the current mission design calls
for only a flyby.  To go into orbit, you need to travel more slowly,
thus flight times are longer.  And you need to carry more fuel, which
impacts the size of the instrument payload.  All kinds of tradeoffs.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: overpopulation
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:47:30 GMT

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>In article <BuH76x.DL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>>>The trick is technological and economic development, not forcing
>>>Africans at gunpoint not to have babies.
>>
>>Coments like this blow me out of the water. Yes, making everyone a first world
>>citizen is the long term solution, but you can cut growth drastically without
>>using guns.  Contraception is _not_ available in Africa.  A very large 
>>percentage of women would prefer to have fewer children if that was an option.

><chuckle>. Some very BROAD statements. Which part of Africa do you refer? There
>are some countries which are quite "civilized." Why, they even have running
>water and color TV in the cities! 

Read my post.  I didn't say squat about being "civilized," I said first world.
If you think the majority of Africa is first world, that would explain why 
we're having so much trouble with this.

>Furthermore, the traditional Third-World family has more children because it's
>the only "resource" it can produce. More hands means more workers. And more of
>a chance for someone to take care of you when old age comes along. Less chance
>of having your whole family wiped out by disease or starvation.

Re-read my post - or perhaps it was in a different one.  I didn't say anything
about bringing third world families down to 1.5 kids per.  I said _decrease_.
In some countries, having an _average_ of 7 kids per family would be an 
improvement.

>>Given that population growth negates much of the progress made by foreign aid
>>shouldn't we be encouraging family planning rather than giving out short term
>>help?  

>We are. Both Planned Parenthood and the World Health Organization have programs
>to get family planning information out to "poor" countries. No big secret. It's
>been done since the '70s, with varying results. 

Unless you know something I don't, the US government does not knowingly give 
out money to help lower the population overseas.  Please note I would happily
be educated by any further info you have on this.        

Unless you have any further objections, I suggest we take this to e-mail or the
appropriate group.

-- 
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when 
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu         miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener   
Xref: sparky sci.space:12898 sci.aeronautics:1991