HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kchen@Apple.COM (Kok Chen)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: HRMS/SETI Answers
Keywords: spectrum, SETI, HRMS
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:22:30 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

sharma@nrcphy1.phy.nrc.ca (Rohit Sharma) writes:

>In article <1992Oct9.145536.19786@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> eto@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Edward T. Olsen) writes:
>
>>solar type stars within 25 pc (there are nearly 800) over the
>>microwave spectrum between 1 GHz and 3 GHz at 1 Hz resolution.
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> why this particular portion of the mw spectrum ?


This part of the microwave spectrum is the least noisy.  Moreover,
SETI folks being the poetic people they are, this band includes
the microwave "Water-hole." :-) :-)  (An H emission line exists at 
1420 MHz and a set of four OH lines clustered about 1670 MHz, if 
memory serves.)  Some searches in the past have been conducted inside
the water hole, and at other magic frequencies such as 2x 1420 MHz.

(Good luck, Ed.)


Kok Chen, AA6TY				kchen@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Blue Danube
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:47:44 GMT

In article <msrMr*Oi6@deepthot.cary.nc.us> jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) writes:
>In article <rabjab.191.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, Jeff Bytof writes:
>
>> >For some strange reason, I have visions of sleek Pan Am
>> >(RIP) 'liners slowly spinning across a starfield.  Have I gone nuts, or should
>> >I put up my 2001 tape for a while?
>> I'd say for about 100 years.
>
>If its 100 years, its forever.  We'll run out of enough energy to put the
>first SPS up if we don't start much sooner than that.
>

	Nonsense. Fission should be  sufficient. Granted its PR
sucks, but experience shows that people will choose possible
environment problems over probable economic hardship: look
at the history of the laws governing coal use in England in
the last few  centuries.

						James Nicoll
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: lunar advertising
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:17:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <718874018snx@osea.demon.co.uk> andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>>I've heard of a proposal to "paint" the Coke logo on the Moon. Using a
>>highly reflective "dust", say titanium dioxide smoke particles, sputtered
>>onto the surface by an electron beam from a lunar orbiting satellite.
>>The layer could be molecules thick...
>
>Argghh!!  Conceptually brilliant - the ultimate graffito!

Old idea, actually.  Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon" included a
similar concept nearly half a century ago.  And did it with a bit more
sophistication, too:  the Coke logo wouldn't be legible to the naked eye,
it's too complex... but "7UP" would be... so how much would Coke pay
to buy up the advertising concession in perpetuity to ensure it is
never used...?
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: <None>
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:27:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnalo.1992Oct8.112707.1
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <STEINLY.92Oct7181139@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.195549.1733@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes:
> 
>    If it hadn't been for inter-department politics in the US government,
>    the Soviets would have had the *second* satelite, but the US was (as
>    stated policy) in no hurry, and the Soviets wanted to be first at all
> 
> Actually I like the rather devious argument I first heard recently 
>  - probably on the net ;-) - that the US was quite happy to be second
> as they wanted the Soviets to establish precedent on limits to
> airspace, at the time it was not clear if air space restrictions
> extended up to orbit, would have been most inconvenient if pushed by
> somebody like the Soviets.

This is the thesis presented by Walter McDougall in his political
history of spaceflight, *The Heavens and the Earth*.  The book won a
Pulitzer prize and has been pretty widely read.
 
> But then again I doubt anyone had much of a coherent policy taking
> such factors into account...

McDougall doesn't think so, though he stops short of saying that
Eisenhower *deliberately* dragged his feet on satellites in hopes that
the Russians would launch first.

Bill Higgins          |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
Fermilab              |  we put a man on the Moon? -- Bill Engfer
higgins@fnal.fnal.gov |  If we can put a man on the Moon, why can't
higgins@fnal.Bitnet   |  we put a woman on the Moon? -- Bill Higgins
From: wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.MIL (Wm. Douglas Withers -- math  FACULTY <wdw@sma.usna.navy.mil>)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Cosmic strings
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:46:19 GMT
Organization: U.S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Oct13.210959.25929@mcs.drexel.edu> jsmith@mcs.drexel.edu (Justin Smith) writes:
>
>Are any cosmic strings known (or believed) to exist?
>-- 
There's a woman down the hall from me who does research on cosmic string
theory.  She says no.

