HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit
Date: 27 Sep 1992 15:14:20 GMT
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center


Let's have a little fun with this topic. The two problems mentioned with 
terraforming Venus by moving it to Earth orbit were:

  1. It has too much atmosphere to be terraformed even if it was in Earth 
     orbit.

  2. It takes too much energy!!!

I don't know what the specifics of this plan would be, (I leave this to the 
interested student :) ), but let's ignite Venus's atmosphere on the opposite
side that it moves in its orbit, and use the escaping air as propultion. We
kill two birds with one stone :)  (note: this should be done over a large
surface area to reduce geological turmoil.)

Another plan I have (as long as I'm already off the deep end) is ignite
Jupiter's atmosphere. It would be easier since it has all that hydrogen in it.
Use this propultion to slow Jupiter way down, causing it to fall towards
Venus. If done correctly this maneuver will sling shot Venus to an eccentric
orbit out past Earth. As Jupiter swings around the sun, it will encounter Venus
on its next orbit and swing Venus around into a nearly circular Earth-like
orbit. If were lucky, the close encounters will strip much of Venus's
atmosphere.

Well, what do you think?

                                                    Tom
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Re: The thrust problem (was Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:51:54 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct5.161556.29814@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> I, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov, wrote:
>>> My ground-based lasers would get you a net thrust, albeit a small,
>>> inefficient one.  But we've got several centuries before we can 
>>> change the atmosphere, anyway.  Lasers are patient.  We can wait.
> 
> In article <1992Oct2.202211.1@fnalc.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>Where do you put them?  At the point on the surface where the planet's
>>orbit intersects it.  
> 
> Actually, you can put them anywhere.  If it's not "At the point on the
> surface where the planet's orbit intersects it," you have some
> off-center thrust, but it's still thrust.

I was thinking about the optimal place to do the burn.  Off-center
thrust wastes your effort to some extent (it'll spin up the planet or
whatever)-- but may be more practical.  You would like, of course, to
apply thrust along the tangent to the planet's orbit.  I failed to say
that I was thinking about the *ideal* place to apply thrust.

Most of your remarks are comments about my musings on the ideal case.

> It's all academic, of course.  You need a LOT of lasers (or flashlights
> or radio stations) for a LONG time to budge a planet.  And you have to
> get there to put them in place and coordinate them carefully to get
> the desired effect.

Ken, how much does the Earth's orbit change because of radiation
pressure?  Kilowatt per square meter, albedo 0.4.  I'd do the
calculation but I'm really getting hungry and I want to go home to
dinner.

The Sun must be pushing Venus outward even harder.  How long before
Prof. Abian gets his wish?  Nice physics problem.

Unless your lasers can put a lot more delta-V into the planet per unit
time than the Sun does (and their source of energy must be real
magic!), it doesn't seem worth building them.

> It might make a nifty device in a science fiction story, and 
> entertaining speculation on Usenet, but that's about it.

True... 

>      "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
>       into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

Not *this* dream, I trust.  (I wonder if Goldin would like to come to
a science fiction convention sometime?)

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:20:24 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BvE2yD.2M3@wm.estec.esa.nl> pisherwo@wm.estec.esa.nl writes:
>Might it be possible to set a fusion chain reaction in Jupiter's atmosphere
>if a big enough fusion bomb were used as an initiator ? 

Perhaps possible, but inordinately difficult.  I don't think fusion-bomb
temperatures would be enough.  Fusion of ordinary hydrogen is very, very,
very, very, very slow.  The Sun is billions of years old and has burned
only a small fraction of its hydrogen.

>I believe there were some worries about 'igniting the atmosphere' at
>the time of the first H-bomb test. This didn't occur because our
>atmosphere has a low H content...

Actually, it didn't occur because the temperatures were nowhere near
what would be necessary.  Oxygen and nitrogen fuse just fine if you get
them hot enough.  (Only the largest stars ever manage this at all.)

