HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: overpopulation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 14:45:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <BuH76x.DL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts) writes:
>Fine.  So it's their fault.  That makes everything OK.  
>
>I actually thought the post was reasonable, factually based and quite rational
>until I came to this line.
>
>>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! 

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.

>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. 

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Who went to Rio?
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:45:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <78993@ut-emx.uucp>, wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
> I'll make this brief. I just would like to know if any spaceflight advocacy
> groups like the L-5 Society or the Lunar Society made it to the Earth Summit
> in Rio last June. I was hoping someone tried to inject some other views on 
> saving the environment there (like moving some industry off Earth and getting
> resources from the asteroids, etc.) Just wondering.

To my knowledge, no.  I think I have a fair chance of having heard
about it if any such people had attended the Rio summit.

There does seem to be a sizable community of international users
interested in remote sensing from space and its application to
environmental problems.

At the moment, "moving some industry off Earth," as a method of
"saving the environment," must be viewed as pure science fiction. 
Industries which have been moved off Earth to some extent have
replaced microwave relay towers, submarine cables, radio navigation
transmitters, and reconnaissance aircraft, none of which contribute
much to the environmental strain humans place on our planet.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:15:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <r2vn#hj.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

> The atmospheric pressure of Venus would seem to prove pretty conclusively
> that it should be possible to maintain an atmosphere on Mars.

Why?  Venus is nearly as big as Earth.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct/ options
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.173253.1837@access.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
> 
> 
>I saw parts of the pluto direct flyby talk by staehle from JPL.
>they are talking of sending a 1-200 kg orbiter to pluto.
> 
>Did they consider using energia?  most of the charts I remember
>were using titan or delta class launchers?
> 
>I was thinking an energia would allow a bigger bird or possibility of
>more thrust to slow down the encounter.
> 
>Does anyone know if that's an idea, or do they want to hold costs down
>to $150 million?
>
I was also at Staehle's talk at the WSC and since I have some background
on this mission, I will attempt to describe it.

The plan is to send a pair of spacecraft to Pluto on a direct trajectory.
The mass of each craft is currently 164kg.  They are talking about launch
on either a Atlas or a Proton (the Atlas would allow a slightly higher
payload mass).  The current launch date is 1998, with an 8 year flight time
to Pluto.  Each craft will be able to carry out 4 primary science experiments:
Optical imaging using a CCD camera, UV spectroscopy, an IR payload and radio
science using the main antenna.  The mass allocation for the three instruments
is only a few kgs.  Power will be provided by an RTG.

This mission is an example of the new "cheaper, faster, better" attitude that
Goldin is trying to bring to NASA.  The budget is only $400M for the entire
mission, and they are real serious about sticking to that figure.  Getting
the craft off the ground in six years is much faster than other big projects
that NASA has undertaken in recent years (JPL is learning a hard lesson from 
CRAF/Cassini).  As for better, well that will have to wait until they get out
to Pluto to determine :-).  The primary drivers in the past were performance,
schedule, cost.  For this mission, these have been reversed, so that cost is
the primary consideration, and they are going to overlook a lot of potentially
interesting science in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of many other projects,
that just grew too big b/c everyone wanted a piece of the pie.  In addition,
Staehle is committed to bringing a large number of students into the project,
and primarily those students will come from local SEDS chapters here in LA.
(SEDS==Students for the Exploration and Development of Space).  Indeed, if
you had the chance to see the mockup of the flyby craft in the exhibition hall
(in the main NASA area in front), that was built by one of the members of
Caltech SEDS as his summer project.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
irwin@iago.caltech.edu                |
ih@deimos.caltech.edu                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Maximum Interplanetary Launch Velocity?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:21:45 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

Relative to the Earth, what is the highest velocity we
can currently boost to for interplanetary missions? - is
this significantly higher than typical orbit speeds?

Would a gravity assist from the Moon make much difference,
even if repeated?

Is the maximum speed likely to change drastically due to
improved technologies in the near future?

ObNote: Yes, I did check the FAQ and yes, I did interchange
"velocity" and "speed".
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant |  Would You Like Fries With That?                |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:41:21 GMT

In article <+7qn_q-.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>(I am reposting this at request)

>Of course it would be unethical to interfere with any life
>there may be already there.

"Of course?"  Has our civilization changed so much that this notion
is not only accepted, it is taken for granted?


-- 
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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPS
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:38:51 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <9209020213.AA15023@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>-... to develop less expensive
>-technologies for getting lunar material into space, such as
>-electromagnetic mass drivers and powdered aluminum/oxygen rockets.
>
>Ah, one of my favorites! Apparently a private company actually built a
>working aluminum-oxygen rocket last year...

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.

>important, because I think you get the best specific impulse with an excess
>of oxygen, and hot oxygen is bad for most metals.

Your exhaust velocity [specific impulse is exhaust velocity in bizarre
units] will go all to hell without that excess of oxygen, because the
combustion products of that reaction are *solid* at any reasonable
temperature.  To convert heat to jet velocity, you need hot *gas*.
So yes, such a system would have to run very oxygen-rich.
-- 
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: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:39:08 GMT

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

>There is also a serious technical problem with using electrical propulsion
>for this particular mission:  what's your power supply?  RTGs are too heavy
>for major power outputs, and solar doesn't work so well in that neighborhood.
>It would have to be a nuclear reactor.  A sound idea, but not something that
>can be done in a hurry.

I guess I wasn't too clear in my first follow-up: I meant an ion drive
flyby instead of an solid-fueled rocket flyby; surely it could build up
enough speed to get there in a reasonable amount of time before the sunlight
becomes totally useless (I guess around Jupiter) and a deployable concentrator
could be used...

(I can hear them now. "Eeek! deployable! Ever since Galileo, we're not
supposed to use deployable structures until hell freezes over! We're
supposed to be stuck with whatever can fit inside the payload shroud
until the end of time!" Why not just _not_ drive the probe across the
country half a dozen times before launch?)


--
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

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.meteorology
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: Climate cycles from Earth's orbital geometry
Followup-To: sc
Summary: a few references 
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 20:13:14 GMT

	Thanks to the people who answered the question in regard to
references. The ones that give a good toehold are:

Fisher A. G. and D. J. Bottjer, Orbital forcing and sedimentary
sequences, J. of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 61, No. 7, December,
1991. This whole issue is devoted to the subject of "orbital
cyclostratigraphy." 

Imbrie, J. and K. Imbrie, Ice Ages: solving the mystery, Short Hills
NJ, Harvard U. Press, 1976.

and such classic articles as:

Hays, J. D., J. Imbrie, and N. J. Shackelton, Variations in the
Earth's orbit: pacemaker of the ice ages, Science, V. 194, p
1121-1132, 1976.

I noted a number of other tomes in this area, one interesting one was
written by the cosmologist who originated the continuous creation
theory (not creationist!), Fred Hoyle!

	The one item that did not emerge was a lower level article. I
did hear someone remembering that there was a TV science program of
some sort that discussed Quaternary climate changes in some detail,
but no specific reference.

Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:37:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.143918@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM>, treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel) writes...
>In article <10SEP199220221219@iago.caltech.edu>, irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
>|> quick development schedule, as well as a short flight time.  The current plans
>|> are to launch in 1998 on an 8 year direct flight (hopefully).
>		    ^^^^
>I'm puzzled.  Given a small number of pretty standard instruments, and a
>destination no more distant than Neptune which we've already visited, what
>needs six more years to be developed?  This may be fastER but I'd hesitate
>to call it fast.
> 

The mission has only been proposed.  If it is approved, then the mission won't
officially start until around 1994.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Xref: sparky sci.space:12488 comp.robotics:1725
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.robotics
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Date: 6 Sep 92 07:59:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Sep6.075934.24110
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636

In article <1992Aug28.084645.28803@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au> phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew) writes:

>As soon as we abandon "real time" telepresence, we either depend entirely
>on robots, or on humans. Surely a combination of the two would be better?

There is an intermediate regime, called "teleprogramming", that
utilizes a local simulation of the environment, with a VR-style 
interface similar to what would be used for teleoperations.  The
simulation catches most of the operator errors, minimizing the impact
of the time delay. See the first issue of MIT's _Presence_ journal. 


-- 
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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: 20 Questions About the Delta Clipper
Keywords: SSTO
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:45:38 GMT

In article <0#4ygqc@rpi.edu> strider@acm.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.144007.3396@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:


>>     The Shuttle's design was "frozen" in the 1970's.  Using the technology
>> available then would have resulted in a SSTO that was extremely large and
>> expensive. A Delta Clipper sized SSTO based on 1970's technology would not
>> have ben able to reach orbit. In the 20 years since then, we have learned
>> a lot about design, light-weight materials, trajectory optimization, avionics,
>> computers, and engine design.

