HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moon Capture Theory
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:02:22 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BxzJA1.412.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
>Of course, while everyone is discussing cheaper or better ways to colonize
>the moon, why not discuss cheaper and better ways to answer these questions
>about lunar composition?  Seems to me that spending $$ to design a lunar
>colony (as I understand NASA did/is doing) without knowing what's available
>is the ultimate 'putting-your-eggs-in-one-basket'.

Better than discussing it, go visit your Congressthing and ask him to
support Griffin's attempts to get low-cost unmanned lunar-science missions
into the NASA budget.  Griffin, at least, is fully aware of the need to do
better geochemical surveys of the Moon before anything more ambitious...
but he can't get any *funding* for it.

By the way, NASA is not even thinking about a lunar *colony*, much less
planning one, although they are interested in lunar bases.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Moon Capture Theory
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:57:18 GMT

Tom (18084TM@msu.edu) wrote:
> 
> >I seem to remember some theory a while back that the moon was actually
> >*captured* by Earth at some stage (I think it was about 800 million
> >years ago), which also has corollaries in some of the very early
> >human legends. That would lead to the assumption that the moon would
> 
> This seems a rather shaky theory on first look.  For the Earth to capture
> something the size of the moon, and yet stay in the same orbit, and a
> nearly circular one at that, seems highly unlikely.  I could imagine a
> 
> Has anyone heard of a fleshing-out of this theory?  Does it use simulations,
> of is it based just on legends, or what?
> 
This is more from that 70's pulp book about the Hollow Moon, NASA's
conspiracy to hide the true nature of the Apollo missions etc. etc.
The book quotes legends as saying 'long ago, before there was a Moon' and
things like that.  Since the Moon was supposed to be a self-propelled
starship. the usual capture issues didn't apply.

800 million years is a bit further into the Dreamtime than most legend
hunters like to go.....

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: NASA Select
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:11:23 GMT

In article <141117.2B0C1FA4@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Mike.Ditto@p0.f240.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Ditto) writes:
>Hi, all!
>
>        I live in the Denver Metropolitan Area, and I'm a subscriber of TCI 
>cable.  TCI does not carry NASA Select TV full time, or even just during 
>launches.  How can we, as patrons of this huge cable TV provider, convice 
>them to replace one of their plethora of unused channels or preview guide 
>channels with this educational network?  If you have any suggestions, please 
>let me know.

The only real way is to convince enough subscribers that it's a good
idea and then start a letter writing campaign.  That's not even guarrenteed
since the cable companies have a monopoly for all practical purposes
and don't always respond public demand.

You could luck out though.  Here in Houston, most of the cable companies
I've used either carried it full time or only during shuttle flights.
The closer to Clear Lake you get, the more likely you are to receive it.

The only certain way to get it is to buy a dish.  First, I need a backyard.


--
====
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:27:26 GMT

> On a related topic (your informative background on Delta Clipper) this
> sounds like an excellent idea, but I'm nervous about it. Having grown up
> in the Cape Canaveral area, and seen my share of boosters blow up or go
> tumbling into the Atlantic, the idea of a powered descent and vertical
> landing gives me the willies... I sure hope that thing has plenty of
> redundancy... rocket engines have a way of conking out at innopportune
> times.
> 


Absolutely correct. And so do 747's. They make one *HELL* of a mess when they  
come down on an apartment block. Too 747's don't go straight up and down so  
they'd keep the incredible destruction of an accident inside the bounds of the  
airport. (Tongue in cheek, but barely...)

Lets face it. The fuel load of a modern jumbo (and the superjumbo's they are  
talking about in Europe) is not significantly different from a DC-1. Because  
of the VTVL the DC-1 is probably less of a hazard to people than an airliner.  
Accidents usually happen at take off and landing. Both of these will be much  
more within the confines of the airport than airliners.