Materials like lithium deuteride are expensive to make and troublesome
to handle.  If it was easy to fuse ordinary hydrogen, that's what the
bombs would use.
-- 
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: alt.sci.planetary
From: dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit
Organization: Pseudopolis Yard
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:52:55 GMT

tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:
>
>Another plan I have (as long as I'm already off the deep end) is ignite
>Jupiter's atmosphere. It would be easier since it has all that hydrogen in it.
>Use this propultion to slow Jupiter way down, causing it to fall towards
>Venus. If done correctly this maneuver will sling shot Venus to an eccentric
>orbit out past Earth. As Jupiter swings around the sun, it will encounter Venus
>on its next orbit and swing Venus around into a nearly circular Earth-like
>orbit. If were lucky, the close encounters will strip much of Venus's
>atmosphere.

Someone has already pointed out the lack of oxidant.  However, something
like this has been used in an sf story.  See _A World Out of Time_ by
Larry Niven.  In it, there'a a requirement to move Earth away from the
sun.  So they construct a large tube floating in Uranus's atmosphere.
The tube has lasers around the edge that heats up the atmosphere within
it so that it shoots out the top.  This makes it a rocket to move Uranus
around.  With multiple passes, they manage to move Earth outward,
eventually putting it in orbit around Jupiter.

Of course, there's problems with the scenario, but not impossibilities.
Uranus was left in an eccentric orbit which would disrupt the other
planet's orbits probably in just a few 10's of thousands of years.

---
Dan Tilque    --     dant@techbook.com
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: The thrust problem (was Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:22:11 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalc.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

I *still* don't think we need an extra newsgroup for planets, and that
sci.astro works just fine.  Oh, what the heck.

In article <1992Oct1.015115.16293@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> My ground-based lasers would get you a net thrust, albeit a small,
> inefficient one.  But we've got several centuries before we can 
> change the atmosphere, anyway.  Lasers are patient.  We can wait.

I've been waiting for somebody to point out (because I haven't
mustered the technical argruments) that Ken's proposal stinks because
the lasers are high-exhaust-velocity, low-thrust devices.  You have to
move a few trillion trillion kilograms, you're going to need *serious*
thrust.

If you are moving your planet with rocket engines, get some with
exhaust velocity just a little bigger than escape velocity (reason why
left as exercise for student) and with as much thrust as you can
afford.  

Where do you put them?  At the point on the surface where the planet's
orbit intersects it.  If it's a fixed installation, you fire a burst
once a day.  If the rocket engines are on wheels, not inconceivable on
Venus (Geoff Landis would love this), you track the sub-orbital point.

On Earth, you'd want to fire at sunset to make the orbit bigger, or
sunrise to make it smaller.  Interesting problem:  suppose the engine
is mounted on a barge in the Pacific.  Where do you move it to each
day to get optimal effect from your thrust?  Turns out to be an
inverted analemma... (proof also left as an exercise for the student).

On Venus... let's see, the rotation is retrograde, right?... does that
mean you'd fire at dawn to move outward?  Nope, I think you still want
to fire at sunset.  


     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: ASDAV@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Moving Venus to Earth orbit
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:46:32 GMT
 <1992Oct1.015115.16293@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Arizona State University

The problem with venus has less to do with its location than with the
carbon content of its atmosphere.  Instead of using the laser to move the
it would be better if it was used to launch carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, thus it would have to be tuned at multiple wavelengths for
carbonbdioxide and for disassociated carbon.

Microbes that affix carbon and release oxygen won't work because of the
sheer quantity of CO2 invovled.  If enough carbon were affixed to bring
venus to an earthlike atmossphere it would cover the entire surface
in a layer several miles deep, and it would oxydise faster than the little
beasties could eat it up.  A guy on the HIT list did the math and
made a very impressive argument for why Mars would be a better candidate

If you want to terraform venus, I would use an orbiting, solar
fired laser, tuned to a solid CO2 Wavelength (IR?) to continualy knock
off the CO2 molecules in the upper atmosphere.  Eventually you might
then end up with a workable planet
DVB
Arizona State University
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.astro
From: beaudettb@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: ATTN: Univ. info requested
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:32:28 GMT

I would like to pose a question to any grad students out there or PhD's that
remember being grad students.  I am in my senior year as a physics undergrad
and I am trying to decide what schools to apply to.  I would like to get
my PhD in Astrophysics.  My GPA is mediocre; unfortunately, I am not a straight
"A" student, so I cannot attend any school I want, just the ones that accept
me.  I have other considerations too.  I'm curious about the stipends schools
offer. And, if your university is anything like my university... they wave 
tuition but not fees, which amount to more than the in-state tuition.

