HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert S. Hill)
Subject: Re: ET's, life in space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Hughes STX Corp./NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:46:00 GMT

>In <1992Jul29.225958.20821@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
>>>>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>>>>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any
>>Not accident.  Think in statistics.  Given umpteen billion gallons
>>of warm, super gunky sea, what are the possibilities that any one
>>group of amino acids could form self-replicating protiens...

In article <rwallace.712484402@unix1.tcd.ie>, 
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes...
>I *am* thinking in statistics. If the smallest possible self-replicator
>is 1000 amino acids in size, and there is only one self-replicator of
>that size, and supposing there are 20 possible amino acids, then the
>odds against any 1000-amino acid chain being a self-replicator are
>20^1000 to 1. Against this statistic, the total number of molecules that
>can have been formed in the visible universe since the beginning of
>time is insignificant.

Any time I see the phrase `the odds against X,' a little alarm bell
goes off in my head.  Let's postulate a situation and do the combinatorics.

Suppose the `reaction vessel' contains 1E6 molecules of each of 20
amino acids.  Suppose that our magic polypeptide contains 1000 amino
acids, 50 of each kind for simplicity.  Let C(N,n) mean the combinations
in N objects taken n at a time (since it's a little hard to make double-
height parentheses on my terminal). ^ is exponentiation operator.

   Prob(magic molecule) = C(1E6,50)^20 / C(2E7,1000)

I think I have this formula right.  Probability mavens, please correct
me.  The denominator is the number of 1000-link polypeptides that can be
selected from our reaction vessel.  The numerator is the number of them
that are this one kind of active molecule.  I evaluate this probability
to be 1E-23 _not_ 20^(-1000).  (First time I've used logs to do a
computation since high school.)

There are about 1E17 seconds in 2 billion years (oops, I mean 2E9 years
for non-USAns).  So if you have one chain spontaneously form and fall
apart per second (arbitrary assumption), that gives you 1E17
`statistical trials' in two billion years.  If you have 1E6 of the
`reaction vessels' such as I've described, you have a good shot at
forming your molecule.

Of course, I haven't _proved_ a darned thing, but I think that the 
`horrendous odds against' argument is pretty shaky.

- Bob Hill
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
   bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov           ***MY individual opinions ONLY***
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:39:26 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <rwallace.712328556@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes...
>Given that for evolution of life to start, a simple living organism must
>come together from amino acids etc. by accident; and that for any
>complex structure to fall together by accident is extremely improbable;
>then it looks pretty much like the odds against life appearing on any
>one planet could easily be more than 10^1000 to 1 against, and the
>number of planets in the visible universe is only about 10^22.

It seems patently obvious to me that all of this back-of-the-envelope 
estimation is just a waste of time.  None of us know any real probabilities
for any of the events necessary for life - starting with how many planets
there are down to the probability of chemical evolution.  But one thing
is for sure - it's such an exciting possibility that it's worth looking
for someone out there just in case.  

-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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sat->Ground Optical Communications?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:31:17 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul24.052351.12502@news.iastate.edu> cfrandal@iastate.edu (Charles F Randall) writes:
>I know that optical communications systems are typically used for
>sat->sat comm. systems and can typically achieve approximately 300
>Mbits/s data rates.

Um, "typically"?  Barring possible classified programs, no such system
is yet operational.  All sat->sat systems currently go by microwave.

>However, I have heard that the US Navy uses (sometimes?) an optical
>communication system from sat->sub. I also heard that this can be done
>even with the submarine under the polar ice caps.

There has been talk about such things, and considerable research, since
the right optical wavelengths would penetrate water better than most
forms of radio, but as far as I know there is no hint of an operational
system.

>I'm wondering if there are currently any NASA funded research projects
>concerning sat->ground optical communications.

There have been little bits of research work on optical communication
for a long time.  I'd be surprised if NASA isn't doing something on it
at any random time.  But there's no big push for it that I know of.
-- 
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: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:46:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.24913
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <mikew.712022819@kpc.com>, mikew@kpc.com (Mike Wexler) writes...
>jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>	Given that one can mix the antimatter-reaction mass ratio to get
>>the Vexhaust one wants, the dangers of standing in the vicinity of the
>>exhaust of an antimatter powered ship could be *identical* to that of
>>standing inthe vicinity of a conventional ship.

>Actually there is one piece of information missing here. In a conventional
>rocket most of the exhaust is being used to push more fuel closer to orbit.
>In an antimatter rocket, you have a much higher payload/fuel ratio, so for
>the same payload, there will be much less exhaust.

Actually, there is one piece of information missing here.  In any 
rocket, you need to carry something to throw out the tail of the rocket
at high speed in order to propel the rocket forward.  All the antimatter
does is provide a heat source to produce hot gas from whatever you are
carrying to propel your rocket forward.

So, if anything, since you also need to carry the antimatter reactor and
fuel in addition to the solid or liquid propellent you intend to vent
out the back, the payload/fuel ratio might be worse.  

Remember, if you build a rocket which produces zero exhaust, you
will have built a tourist trap, not a space ship.

-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
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 08:35:10 CET
From: <RFLOOD@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ESA Future
 <64068@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1992Jul22.205756.18386@vexcel.com>

Despite my address, this is a private comment to the query about ERS-1.
There was some sort of hitch during July, but the mission is up and
running again with no problems, I understand. (Not my area of work).
RaF
From: hangfore@spf.trw.com (John Stevenson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:53:49 GMT
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA

In article <1992Jul28.194736.11509@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave  
Jones) writes:
> Aphelion and Perihelion.  We're going to need generic terms for nearest
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> & farthest points from the primary.  Perigee, periselenion, perihelion,
> perijove, periarion (?)........betcha everyone just says apogee and
> perigee in the end.
> 
periapsis and apoapsis, please  :-)

John Stevenson
hangfore@spf.trw.com
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:12:05 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
-Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
-Date: 26 Jul 92 23:25:20 GMT
-Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

-In <9207251435.AA15413@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
->Again, one shouldn't expect all whales to have the same level of intelligence.
->It has been reported that there was once a group of killer whales that
->cooperated with a family of Australian whalers over the course of several
->generations. They would help to round up the big whales to be killed, then 
->eat the leftovers. Rival whalers encroaching in the territory were driven off
->by the killer whales.

-A better explanation might be that the whalers trained the killer whales
-to do this, in the same way that humans can train dogs to help them hunt
-on land. Killer whales can certainly be trained to do the sort of things
-that dogs can be trained to do.

Wouldn't "self-training" and ability to initiate new behaviors be some
indication of one aspect of what we call intelligence? One of the 
household cats around here has shown abilities that you hesitate to
attribute to whales. This cat, in spite of being widely acclaimed as more
stupid than the average cat, regularly teaches itself new tricks, and
when thwarted in some objective, will methodically try numerous alternate
solutions. It's even learned how to open doors by twisting the doorknobs.

If a mere cat (and one of less than average intelligence at that) can do all
this, surely a killer whale can initiate much more complex behavior patterns.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antimatter
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:57:59 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu
-Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
-Date: 21 Jul 92 07:24:09 GMT

-In article <Brp9H4.3GM@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
-|> Antimatter isn't a very efficient explosive.  If you dropped an anti-iron
-|> cannonball, it would just sit there and sizzle.  (The radiation would make
-|> the immediate neighborhood very unhealthy, mind you.)

-No.  Dropping an anti-iron cannonball -- or, indeed, exposing it to air
--- would vaporize it in short order.  The antiiron vapor would then quickly
-mix with very hot air, and most of the antimatter would annihilate in
-short order.

OK, guys, so which is it?

And what about a chunk of anti-(ablative heat shield) material?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_)
Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Organization: The K-Zoo Crew
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:32:02 GMT

In article <kjhm2a_@lynx.unm.edu> opus@pioneer.unm.edu (Colby Kraybill) writes:
] In article <13200@pogo.wv.tek.com> bobt@pogo.wv.tek.com (Bob Tidrick) writes:
] >
] >it alone!" We have no business disturbing something which may one day evolve
] >into a more complex form. However if nothing is found than it is a mear rock
] >and we have dibs.
] 
] 
] Wait a second.  Just by existing on *this* planet do we disturb the way 
] everything else evolves.  By your logic, we should halt our existance on 
] Earth.  
] 
] -- 
] Colby Kraybill
] Space and Planetary Image Facility
] University of New Mexico

  Hmmm... Both sides have a point. I think it'd be great to leave a planet
such as Mars alone for the purpose of watching it evolve. But I don't
think that would be too prudent. That would be like telling everyone
on earth to go back to Mesopotamia (or whereever, ifever, we all came
from) so we wouldn't interfere with evolution on the rest of the earth.
Besides, our presence may just help evolution along. I stress _may_.

  _____    "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks
 /  ___\  ___  __ ___   ___      _____________   gene@cs.wustl.edu
 | / __  / _ \ | /   \ / _ \     |  physics  |   gene@lechter.wustl.edu
 | \_\ \ | __/ |  /\ | | __/     |racquetball|   gev1@cec2.wustl.edu
 \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/     |volleyball |   gene@camps.phy.vanderbilt.edu
 Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew, Washington Univ. in St. Louis - #1 in Volleyball
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: ESA Future
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:04:46 GMT

ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>ESA could buy space and transport to Mir. Somebody should make sure the 
>>Russian capabilities don't rot. 

They (i.e. the governments involved) probably can't find any agreement even 
for purchasing empty space.

>Well, yes, but then they don't have independent acess to space, which was one
>of the reasons ESA was founded in the first place.  Sort of pointless.

which is another reason that they will not do it. Since in Germany the public
has changed its mind on space projects, and the government spends all money  
for things correlated with reunification, ESA has a huge lack in funding.
So everything looks like NO future for ESA.
--
 Hartmut Frommert, LS Dehnen, Physics, | E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet>
 Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60,     |     or  <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 D-W-7750 Constance, Germany  | + SAVE THE WHALES ! BOYCOTT NORWAY !        +
 Phone: +49-(0)7531-88-3747   | + Whales R intelligent. Whale killers not.  +
+ Whale killing is murder. Eating whales is cannibalism. Eat whale killers. +
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rmartin@yosemite.Rational.COM (Bob Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:03:41 GMT

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

>Getting enough antimatter for interstellar propulsion is harder, because
>then we start needing kilogram quantities at least.  That's probably going
>to take large-scale facilities in space.

I think it's safe to say that nobody would want kilogram quantities of
anti-matter concentrated in any one place on the planet.  Such a thing
could ruin th eneighborhood and bring property prices screaming down
around our ears.

Actually, I wonder if even the moon would be a safe place to
concentrate a few hundred kilograms of the stuff.  Maybe the
farside...  I think I would prefer Mars.

Lets see.  100kg, e=mc^2, thats 9e25 ergs right.  The Sun puts out
4e33 ergs in a sec and has a surface area of about 6e12 km^2.  So, an
accident with 100kg of antimatter would be sort of like having a piece
of the sun, roughly the size of Texas, in your back yard for about 1
second.  Not particularily desirable.


--
+---Robert C. Martin---+-RRR---CCC-M-----M-| R.C.M. Consulting         |
| rmartin@rational.com |-R--R-C----M-M-M-M-| C++/C/Unix Engineering    |
|     (Uncle Bob.)     |-RRR--C----M--M--M-| OOA/OOD/OOP Training      |
+----------------------+-R--R--CCC-M-----M-| Product Design & Devel.   |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson)
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:22:35 +0000


In article <1992Jul20.182848.28666@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu writes:

>
>It should be possible to chemically
>contain an antiproton in the form of an antiproton salt.
>Nowadays you could imagine capturing an 
>antiproton in a positively charged bucky-ball cage, but there are
>also molecules like ferrocene that capture an ion between 
>two five membered carbon rings.
>
>Once you've got some of this stuff, disolve a little bit in water,
>ammonia, whatever and burn in an "ordinary" rocket engine.  The
>heat of the engine decomposes the chemical releasing the antiproton
>which then annihilates releasing lots of energy and generating more
>heat.  Should a solution prove impractical then the antiproton salt 
>could be injected seperately.
>
>The obvious name for an antiproton salt it dilithium :-)
>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Nice concept, but I cannot for the life of me imagine how the hell you're
going to get an antiparticle in there!

How do you inject an antiparticle into the cage and make it stop within
the confines of the cage without destroying it, and hitting any atoms on
the way?
Or,
How do you keep the antiparticle stationary while building a cage around it? 

I guess you'd need 1 bucky ball in 10E9 to be doped in this way to avoid
destroying a "conventional" rocket!

I would guess that *any* anti-ion with an atomic number greater than
2 or 3 would be attracted immediately to any electron within sniffing
distance...
The only anti-ion suitable *would* be an antiproton (negatron?) because
the net charge would be just too high on anything higher than anti-beryllium.

I'd just like to clarify some basics here:

Does it follow that from an "anti-perspective", matter would
have the same properties as anti-matter from our perspective?

Why haven't I heard of anti-energy?  Is there such a thing?

Would anti-matter have anything to do with anti-gravity by any chance?

Andy
~~~~
There is nothing wrong with making
anti-matter, but... be *careful*!    :-) Thanks to Henry for this one...

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates        | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk         |
| Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex    |        ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk |
| CM9 8UH England.  0621-88756        | Also:  081-800 1708  081-802 4502    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ETs and Radio
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:51:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul29.161716.3491@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Now subtract out all Population II stars, no heavy elements like iron,

Some of them might have enough for a small planetary system.

>and subtract out all multiple star systems, no stable planetary orbits,

I'm told this doesn't look like as big a problem as was once thought.

>subtract out all systems that don't have a planet in the liquid water zone,

This is where we get into real guesswork.  Note, though, that the liquid-
water zone is wider than we once thought -- Mars would have liquid water
if it was bigger.  (The idea that the "habitable zone" is very narrow and
Earth has just happened to stay in it has been discredited.)

>subtract out all planets not at the correct stage of planetary evolution,
>ours is
>billions of years old while conditions for life are a much smaller fraction

Really?  Please elaborate.  All you really need is liquid-water temperatures
and adequate materials.  The major changes in our planetary conditions over
the last few billion years have pretty well all been due to the presence of
life.  (The idea that Earth had a lucky escape from being another Venus has
also been discredited -- Earth's oceans would still be liquid even if it
had Venus's load of atmospheric CO2 today.)

>... now subtract out all the systems where life hasn't evolved from
>primitive forms to advanced forms, life has existed on this planet for
>a long time, humans much less so, etc.

But add in the potential for life to take faster routes than ours.  Some
of the dinosaurs might well have evolved intelligence if their history
hadn't been cut short a bit too early, and several other species on Earth
are not impossibly far from intelligence.  This is getting pretty far into
guesswork again, though.

>who've thought about the question say that there are perhaps 50 systems
>in the galaxy that may have life as we know it. 

References, please.  There have certainly been *much* higher estimates too.

Also, why insist on it being life as we know it?


The only argument against extraterrestrial life/intelligence that strikes
*me* as being particularly telling is the Fermi Paradox:  if they're out
there, why didn't they colonize this planet long before we evolved?
-- 
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: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 18:26:10 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <64612@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>I really will be surprised, though, if we end up using Soyuz.  It's a neat
>idea on paper, but I think the number of technical problems that need to be
>overcome will outweigh any savings from using already-existing hardware.

Huh? What already existing hardware for assured crew return? Since NASA is
already seriously looking at it, you get the pluses of resupply and cargo
return without the expense (or flexability) of a shuttle flight. 

Plus I can see cases where they want to send up one or two specialists without
blowing a full shuttle flight.


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA. 
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.     
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward)
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Reply-To: seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU
Organization: Surely you jest.
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:38:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.183853.152911@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>Dr. Zubrin pointed out some interesting facts in his luncheon talk at  
>the 1992 ISDC.
>
>If you raise the temperature of Mars by ~ 5C, it will go into a  
>runaway greenhouse that will not stop until all the CO2 is gaseous.
[ technical details tossed]

OK, let's grant that we could perform these actions with current technology,
given sufficient political will/$$.  Since Mars has less gravity (no flames,
I know that isn't the right way to put it), how long could we expect this
new atmosphere to last?  Generations, centuries, what?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill Seward               |                                                 |
| SEWARD@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU | Pithy saying wanted.  Inquire within.           | 
| SEWARD@NCSUVAX.BITNET     |                                                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------