BTW... Did the pictures of the Isreali crash into an apartment block get shown  
on the air over in the US (and the rest of the world) as much as here? Anyone  
heard outcries to allow 747's to only take off and land over water?
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Challenger Legal Action?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 17:36:12 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: b1230bmac9.larc.nasa.gov

I recall an interview that Roger Boisjoly (the whistle-blower) gave. He 
said that he himself had  filled charges against Morton Thiokol's 
management (US$1,000,000,000.00) for letting  the Shuttle  fly. I saw 
this piece of information in only one source and, since then, I never 
heard of the outcome of this action. I do not recall right now the 
name of the book that I read this interview (it was a compilation of 
articles published in the press about the space program) but if  you 
follow up I may try to dig it out for you. BTW  I never could cross 
check this info in other publications to make sure  this was true or 
not. 

Claudio O. Egalon


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:27:59 GMT

> 
> >> It would take decades
> >>of concentrated work to build a Lunar array after permanent manned presence
> >>is established on the Moon, if the array is to be constructed from native
> >>materials.

Meanwhile while we argue about possible paths to take, we forget to do even the  
most basic research to prove anyside of the argument.  As I see it all this  
bickering is useless unless we have some real data about water at the poles,  
more general composition or regolith etc... Why argue when we have yet to fully  
understand what we are arguing about.

And then they are the Japanase who quietly spend a little amount on money on  
research that they know will not pan out for years(decades) if at all.  Then at  
the end of that period if it works they come right back and sell it to us.   
(Can you say LCDs ?)

What is wrong with some basic research to really find out what we need.  Having  
any reality checks either way is pointless.

Oh, one last note...  Saying any thing will take decades assumes a relatively  
constant technological base.  Say you predict that making a power beaming  
station on the moon will take 40 years.  40 years is a long time for technology  
to grow.  By the year 20 technology could have changed so much that the next 20  
years might be shortend to only 10.  The point is once you get above durations  
of 10 years everything has a very large error to it.  IMHO, of course.


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space suit research?
Organization: UDSI
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:13:22 GMT

In article <BxsAGu.919@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <BxqsoH.MBq@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>What's the big push for a earth normal type atmosphere?
>>apollo, etc, ran fine on low pressure pure O2,  does better pressure 
>>greatly improve cooling.  or are there long term bio effects????
>
>The cooling issue is a serious one.  Apollo didn't have that concern --
>since doing an EVA required depressurizing the entire cabin, air-cooled
>equipment could not be used at all.  This was okay, more or less, for
>Apollo, but simply isn't appropriate for a laboratory environment:
>air cooling is by *far* the easiest way to cool electronics, and the
>cost of the hardware goes way up without it.
>
>And yes, there is some concern about possible long-term biological
>effects, although there is little firm knowledge.
>-- 

I still dont understand?  Are there any times the shuttle would undergo a
planned cabin depress?  What i was wondering is why have the shuttle run at 14PSI  
earth normal atmosphere?   if the shuttle ran on a mostly O2 atmosphere at
3-4 PSI  wouldnt all the pre breathe stuff become irrelevant?
Couldnt the equipment in the shuttle handle a low pressure atmosphere?
sure, it wouldnt cool as efficiently as 14 pSI, but larger fans should
cover the gap??????
	cant you air cool even if the air is a little thin?  i know jet aircraf
seem to manage wven with a crappy thin atmosphere at 100,000 ft.

ALSO in apollo were EVA's part of the planned mission?  sure on lunar landing,
but what about in flight for the command and service module.  were they
recovering sample panels or was this just emergency plans?

pat
From: back@paul.rutgers.edu (Steven Back)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Looking form information about Martin Marietta
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:15:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I'm looking for information about Martin Marietta, especially the type
of computers they us for.
   1: CAD and space craft design
   2: "Normal" information processing (payroll systems, inventory
systems)
   3: Space Craft check-out stations.
   4: Ground Systems
   5: Technical wordprocessing. 
   6: Do they have internet access or are they on a private net.
   
What would be especially usefull would be some contact names of system
administrators at their various sites.

Thanks
Stevn Back
back@paul.rutgers.edu
sback@ew0400.astro.ge.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: skoester@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott A Koester)
Subject: ISU
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:15:06 GMT

   I am highly interested in obtaining information about the International 
Space University, anyone know who I can contact and where? Valid email 
addresses would work also.  Give me responses in email please, i would greatly 
appreciate it. Thanks everyone....



Scott Koester
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: wharvey@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (Wayne Harvey)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 02:02:07 GMT

ins866n@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (D.A. Svendsen) writes:

>Joseph Versagg (joev@sioux.eel.ufl.edu) wrote:

><stuff deleted>
>: 
>: Also, to answer Nicks anti-lunar base stance: if you buy the theory, any of 
>: them, that the moon was part of the earth, or was formed with it in the early solar system, then there is no reason that both bodies are composed of the same elements in similar quantities. Read: it has signifigant amounts of Si, Fe, C,
>: O etc. Is it mineable? Well we won't know until we get there(personally or through probes).
>: 

I seem to remember some theory a while back that the moon was actually 
*captured* by Earth at some stage (I think it was about 800 million
years ago), which also has corollaries in some of the very early
human legends. That would lead to the assumption that the moon would
be of a different composition than Earth, with possibly greater concentrations
of elements (mineable (sp?) quantities). This would change the picture 
somewhat, when you assume that the only mineral explorations done on
the lunar surface were conducted in the equivalent of the Sahara.

Cheers.





-- 
+________________________________+ 'Life is long, and love is          _______+
|  Wayne Harvey                  | Always over in the morning'                |
|  wharvey@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au   |       The Sisters of Mercy.                |
|________________________________|____________________________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: ...and another golden oldie...
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:48:13 GMT

Begin article:

The most recent number I have heard for the marginal cost of a shuttle
flight is $50M, but I don't think this includes an adequate allowance for
the ground support. To round up for inflation, and to be generally
conservative, assume that the actual marginal cost to a private user would
be about $80M.

I have seen first cut designs for a passenger module for the shuttle that
would pack about 60 people in like sardines. In addition to being
technically doubtful, that kind of arrangement would significantly reduce
the market for some kinds of travel (vacation in particular). If you allow
a reasonable amount of room for support equipment, a bar, and the like, a
passenger capacity of 20 is probably believable, which would yield a per
person cost of #$2M.

This, of course, doesn't take into account the purchase of the passenger
module, much less it's development cost. I guess my vacation in space will
just have to wait a few years.

TCS

End article.

Comments: at last, someone with a .signature. And a solid number
for space shuttle costs... NOT!

Although to quote an old song, I wish I didn't know now what I
didn't know then...

pgf





-- 
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
From: hwt@bcarh11a.BNR.CA (Henry Troup)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: astronauts voting
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:16:07 GMT
Reply-To: Henry.Troup@BNR.CA
Distribution: world
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <VANDER.92Nov10135705@vancouver.stars.flab.Fujitsu.co.jp>,
vander@flab.fujitsu.co.jp (Mike van der Velden) writes:
|>the other hand, if you are a Canadian citizen living abroad there is
|>no mechanism in place by which you can cast an absentee ballot in the
|>American sense of the word.

The issue is the rather esoteric one of 'legal residence'.  This has a
lot to do with what income taxes you pay.  I read that Marc Garneau that
managed to establish a polling station in Houston for the Canadian Space
Agency types.  I suspect that this was possible under the same rules as
Canadian troops overseas - they're in the employ of the Canadian
government and maintain legal residence in Canada, regardless of
physical location.
                                          
Henry Troup - H.Troup@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
	     Only eleven more shopping days 'till St. Andrew's Day!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Ada on SSF
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:48:54 GMT


-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
-Date: 14 Nov 92 14:34:54 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

->From article <1992Nov12.044348.827@ke4zv.uucp>, by gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman):
->> Military COBOL and Intel processors, FRED IS DOOMED. :-) :-)

-I called Ada military COBOL because it's almost as wordy. Actually I
-like Ada and have coded some serious applications in it. It's C++ with
-an attitude. :-)

A recently-read anecdote:

A contractor, assigned to program a military system, applied for and was
granted the usual waiver to write the code in assembly language rather than
Ada. When the job was nearly complete, a higher-up decided that there was
insufficient justification and cancelled the waiver, so the contractor had
to go back and write the code in Ada.

To the great surprise of the contractor, not only was the Ada version much
quicker and easier to write than the assembly version, but the resulting
machine language was more compact *and* ran faster!

One might almost speculate that Ada compilers have been improving in the last
few years, and that some of the old Ada jokes are not as relevant as they
once were.

(Now, if they could only figure out how to program the Difference Engine
in Ada! :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: matthews@ecfa.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael C. Matthews)
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
Reply-To: matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA/JSC Engineering Computation Facility
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:14:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.164440.2394@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>
>     The technology described in the article copied below could be used to
>power spacecraft, space colonies, etc.:
>          
>            
>                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
>    [blah, blah, blah...]
>
>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think THIS is the REAL KEY to this ARTICLE.  BS physics, indeed.


--
Mike Matthews, ex-Tether Dude +------------->   matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
"Had the Shuttle on a String"  \_ Now accepting NeXTMail via KlugeNet(TM)!
Lockheed-ESC                  |  
Houston, TX                   |          *** WILL HACK FOR FOOD ***
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: GFH101@URIACC.URI.EDU (Paul Klinkman)
Subject: Laser Divergence
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:37:37 GMT


Hi.  I look in from time to time.

I'm looking for information about interstellar lasers.  They sound like a
great idea.  My question is: what keeps the laser beam from diverging
over long distances?

A carbon dioxide laser in a physics lab has a 1/4 inch beam when it leaves
the laser and a one inch or two inch spotlight on the far wall.

Can I make the following assumptions?:

1.  The divergence of the beam is inversely related to the square of
the beam width, at any certain distance.

2.  The divergence of the beam is somehow related to the wavelength.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Paul Klinkman
Scavenger of arcania.
From: back@paul.rutgers.edu (Steven Back)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: GE Aerospace status?
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:14:35 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


There have been a large number of rumors running around about a
change in the status of GE Aerospace.

So what's the real story?

Thanks
Steven Back
back@paul.rutgers.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Space suit research?
Organization: UDSI
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:04:46 GMT

In article <Bxw1zD.8K7@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <BxuEEB.1ow@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>cant you air cool even if the air is a little thin?  i know jet aircraf
>>seem to manage wven with a crappy thin atmosphere at 100,000 ft.
>
>You can air-cool even if the air is a little thin, but 3psi isn't a little
>thin, it's a lot thin.  Nobody air-cools at 100,000ft; there's hardly any
>air left at that altitude.  (Nobody much flies at 100,000ft either; half
>that is a more typical ceiling, and a lot of military avionics is not
>air-cooled.)
>

Okay.  I know commercial jets routinely push 40,000 ft, maybe a bit more.
the cabins are usually only pressurised to 10 PSI. and they use air cooling
on lots of stuff.  they also have gear in unpressurised bays that seem
to cope.  Military jets run up to 70,000 ft and over 100,000 on special
trajectories, but if they dont use air cooling then that would explain it.
I think the blackbirds cruise at 100,000 but then they are not run of the mill.
Actually could a blackbird pilot get astronauts wings?  on some sort of ballistic shot????

>>ALSO in apollo were EVA's part of the planned mission? 
>
>Yes, both on early flights for testing, and on the later lunar missions
>for recovery of film canisters from the SM survey-equipment bay.  Not to
>mention a zillion contingency procedures that required that electronics
>continue to function despite EVAs or pressure loss for other reasons.
>-- 

i thought they needed to get something out of the SM on the trip home.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: labmas@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Andersson)
Subject: Re: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:02:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.144441.5498@col.hp.com> dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser) writes:
>> The same thing is happening, much more slowly, to the earth --
>> friction with the tides and within the "solid" earth is slowing the
>> rotation rate by something on the order of 1 sec every century. We can
>> actually measure it (the slowdown) nowadays. Love those atomic clocks!
>
>Do you know if that rate is constant?  Say around 63M years ago,
>around the time of the end of the dinosaurs, the day would have
>been 175 hrs longer!


No.  If the rotation is slowing, then days used to be shorter.
Xref: sparky sci.space:16097 sci.astro:12187