Particularly, I am interested in hearing from anyone from U-Mass Amherst,
Univ. of Florida,  Univ. of Arizona,  John Hopkins,  Boston University, and
Harvard.  But if anyone else has any comments or suggestion, I welcome your
input, too.

Thanks in advance for your messages!  PS: Are there any other undergrads 
interested in Astrophysics or Astronomy out there?

"I have to find a good quote!"   BARBARA BEAUDETTE
From: lentz@reber.astro.nwu.edu (Robert A. Lentz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.astro.aips
Subject: XAS (15APR92) problem on xterm
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:51:26 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

Hello,
	I am working on setting up a Macintosh as an at-home X terminal. We
have MacX 1.1.7 operating over a SLIP connection. I can get aips started
fine with a command like "START_AIPS new tv=elvex34.acns.nwu.edu:reber".
The TEKSERVER window comes up okay, and the messages say that it is
correctly starting up XAS. However, XAS does not make it for some reason.
There are no error messages, it does not show up on the screen or in the
process list. When we try to load something onto the tv, this is what we get:

ZSSSO2 connect (INET): Connection refused
AIPS 1: ZSSSOP: CHANNEL ASSIGN ERROR FOR LUN    9
AIPS 1: YTVOPN: TV OPEN ERROR      6
AIPS 1: TV OPEN ERROR      6


Any ideas?

Thanks,
-Robert Lentz
r-lentz@nwu.edu
From: pmurphy@nrao.edu (Pat Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.astro.aips
Subject: Re: XAS (15APR92) problem on xterm
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:28:58 GMT
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory

In article <1992Oct2.175126.12461@news.acns.nwu.edu> lentz@reber.astro.nwu.edu
(Robert A. Lentz) writes: 

> I am working on setting up a Macintosh as an at-home X terminal. We
> have MacX 1.1.7 operating over a SLIP connection. I can get aips started
> fine with a command like "START_AIPS new tv=elvex34.acns.nwu.edu:reber".

I assume here that "elvex34" is the far end of the SLIP link.  Have you
tried other X clients with DISPLAY set to this?  I've also heard some
negative things about SLIP, usually in the context of "PPP is better" but I
don't have any personal experience with either.

> The TEKSERVER window comes up okay, and the messages say that it is
> correctly starting up XAS. However, XAS does not make it for some reason.
> There are no error messages, it does not show up on the screen or in the
> process list. 

I'd suggest putting a temporary "set -x" at the top of XASERVERS so you can
see what's going on.  Or you could try starting XAS by hand; all it needs is
to have TVDEV set to "TVDEVxx" where xx is the TV number in hex (TV number
is determined by order of appearance in the string "$TVHOSTS $XTERMS"), and
TVDEVxx set to something like SSSIN:reber, and of course DISPLAY set
correctly.  Either way you should get more definitive diagnostics or error
messages.

Hope this helps...
				- Pat
--
==========================================================================
| Patrick P. Murphy, Ph.D.                Scientific Programming Analyst |
| National Radio Astronomy Observatory    Net:   pmurphy@nrao.edu        |
| 520 Edgemont Road                       or:    uunet!nrao.edu!pmurphy  |
| Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475          Phone: (804) 296-0372          |
|      "I don't believe in the no-win scenario"  --- James T. Kirk       |
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Date: Thu,  1 Oct 1992 12:47:04 -0400 
From: "Robert J. Knapp" <rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY Technology

Man, we saw this post last year....

As far as I can tell there aren't any changes.

Couldn't the wording have been changed at least.....?
Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp

Open a book,				|	LEGALIZE
and open your mind			|
the only thing they can't censor	|	[MNIBG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
is logic.				|
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is something to be experinced through the eyes of a child."
                   			-Me
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:15:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Bvpq4E.JEE@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v128nkej@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PAST,PRESENT AND FUTURE IS ONLY ILLUSION,HOWEVER PERSISTENT...) writes:
> 	I believe the that NASA has been extensively researching the 
> feasability(sp?) of using the Earth's magnetic field as a source of energy
> for the Space Station Freeedom.

