HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:39:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Oct7.053942.18738
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <wb9omc.718307893@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu> wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:
>MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET (Mike M. Skala) writes:
>
>>citing from my memory ACCs memory of a WvB comment:
>>"No, I didn't know what went on in the concentration camps.
>> But I suspected and I could have used my position to find out.
>> I didn't do this, and I'm deeply ashamed."
>
>	Of course, there are also those who would say that the firestorms
>created by the incendiary bombings of Cologne and Dresden were totally
>unnecessary and were in themselves, criminal acts...and that they weren't
>justified simply because we won the war, either.

I think that the fact that warfare is "played" by rules at all is itself
an immoral act. Warfare is sometimes necessary, but it is never a game.
The only valid rule is win. Bomber Harris was convinced his tactics would
win. If he were just acting out of a spiteful desire to kill women and
children, then his actions could be considered criminal. As it is, the
worst we can say with 20/20 hindsight is that his tactics were ineffective.

>	Had Von Braun attempted to use any influence to noodle with the
>concentration camps in any way, he'd have quite possibly ended up there
>himself.  Herr Schicklegruber was notorious for having only a limited
>amount of patience with folks who disagreed with what he was doing.  :-)

It takes a rare individual to stand up alone and say no when he knows it 
means his death. Such heroism is to be admired, but people who don't measure
up to that standard don't deserve to be condemned by anyone who has not
been in their shoes. They merely have to be considered ordinary humans
acting the way ordinary humans act. If it can be shown that Von Braun
deliberately, as a matter of policy, worked slave labor to death as a
method of killing them, then his actions should be considered criminal.
If instead he employed slave laborers because he was required to do so,
and didn't try to deliberately abuse them, he was indeed "only following
orders." That defense was denied at Nurenburg, but it wouldn't be the
first time a court rendered a decision contrary to human nature. Holding
everyone to a standard of conduct that few can achieve is foolish idealism,
bad precedent, and bad law.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.space:14232 sci.astro:10530
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: SETI positive?
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:56:50 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <SHAFER.92Oct7174541@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov>, shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
|> 
|> Dan>    I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that 
|> Dan> our lackwit bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a
|> Dan> potential hit on a SETI search and a multi-telescope confimation
|> Dan> is planned Oct 12-???
|> 
|> Dan>    Any information?
|> 
|> Yes.  The message was "Send more Chuck Berry!"


  I heard it was,"Got your message. Hold on, help on the way!"



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell, MO NAV)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Observer orbit
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:32:49 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <BvH5ou.M0o@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1992Oct02.002723.21094@news.mentorg.com> drickel@sjc.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel) writes:
> >I was wondering about that.  Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars is about nine
> >months (the CRC says between 230 and 280 days).  Mars Observer is taking
> >11 months...
> 
> Don't forget that transit time to Mars varies somewhat because its orbit
> is very noticeably elliptical.  You cannot, repeat *cannot*, get useful
> results for Earth-Mars trajectories based on assuming circular orbits.
> 
> A further note is that Mars Observer mission planning wants to minimize,
> not energy to reach Mars's *orbit* (which is what a Hohmann trajectory
> would give you, ignoring the noncircularities), but energy to reach an
> orbit around Mars itself.  They care about arrival velocity, in other
> words, and might well choose a superficially-suboptimal orbit because
> they gain more from lower arrival velocity than they lose from greater
> energy requirements for the interplanetary trajectory.

Exactly.  Well-put.  Actually, it will go slightly outside Mars' orbit,
then swing back in a little.  For more insight consider that its orbit
plane will be around 5 pm solar time when it arrives, making 70-80 deg
between the Sun and the orbit plane (coming in exactly tangent would be
90 degrees).

The non-Hohmann-ness is also because the window extended for 24 days; some
of these required large velocity changes (~100 m/s) in interplanetary cruise
to get to Mars.  Sometimes it was out-of-plane, sometimes not.

 
*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Cosmic strings
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:50:22 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct13.210959.25929@mcs.drexel.edu>, jsmith@mcs.drexel.edu (Justin Smith) writes:
> 
> Are any cosmic strings known (or believed) to exist?

No, there are no cosmic strings known to exist. The discovery of one would be a
momentous achievement and would revolutionise cosmology, astronomy and much of
theoretical physics.

The is one possible object (or rather association of objetcs) which has been
suggested to be a cosmic string. This is a series of 'double galaxies' which
may be gravitationally lensed pairs strung along the string. Paper in Ap J Lett
by Esther Hu and Len Cowie a couple of years ago. No one really believes in
this, and I think redshift measurements may have since ruled it out.

There may still be a number of searches looking for strings based on similar
associations currently underway.

The best way to see if strings exist at the moment os to see what their effect
on galaxy formation and large scale structure were in the early universe, and
this is all tied up with cosmological models etc etc. Chances of a resolution
to these problems in the near future are not great IMO. 


Dave

--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw)
Subject: Chemically Reacting Air
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 00:19:17 GMT

I'm trying to model the flow of high temperature air.......
I need to calculate the heat of formation of: N2 O2 N O NO NO+ e-
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anyone know what to do ??? References ????

--
Ron Fedkiw (rfedkiw@joshua.math.ucla.edu)

A plan is made by someone who is sitting and thinking ...
while others are doing.
From: Energy and Climate Information Exch <ecixdy@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:15 PDT
Subject: Climate Data Shutdown?
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1469100024:000:991
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecixdy    Oct 13 19:15:00 1992


For those of you who do not follow issues regarding global climate
change there has been a major uproar on net lists devoted to
these topics due to reports that NASA plans to shut down some or
all orbiting instrument platforms which gather climate data.

I am writing an article on this issue for publication and would
appreciate pointers to any official or unoffical sources of
information on the exact nature of the proposed shutdown and,
more importantly, what it would mean for climate scientists.

* -------------------------------------------------------------
* Dan Yurman              |  Internet:  ecixdy@igc.apc.org
* Climate Digest Editor   |    Bitnet:  ecixdy%igc.org@stanford
* Econet Energy & Climate |  MCI Mail:  364-1277
* Information Exchange    |       Map:  43N28 112W02 -7 GMT
* -------------------------------------------------------------
* Pony Express  >>>  PO Box 1569, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83403 USA
                                                                

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jtk@s1.gov (Jordin Kare)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:27:53 GMT

In article <komarimf.718477945@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:
>
>That shouldn't be a problem.  The sun's gravity will pull it towards the
>sun, saving energy.

Sigh.  Presumably the waste is wearing heavy boots :-)

  The problem is getting the radioactive crap into
>space.  If one of these rockets blows up, there will be mucho radiation
>all over the place and the world will soon be glowing in the dark.

Sigh.  An unprotected Russian reactor with a substantial waste burden
reentered a few years back over Canada.  As far as I know, Canada only
glows in the dark when there's a good auroral display...

>
>-Mark
>
>P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like dumping it
>in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else.

Except that in the ocean, it can come back to haunt you.  Once it's
on a solar escape trajectory, it's _gone_.  "But what" you ask "about
the alien beings around distant stars??"  Well, given the velocities
waste packages would have (at most a few km/s once they're far from the sun;
why waste energy beyond what it takes to make sure they don't come back)
the travel times are of order 10^6 years.  The aliens may wonder why we;re
sending them blocks of lead, but that's all...
>--
>- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu

Why do we bother....

	Jordin Kare

-- 

	Jordin Kare	jtk@s1.gov	510-426-0363
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:26:09 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <rabjab.10.718414104@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>>... it would take more energy to
>>toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar
>>system. 
>
>Actually, I think you can leave Earth orbit at less than solar
>system escape velocity, and perform a Jupiter gravity assist ...

Unfortunately, then each waste package needs to have propulsion and guidance
systems that will function until Jupiter encounter, and considerable ground
support is needed for navigation and control.  Launching them to solar escape
puts more demands on the launch system but greatly reduces complexity and
cost of the packages themselves.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.space:14335 sci.astro:10608 alt.sci.planetary:149
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Update - 10/09/92 (End of Mission)
Summary: how did it survive so long?
Keywords: Pioneer Venus
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:00:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: mailer.1992Oct11.150025.21970
Followup-To: sci.astro
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.

In article <1992Oct11.054006.22953@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>     October 6 - Pioneer Venus survived periapsis on orbit 5054, at an
>                 altitude of 130.8 km and a drag of 0.91 m/s.
>
>     October 7 - Pioneer Venus survived periapsis on orbit 5055,
>                 at an altitude of 128.9 km and a drag of 1.9 m/s.

 The estimated periapsis altitude of the final
>                 orbit was 128.0 km, and the final estimated drag was at
>                 2.5 m/s.


	Without starting a long thread for naive questions, could
someone explain how the spacecraft could have lasted so long
considering that generally those in LEO disappear around 180 km
where the number density (if I read the tables in Chamberlain
and Hunten's "Planetary Atmospheres" correctly) is about 10E10/cm^3,
whereas Venus appears to have nearly 10E12/cm^3 (of CO2) at 130 km?
Similar levels of those at Earth's 180 km would seem to be reached on
Venus near 150 km. Was it not near circular by this time?

	I would have thought that there would have been significant
and perhaps destructive heating sooner.

Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:26:09 GMT
Distribution: sci
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 <Bw0tC9.2xC.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

>Please use reasonable accounting practice when you state things like  
>this. Boeing and the 747 is a reasonable model of how to charge the  
>R&D and manufacturing facilities against N units of a product over a  
>long time period. 

Boeing is not the only model for "reasonable accounting practices."
It is not uncommon in the software industry for a company to develop
a custom software package for a single client, charge the entire 
development cost to that first client, then turn around and market 
the package with minimal modifications to the world at large. 

>BELIEVE ME. The second unit is NOT just the cost of bent metal.

Yes it is.  The cost he is talking is what economists call *marginal* 
cost.  The cost you are talking about is called *average* cost.  Both 
measurements are meaningful within particular contexts.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:21:32 GMT

prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>THe difference is that the designers didn't want it used.
>the chicago people were petitioning truman,  oppenheimer was drummed
>out for being weak on the h-bomb.  that is ethics.  they built the bomb
>for germany,  they didn't want it used on japan.  for dropping the bomb

As I stated in a semi-recent posting, there is some evidence that some of
the Peenemuende engineers, at least Wernher von Braun, did also NOT want
their A-4 experimental rocket to be used as mass produced V-2 weapon. As
I read long ago in a 60s book, they made some 65,000 modifications to delay
mass production.
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Xref: sparky sci.space:14306 talk.politics.space:1363
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: GMT of Sputnik 1 Launch?
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:55:22 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <roelle.718655445@uars_mag| roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
|Can someone look up the GMT of Sputnik 1's launch.  I was born on 
|October 3, 1957 at 19:35 CST.
|
|Although the official launch date is October 4, the local time in the 
|United States was likely October 3.  How many hours & minutes
|older/younger am I than Sputnik 1?  
|
|Curt roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu

I have 1957 October 4 at 19:10 UT for the launch time.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:27:10 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <9210120102.AA29644@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>Could you please make an estimate of the desired characteristics of such a
>device? I come across reports of some pretty spectacular electronic
>components from time to time, so it would be useful to know what to look
>for. I believe the fastest diode I ever read about could switch at about
>10^14 Hz, which sounds like it would be in the right ballpark for far
>infrared rectification, but I don't recall any of its other properties.

There are several factors that go into making a good high frequency
rectifier. It must have a very high front to back ratio. It's forward
resistance should be low. It's voltage threshold should be low. It's
junction capacitance must be very low. It's majority charge carriers
should have high mobility. And it must be capable of handling the
required current. 

Those are hard requirements to meet in one device. Note that switching
power supplies rarely exceed switch frequencies in the hundreds of
*kilohertz* because of these limitations. Basically, low junction
capacitance and high current handling are diametrically opposed
design constraints.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.space:14486 sci.astro:10819
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: HRMS/SETI Answers
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:31:27 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <NICKH.92Oct14173825@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct14.161418.5759@rcvie.co.at> se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor) writes:
|> 
|>    Why can't HRMS detect a current earth-like technology leakage at
|>    interstellar distances? Isn't this the most likely case?
|> 
|> Why is this the most likely case? We can't assign any probabilities to
|> levels of technology or power use by ETs. If we just look at human
|> history, we've been putting out _any_ signals for less than 100 years
|> and current levels for only a few decades. Any guesses on what powers
|> we'll be putting out (and at what frequencies) in 2092? 2992? 11992?

  There's aother aspect. Already we are seeing mass communication moving from
carrier wave systems to cable based delivery. In light of studies which
suggest links between long term exposure to radio waves and certain 
health problems in people living next to high powered transmitters, 
we may see a trend of actual reduction of total planetary radio wave 
output from Earth.

  That means that we might be searching for civilizations which are operating 
in the narrow time perod between discovery of the radio spectrum and
the move to discreet cable communications, when their radio "noise" would
vanish from the heavens.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  "The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall                 |
|  victims to a big lie than to a small one."                            |
|                                          --Adolf Hitler                |
|                                                                        |
|   "All men are potential rapists, and that's _all_ they are!"          |
|                                 -- Susan Brownmiller                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer info?
Organization: UDSI
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:19:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.193214.21355@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>
>Instruments:
>
>Gamma Ray Spectrometer; studies surface chemicals/composition
>Mars Observer Camera; photographs surface

>Thermal Emission Spectrometer; measures IR (I'm guessing primarily surface)
>Pressure Modulator Infrared Radiometer; measures the atmospheric emission
>Mars Observer Laser Altimeter; gives higher resolution topographical info
>Magnetometer/Electron Reflectometer; investigates Martian magnetic fields.
>
>
>The MOC (camera) has <*2* meter resolution! (loud gasp of amazement.) This will
>allow for detailed study of mass transport over the surface with seasonal 
>variations. (and some very impressive photos indeed.)
>


MO  is currently scheduled only to image mars.  i talked to some
planetary scientists who were hoping to wheedle some imaging time
to look at phobos and deimos.  if so,  what are some of the considerations.

i was thinking along the lines of:

	1)  what kind of resolution will they get?

	2) will they be able to image all sides.

	3)  would they be able to use the other instruments as well.

	4) what kind of impact will this have on spacecraft operations.
	i imagine MO is going to go into a sun synchonous polar orbit,
	so to get more uniform imaging and keep power levels uniform.
	would imaging the moonlets, eat up  thruster gas or impede
	solar collection?

just a few questions.

thanks
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Luna III images of the moon's farside
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:18:04 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

33 years ago, on Oct 7, 1959, Luna III, launched on the 4th
returned to earth the first images of the other side of the moon.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Laser Space Mirror
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:14:28 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <718606909snx@osea.demon.co.uk> andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>In article <BvrGs5.9q3.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>>The secret to opening the space frontier is to be found in plastic  
>>mounted bits of old satellites; pet moon rocks; committing ashes to  
>>the deep; asteroid desk sets (Ceres, Vesta, Pallas... Collect em!  
>>Trade em with your friends!); garbage disposal... and so forth.
>
>How err... very um.. well...  American! :-)
>
>Why not laser raster scan the clouds with MacDonalds adverts?   >cringe<

I've heard of a proposal to "paint" the Coke logo on the Moon. Using a
highly reflective "dust", say titanium dioxide smoke particles, sputtered
onto the surface by an electron beam from a lunar orbiting satellite.
The layer could be molecules thick since there's no wind or weather
to wash it off. The Moon's surface is actually very dark and the highly
reflective material should be visible even in daylight on Earth. It
shouldn't cost more than a couple year's worth of Coke's normal advertising
budget.

Gary