>	This is all nice, but I think it is not really a good answer.  So
> what if the shuttle's design was frozen?  And so what if the technology
> available then would have resulting in a large SSTO.  No-one claimed the
> shuttle wsa to be a SSTO.  This paragraph sounds more like an answer to
> the question: "Why didn't we do this with the shuttle 20 years ago?"


For a history of the SSTO idea, you might want to look
at this paper:

   AAS 91-643  Gary C. Hudson, "History of the Phoenix VTOL SSTO
   and Recent Developments in Single-Stage Launch Systems", in
   "International Space Year in the Pacific Basin", vol 77, Advances
   in Astronautical Sciences, pages 329-351, Amer. Astro. Soc. 1991.

Hudson argues that the reason SSTO's have become "feasible" is simply
that the customer, the government, has started to ask for them.  Delta
Clipper will use no advanced, NASP-derived materials.  Hudson argues,
as a thought experiment, that expendable SSTOs are quite feasible
using shuttle technology.  A shuttle ET, fitted with 6 SSMEs, can put
some 60 to 70 klb into orbit (more if some structural mods, like
removing the unnecessary SRB and orbiter attach structures, are made
on the ET).  A SIVB stage with a single SSME could put ~12 klb
into orbit.

Hudson adds (* indicates italics):

   It remains to be seen whether VTOL SSTO will become part of the
   means to achieve inexpensive access to space, but if it does,
   the principal question future observers of the space transportation
   business will ask is: *why did it take so long*?

----

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Relativity
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:08:09 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: Shawn.McCarthy@p902.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Shawn McCarthy)
-Subject: Relativity
-Date: 9 Sep 92 21:53:00 GMT

-Ok.. you look like you know what ur talking about (considerably more than i do
-anyway.. :>  ) got a question: what if that train is moving just 5mph slower
-than c (as measured from the station) and i run forwards at 6mph? According to
-the train, i am moving at 6mph.. what does the station see? (or move a flag
-foreward at that speed on the outside, so they can see it) ... when the object
-(me or the flag) moves past c according to the station, what happens? or is that
-a case of the train being shorter (from the station) so the speed really ISN'T
-faster than c..?

I think you've got the right idea - also, the Lorenz contraction of observed
passage of time must be taken into account. Basically, the addition of
observed velocities is not linear, and the result never exceeds c. The observer
at the station would see you moving slightly faster than the train, but
still less than c. If you take a flashlight on the train and aim it forward
(or backward or sideways for that matter), the person at the station will
perceive the beam of light as moving at c (as will you).

Actually working out the math for relativistic vector additions requires:
 - finding the book on relativity (one with actual math, not just a popular
   account)
 - a calculator with lots of digits of precision

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Value of Terraforming Mars
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:58:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BuJJzo.Dsu.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


>There are two issue that need to be adressed before anyone is going to take
>this seriously.

>1)  Is this cheaper than massive planting projects?

I think you have under-estimated the value of terra-forming Mars.  Besides
the increase in farm (as well as other) land, there are also the cultural
changes that would occur, and also the fact that the power to terra-form
Mars implies an inter-planetary civiliaztion anyway.  Unless you go with
the idea presented originally, involving probe-o'-life missions that cost
little, and depend on time and natural growth for their power.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Old data formats (was New lunar spacecraft)
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:53:13 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <BuIx0n.L11.1@cs.cmu.edu>
amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

> This reminds me of a personal data retrieval problem. Does anyone out  
> there have access to an old PDP-10 with DecTape drives? I have about  
> a dozen of them with data I'd love to retrieve (for sentimental  
> reasons: my first real system is on them)

Ahh, those were the days! PDP-8s and -11s sure changed my life: I HATED
them! Which brings us back to one of the original questions:

NASA has implemented a highly cost-effective science program to mine
overlooked gems from old astronomy satellites, called the Astrophysics
Data Program (ADP). This program funds preservation of old data sets
and updating them into new formats, as well as science. 

So, isn't there also a corresponding program for archival data from old
planetary science probes? It's worrisome that no one in sci.space came
up with its name - does this mean such a program does not exist?

Fred
Newsgroups: sci.space