Actually, my understanding is that they are looking at it more from the
other end - using solar power to run current through a tether and provide
thrust on the satellite. If you can do this, you don't need to carry
expensive expendables such a Hydrazine to keep you in the desired orbit.

It's probably even more interesting for geo-synch satellites, where long
lifetimes are particularly desired, and lifting extra mass is particularly
expensive.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
From: ccarlson@eng.auburn.edu (Craig Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: That FREE ENERGY thing (NASA)
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:42:45 GMT
Reply-To: ccarlson@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

No, tethers cannot generate energy for free, but they do have a couple of neat
tricks up their sleaves.

Tethers are deployed in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the earth, and are
self-tensioning.  This self-tensioning effect is due to the gravity gradient near the
earth's surface.  In order to remain in orbit an object must move at a particular speed
determined by the elevation (closer to the earth, faster orbit).

The entire tether is moving at the same speed.  The center of the tether (its center of mass) will be moving at the proper speed for its elevation, and will be in freefall.
The mass attached to the end closest to earth will be moving too slowly for its elevation and will be pulled toward earth by gravitational forces.  The mass attached to the end farthest from the earth will be moving too fast for its orbit and will be pushed out toward space by centrifugal forces.

Presto... free gravity in orbit.

Place two tethers in an orbit (below the geosynchronous for this example).  Connect
the endmasses by conducting cables to form a square. Generate electricity in the trailing tether causing it drag.  Pass this electricity to the leading tether, causing it to accelerate.  All four sides of the square will now be tensioned.

Presto... a stabilized constellation of four satellites (the endpoints)

Of course there will be some losses in the wires unless you use superconductors.
This application does not require the use of a plasma contactor (electron gun) to 
complete the current loop.

I don't know the details, but I believe tethers can effect changes in orbital inclination for free.  Even though two orbits with different inclinations have the same
potential energy, the space shuttle has to burn a good deal of fuel to make the change.


- Craig
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Question about FREE-ENERGY?
Date: 1 Oct 1992 13:12 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <QemYf4O00VoyA3HkNS@andrew.cmu.edu>, Maulik Harish Shah <msb0+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
>Hello,
>	I read the post on Free-Energy. It piqued my curiousity and skepticism-
>Does anybody know the drawbacks of some of the devices that the poster
>posted about? (Obviously there must be or everyone of us would have
>Migma Fusion reactors in out backyards. 
>	Well, Just curious.

There are two drawbacks:

(1) They don't exist, so they can't generate much power.

(2) They are based upon nonsense physics.  That's why they don't exist.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Meyer's Hydrogen From Water Technology
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:45:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

>In article <w2+pzg#.noring@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:

>>I just heard from a source that I'd rather not reveal that some sort of
>> Federal "gag order" was put on one or more of the Meyer patents and/or his
>> work.  My source stated that it was classified 'Secret'.
>>
>>Has anybody heard independent corroboration of this rumor, or is this just a
>>false alarm?

>Sigh. Not to be impolite, but
>   1) Unknown source
>   2) Unknown material
>   3) Unknown restriction ("gag" order????)
>   4) Unknown time of event
>
>The only non wide-open qualification is that it has to have the name
>"Meyer" associated with it. I suppose blind chance guarantees that the
>government has imposed some kind of restriction on some work by some
>person by the name of Meyer at some time in the past.
>
>Incidentally, a "gag order" usually means that specified individuals cannot
>comment on a specific subject. Does not mean the subject material itself
>cannot be published (as being classified would mean).
>
>Unless your source can provide more details, he's about as useful as
>channelling or tarot cards.


That's why I posted this inquiry, since the source gave me all the information
he had (well, there was a little more that I didn't share, but it wouldn't
make any difference in my original intent).  And the term "gag order" is the
term he used, and he added, "or something like that", which of course clouds
up the issue more as to what is meant.

I'm just looking for added information from more reliable sources, thus the
intent of the post.  You are correct in saying that unless more information
is forthcoming, then the rumor I posted is worth diddlysquat.  Just be glad
I didn't cross-post this inquiry to sci.physics.  :^)

Jon

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories