HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Where can shuttle be seen?
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:21:18 EST
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <1992Sep12.232914.1736@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>,
wheeler@ucbeh.san.uc.edu wrote:
> Since the orbit for this shuttle mission is inclined 57 degrees,
> it passes over many more people than most missions.  It would be
> very helpful if someone would predict the times/locations from
> which the shuttle might be seen.

Dan-

Look for an MS-DOS share-ware program called "TRAKSAT".  If you feed it the
latest "N2L" data found in other messages here, it will produce a listing
of visible passes over any one of the world's major cities.  You can update
the cities file to include yours, if it isn't already there.

Data in the printout can include azimuth and elevation at one minute
intervals, for the duration of each pass.  There are other options, making
this a first-class program!

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:45:27 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep4.143843.18127@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder) writes:
>I'd say, forget about that. Even a manned mission to Mars would cost
>*at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher).

According to a NASA politician, you mean.

There is no technical reason why it has to cost that much.  See Bob Zubrin's
"Mars direct" proposal for an example of a method that ought to cost about
a tenth that much, total, for the first ten missions.  If enough people prod
me, I'll type in my notes from his talk, although there was a good summary
paper about it a year or two ago in JBIS.
-- 
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
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Space Position
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:03:39 GMT
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.

On Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:48:35 GMT, mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) said:

MVP> In article <3SEP199210570592@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> aavso@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Tom Quesinberry) writes:
>Senator Al Gore chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Science,
>Technology, and Space...

MVP> How has he voted on the various attemts to scuttle DCX?

He probably hasn't had a chance to vote on it.  DC-X is a part of
the SDIO program and SDIO (Star Wars) is DOD.  The Subcommittee
is specifically non-military.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars)
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:04:55 GMT

jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:


>There's an exhibit of Soviet Hardware in St. Louis.  Has anyone seen it yet?
>Bill, would you like to join us on a trip?

Is there anyone down in this direction interested in going I could
possibly split costs with?


--
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?"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: SSTO has been achieved
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:10:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.211155.23609@cco.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>As the subject line says, a Single Stage ascent To Orbit has been

>But what about a martian SSTO?  I have seen several discussions 
>about the logistics of a manned (or even unmanned return) mars 
>mission, but I have never seen a proposal for how to achieve 
>mars orbit after the mission has ended.  How difficult will this be?

It should be quite straightforward to build an SSTO for 1/3 gravity.
We wouldn't want to do it any other way -- every tank we drop has to
come from Earth, a very expensive proposition.  Combinining a very
reusable Mars SSTO with native propellant reduces the ongoing costs of 
shuttling to and from Mars orbit by several orders of magnitude,
assuming a large market.  The same craft could be used to hop all over
the planet, greatly increasing mobility and exploration.

It would help if the Earth and Mars SSTO's used the same propellant
(CH4/LOX), but even an LH/LOX SSTO shouldn't be to hard to convert
to Martian CH4/LOX, given the relaxed constraints of Mars' gravity
well.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: LDO shuttle and pilot readiness
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:06:59 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

In article <BuBz3L.Jv@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.145946.13209@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>... It may be that Shuttle pilots *can't* 
>>function sufficiently well to land the Shuttle manually after two
>>months on orbit. In that case, Autoland is being developed to handle
>>the problem.
>
>Well, "developed" is a bit inaccurate.  The shuttle has theoretically
>had full autoland capability from day one.  In principle, the only
>things that require manual action are deploying the pitot probes and
>lowering the landing gear, both of which are manual-only because they
>are irreversible and could be fatal if done too early.  What is being
>worked on now is not development of autoland, but convincing the crews
>to actually *test* it.  All shuttle landings to date have been manual.

Yes, but isn't Autoland scheduled for test on STS-53 in November?  I remember
a blurb about it in AvWeek this summer and another in the Shuttle status
reports about a month ago.

Speaking of STS-53, is this mission classified?  STS-38 was launched two
years ago with much fanfare over its being the last classified Shuttle 
mission.  Then it STS-38 made an unscheduled landing in Florida (the first
in the post-51L era), and STS-53 was very quietly added to the manifest.
What's the deal?

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:50:40 GMT

> Here we are, with great difficulty even getting antennas to point  
in the
> correct direction and this guy suggests that we can throw jillions
> of tons of matter at a planet accurately. Yes indeed, really  
refreshing.
> 


A) We don't seem to have been having any trouble getting things to go  
where we want them, even with multiple fly bys.

B) Who cares where the antenna is pointing as long as the water hits  
the planet?

C) Who cares if a few percent miss?

D) This ain't 1992 that we are talking about The above comment is  
about as relevant as making a complaint in 1492 that horseshoes can't  
be made to survive a transcontinental trip across Eurasia...


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 21:18:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep11.074027.14938@rose.com> brad.thornborrow@rose.com (brad thornborrow) writes:
>Am I missing something,
> 
>        I havn't been following the entire conversation here, but it seems 
>to me everybody is missing the gravity problem.  Last time I checked, 
>Mars' gravity was not strong enough to keep oxygen molecules from escaping 
>into space over time.  So, even if one could start plant-life on Mars,  
>you'd have to have a heck of a lot of it to keep the oxygen from just 
>"floating away"!!!

The atmospheric pressure of Venus would seem to prove pretty conclusively
that it should be possible to maintain an atmosphere on Mars.
>
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lunar Orbiter
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:34:35 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
-Subject: New lunar spacecraft (WAS: With telepresence, who needs people 
- in Earth orbit?)
-Date: 6 Sep 92 01:36:07 GMT
-Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

-While old data sets often contain overlooked gems, for some questions,
-they will not help at all. The Lunar Orbiters did optical imaging from
-roughly equatorial orbits about the Moon; if you wanted to look for
-lunar water, you'd need a polar-orbiting spacecraft with infrared
-imaging and better, also spectroscopic instrumentation - not unlike
-what's going on the Mars Observer.

The Lunar Orbiters imaged nearly all of the lunar surface, including one
of the poles. However, the highest-resolution areas were all on the nearside
away from the poles, with the highest concentration along the equator.

As you point out, they didn't have the proper instruments to look for water ice.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:39:23 GMT

In article <pgf.716231156@srl02.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>More to the point: you wake up forty years from now and
>overnight, without warning, someone's gone ahead and dumped
>about a megaton or so of halon into the Martian atmosphere,
>and there seem to be all these lakes and oceans forming
>all over the place.
>
>Question: who owns the land?

'Tis called property rights.  There needs to be a legal regime where the
halon investors get to auction off the land to pay for the operation.
Commerce can and does invest in 40-year projects; cf. Chevron's investment
in drilling oil and natural gas in Siberia beyond 2030.

Another question: what happens to the astronauts huddling in capsules
at the "Mars Base", when the comet chunks start hitting and the 
ocean rises to ungulf their little SSF modules?

Should we warn them first?  :-)


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:06:24 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> You do not know there is no life on Mars or anywhere else other than Earth.
> I don't see the relevance of arguing over the label of 'back yard'.  I don't
> think as a society, or even a planet, we have yet learned how to manage our
> *own* planet, not even a *little*.  Because of this I don't think we are
> qualified to begin applying our ignorance to anther planet.
> 


As the joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto goes, when the Lone Ranger saw the  
indian war party on the hill, he turned to Tonto and said "We're in a heap  
o'trouble". To which Tonto replied: "What you mean, WE, white man?"

My response to the above, is "What you mean, WE, <insert favorite politically  
incorrect phrase here>?"

It is obvious this person will not be the one doing the terraforming. Now, at the  
moment this is all moot argument. But in about 50-100 years, my return question  
would be different and to the point:

	"And just HOW do you propose to stop me?"

Oh, by the way .... I expect to be quite well armed....

================================================================================
Give generously to the Betty Ford Home		amon@cs.qub.ac.uk
for the Politically Correct.			Belfast, Northern Ireland
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.095005.11445@rcvie.co.at> se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor) writes:
>I am curious as to where all this knowledge about Pluto's atmosphere freezing 
>out around 2015 came from? Perhaps someone can enlighten me with a reference?

There is methane, nitrogen and carbon dioxide showing in Pluto's
spectrum. At perihelion, the (estimated) temperature would give
these constituants a substantial vapor pressure (a few microbars), but
at aphihilion, the temperature would be low enough that they would 
(effectively) have no vapor pressure at all. This would suggest a
transient atmosphere around perihelion. (Sorry, on reference except
a seminar yesterday by Alan Stern, chairman of NASA's OPSWG.)

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

Yes: There was a stellar occultation in 1990 (? might have been 1989).
The gradual drop in the observed light not only demonstrated the
existance of an atmosphere, but also suggested some kind of structure
(odd density-temperature profile or a haze layer...)

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Terraforming needs to begin now
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:24:46 GMT

jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:

>On the wall of a nearby office is this neat picture of a planet with
>large amounts of liquid water, but large portions of the land mass is
>brown -- dry, relatively lifeless desert.  How about some ideas on how
>to terraform good old earth?  Starting with the Sahara or Austrailia's
>outback.

>I guess the hard part is getting fresh water to these regions.  Here's
>my wild, uneducated, naive silly idea for all ya'll to shoot holes in.
>There's tons of sand in these deserts.  You can use sand to make
>glass, so, use all this glass to make huge solar distillation systems.
>I'm envisioning long salt-water canals running from the Med. Sea, or
>Oceans running hundreds of miles inland.  Covering each canal is a
>greenhouse that heats the water up and makes it evaporate.  At the top
>of the greenhouse, the vapor is collected and cooled of, and the resulting
>distilled water is then pumped out into irrigation canals runing
>perpendicular to the salt-water canals.

This might work, and I believe something similar but but on a smaller scale and
using aquifers is being tried in Lybia.  The trouble is that big projects like
this are _big_ and expensive.  A cheaper way to do it is Chinas "green Great 
Wall" approach.  They are planting millions of plants in the northwest, and 
using sattelite imagery to pick the best spots.


>Yes, I'm an idiot, but tell me why.  Why won't it work?  What *would*
>work?



>--
>============================================================================
>Jeffrey Glen Jackson  _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
>jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com |     bust you up tonight."
>x5120                  | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
>                   ~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>	Politically, I am neither conservative nor liberal --
>		     I think for myself instead.
-- 
Josh Hopkins           "If you are sitting in an exit row and you cannot read
                       this card or cannot see well enough to follow these
		       instructions, please tell a crew member."
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu                       -United Airlines safety instructions
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:17:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <9209140841.AA24495@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>  Au contraire .. It very much _does_ matter what the reasons are. It
>is not possible to devise a long term solution to a problem, if you
>don't understand what the problem is, or are attempting to solve the
>wrong problem.

It is equally inadviseable to try and solve known problems incorrectly.
Most of subsaharan Africa is starving and only a small percentage of
the need is caused by war and political upheaval. In fact, much of the
politically motivated unrest is caused by the initial shortages of food.

Yes, Ethiopia has traditionally produced all of their food but not for the
sort of population densities that started driving the initial war and the
Marxist takeover. The same with Somolia. The people that say that it is the
war causing the food shortage are missing the point that before the war
the very best the population did was reach subsistance.

It is the lack of food and the drive for survival that is amplifying the
political strife in these regions.

How are we to produce surpluses after the cost of oil multiplies?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 23:24:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Followup-To: talk.politics.space

In article <1992Sep12.194702.23291@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>	... we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>	hostile to technology and research spending
>	and especially to projects involving
>	space exploration and astronomy.

Of particular note is that John Pike reportedly has major input to their
space positions and is likely to be head of the Space Council staff if
C/G are elected.  He basically opposes manned spaceflight and does not
believe that cheaper launch vehicles (e.g. SSTO) are possible.  Or so I
am told; those who get to vote in this election might wish to investigate
further if you care about the future of spaceflight.

Followups redirected to talk.politics.space.
-- 
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: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: SPS
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:38:54 GMT

In article <BuC1Ks.1L1@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Actually, you don't have to fool around with aluminum-oxygen (which is
>a hassle as a rocket fuel, because both the aluminum and the aluminum
>oxide are solids, where you'd really like liquid and gas respectively).
>Jordin Kare's latest laser-launcher design, the heat-exchanger rocket,
>needs liquid hydrogen for launch from Earth but would work well enough
>on liquid oxygen for a lunar launch.  You'd still have to do some of
>the same work on chamber/nozzle materials, I expect.

After you spent the $trillions needed to get the power plant, power
storage, laser, etc. for this launcher system to the moon.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:34:03 GMT

In article <pgf.716429224@srl02.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>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.

Wearing out isn't even the first problem: The Apollo suits, and the Shuttle
suits for that matter, used non-rechargable batteries and carbon-dioxied
scrubbers. I don't have the numbers for Apollo suits, but the Shuttle
suits go through about 1 kg of consumables/hour. A new suit design,
with extended use in mind, could cut this in half. (By the way, 1kg/hr
means 700-800 kg for a 45-day, 4-man mission with EVAs every other
day.) 400 kg of extra payload each mission is, alone, enough to justify
a new design.

>Check out _For All Mankind_ to see this. One of the main things standing
>between the astronaut and his ability to work in the space enviornment
>is the thing standing between him and his enviornment: his space suit.

The lower body mobility was especially poor: Bending over was almost
impossible.

>Anyone for skintights (that is, anyone besides Frank Crary, who
>almost predictably doesn't like them)?

I don't so much oppose the idea, as think _alot_ of research would
need to go into skintights before they are a safe alternative.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
Xref: sparky sci.space:13009 sci.astro:9724 alt.sci.planetary:29
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:10:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep15.232742.20898@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>As I understand it, Pluto's atmosphere freezes when it's farthest from the
>sun and then falls to the surface.  As it approaches the sun, the atmosphere
>then thaws out and "reforms".  I think it would be well worth the effort to
>send a probe to study this, since it's a phenomenon that doesn't occur 
>anywhere nearby.

Wonder if there would be "snow" storms when Pluto's atmosphere freezes out,
or would just form frozen "dew" on the surface.  Maybe both, as the gas
with the higher freezing point "snows" out before the gases with lower
freezing points condense out.  (Do I remember correctly that there are
more than one gas in Pluto's atmosphere?)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: brad.thornborrow@rose.com (brad thornborrow)
Subject: Re:Terraforming Mars
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:40:25 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 09-11-92 03:35
N.>The entire organism could be underground, using silica fibres to the s
N.>light pipes.  I think some Terran life forms use something like this (
N.>plants that use light pipes).
N.>
N.>Limiting your thoughts to Terran organic processes leaves out a _lot_ 
N.>possibilities.
N.>
N.>--
N.>
N.>Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
N.>

Am I missing something,
 
        I havn't been following the entire conversation here, but it seems 
to me everybody is missing the gravity problem.  Last time I checked, 
Mars' gravity was not strong enough to keep oxygen molecules from escaping 
into space over time.  So, even if one could start plant-life on Mars,  
you'd have to have a heck of a lot of it to keep the oxygen from just 
"floating away"!!!

More wood for the fire!!!
 
Brad T.


---
   WinQwk 2.0b#545   And God said: E =  mv  - Ze /r, and there was light!
   RoseMail 2.00 : Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363