-- 
Els Withers                   email: wdw@math2.sma.usna.navy.mil
Department of Mathematics     phone: (410)267-3192 / fax: (410)267-4883
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, MD  21402-5002     Senri no tabi mo ippo yori...
From: mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 11:12:16 PST
Organization: Club Zen BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

> HOWEVER: for fundamental reasons (having to do with space charge
> limits on currents) the throughput of a conventional mass spectrometer
> is miniscule (think: if it were not, anyone could enrich uranium on
> the scale of a lab bench).  In any case, the energy required to
> vaporize an asteroid would be immense, hand waving about mirrors
> notwithstanding.  The idea is basically stupid.

The idea isn't stupid. It may be impractical, but it's not stupid.

With a spin on the asteroid and a solar concetrating mirror you could heat
it enough to melt the outer layers and smooth the surface. I doubt you'd
get it hot enough for plasma.

It would be interesting to try to model the surface tension dynamics of a
rotating heated asteroid. I'm not sure what you'd find. Likely the heated
layers would stretch outward, perhaps making a separate shell that could
be cooled and cracked like an egg. Pressurize the inside of the egg and
you'd be able to mine in a shirtsleeve environment.

This is ALL speculation. I don't have the software for this kind of
modelling, but it might make an interesting Masters papaer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis -> mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org

PLAN:   Live fast, die young, leave a neat corpse.
        Oh ... I'm too old to die young?     Rats!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:19:41 GMT

In article <BvvwGq.A35@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>As Allen pointed out, there's more than enough money there
>for commercial development of a dozen new launch systems.

More than enough money _where_?  The SEI budget is in the $10's
of millions.  Commercial funding for moon ventures is zero.  

Have I finally treaded into the central segment of a mass delusion
here?  These people's numbers are off by four orders of mangntiude,
yet they are all chiming in unison!


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: What use is Freedom?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:53:33 GMT

In article <1469100023@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
>I have followed this thread with some amusement.  The answers
>offered to the question "What good is Fred?" seem to focus on the
>question of its size.  What does that have to do with anything?

The size and available power reflect how many and what sort of 
experiments can be conducted their, as well as how many scientists
could live and work there. Unfortunately, it also reflects
how much maintaince work is required. I'm not convinced there is a
net gain in astronaut time, over a smaller, simpler station. Last time
I checked, EVA maintaince would require at least a two-man EVA every
week. Counting preparations, etc..., this would be about 10% 
of the available astronaut time. We're committed to providing the
Europeans and Japanese with two crewmen, who can spend their time
on science, not maintaince. Now that the PMC crew is down to four, 
that means minimum EVA maintanice work and outside scientists will
account for 60% of the crew time. Being a pessimist (and looking at
how the Soviet and Russian crews on Mir spend their time) I think
there will be far more unplanned EVA repairs than planned ones, and
there will quite a bit of required in-station maintaince. It wouldn't
be impossible for the American crew to spend all their time on
maintaince, and little or no time on science.

>The question ought to be: "What useful things can you do with
>Fred?"  Size may be an issue, but in the tradeoff of capability
>versus cost, bigger is not obviously better.

The proponents of Freedom point out that it will teach us how
to live and work in space, regardless of how much science is done.
That's true, but in my opinion, there are quicker and cheaper ways
to learn such things...

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

From: Tomas.Svitek@f118.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Tomas Svitek)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Query Re: pluto direct/ o
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:38:00 -0500

HS>It is extremely difficult to combine a reasonable payload and a manageably
HS>short trip time with an orbiter mission.  Pluto is *a long way away*; to
HS>get there in under a decade, the probe has to be fast.  Killing all that
HS>velocity is inordinately expensive in mass.  You really cannot do a Pluto
HS>orbiter in a reasonable amount of time with 1960s propulsion technology,
HS>which is what all currently-planned missions use.

Unless you use a *very* close Jupiter flyby, around 2003 timeframe.

                        Tomas Svitek
  OLX 2.1 TD  Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Math progs with arbitrary precicion, for UNIX...
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:18:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: ee.1992Oct17.031824.22809
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering


In article <1720@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>Where can I get a DOS or OS/2 version of Mathematica?  Keep in mind
>that I do not have FTP.

Mathematica is commercial software.  Contact the publisher, Wolfram Research,
for ordering information and academic pricing.  Mathematica doesn't run under
OS/2, by the way.  I don't know if an OS/2 version is even planned :(
 
     Wolfram Research
     100 Trade Center Drive
     Champaign, Illinois  61820-7237
 
     (217) 398-0700    voice 

     (217) 398-0747    fax

     (800) 441-MATH    orders

     info@wri.com      E-mail


 --
 
 Dave Michelson
 davem@ee.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Organization: UDSI
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:22:46 GMT



Hey if this is stupid, please enlighten me.

what if you sent a package on a venus gravity assist, but retrograde, so that
the momentum transfer goes  counter orbital direction,  would that be cheaper then   solar escape?    a little gravity well, and bang you might have
saved some money.

let me know

pat
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:00:43 GMT

In article <9210071249.AA27930@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In <rabjab.12.718419379@golem.ucsd.edu> Jeff Bytof writes:
>>(I am of course referring to Dr. Sagan's hobby interests - "ethical
>                              ============
>  Has Carl Sagan actually got a doctorate in anything ???  Last I heard
>(long time ago , true) he was just plain ol' C. Sagan

>Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk

	He was a respected, bona fide astronomer long before he was a
celebrity.  He is still involved in active research, I believe
planetary science, associated with JPL.

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:09:46 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Oh no. Not THIS guy again. Why can't the aliens kidnap HIM?

Guess I should arm my plasma thrower.... :)
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SETI functional grammer
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:55:12 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

[Arguments against SETI by Woody Ligon deleted]

Somehow this sounds like an argument that if we close our eyes and
stop our ears then things go away. We don't know if there is 
anyone out there and spending modest amounts of money to look 
sounds like a good idea to me. The railroad track near my office
is only infrequently occupied, but I look around before I cross
it every time.

Chris Kostanick
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ENV SATELLITE SHUTDOWN IN DEC 1992
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:14:56 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <yawzjl-@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>>     NUMBUS-7
>>     
>>     Total Ozone Measurement System (TOMS)
>
>Is this real?  NASA plans to shut down TOMS?  Why?
>This is about the last instrument on the last satellite I expected to be
>voluntarily shut down.

Bear in mind that there is a new TOMS now in orbit aboard a Soviet weather
satellite.  The one aboard Nimbus 7 is pretty old, although I believe it
is still more or less working.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:14283 sci.astro:10583
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: SETI positive?
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:58:57 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>An interesting book called _Habitable Planets for Man_  (I forget the
>author) 

Stephen Dole (and with Isaac Asimov wrote a less technical treatment 
"Planets for Man")

Dole retired from the Rand Corporation in 1982.

---------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: lunar advertising
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:29:20 GMT
Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates


In article <BvztCu.IMC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu writes:

>
>In article <718874018snx@osea.demon.co.uk> andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew> Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>>>I've heard of a proposal to "paint" the Coke logo on the Moon. Using a
>>>highly reflective "dust", say titanium dioxide smoke particles, sputtered
>>>onto the surface by an electron beam from a lunar orbiting satellite.
>>>The layer could be molecules thick...
>>
>>Argghh!!  Conceptually brilliant - the ultimate graffito!
>
>Old idea, actually.  Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon" included a
>similar concept nearly half a century ago.  And did it with a bit more
>sophistication, too:  the Coke logo wouldn't be legible to the naked eye,
>it's too complex... but "7UP" would be... so how much would Coke pay
>to buy up the advertising concession in perpetuity to ensure it is
>never used...?
>-- 

Hi again Henry... I'm sure it wasn't original, just that the conceptually
brilliant bit is doing the "printing" - I'm sure the "coke" logo would be
visible, just that some distortion would have to be applied to cope with
the curvature of the moon's surface...

"Oh damn, anyone got an eraser?" :-)

Cheers,
Andy.

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Press On.
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistance.
  Talent will not;
    nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent.
  Genuis will not;
    unrewarded genuis is almost a proverb.
  Education alone will not;
    the world is full of educated derelicts.

Persistance and determination alone are omnipotent.

ANON

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:53:21 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>You better believe what he has to say. After all he is a writer
>for the National Enquirer!!!!    :) :) :)

Nooooo!!! (Really? Dr. Carl Sagan???)

---------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:11:02 GMT

> Many more people in Japan died in the fire-bombing raids
> then were killed by the Hiroshoma/Nagasaki raids. If memory
> serves me right 90,000+ were killed in the first fire-bombing
> raid on Tokyo.
> 


The photographs of the firestorm aftermath in Japanese cities are  
chilling. You really cannot tell the difference between Hiroshima,  
Nagasaki and every other city in Japan. If anyone wants the  
percentages of the cities that were flattened (I mean flattened as in  
to the ground) I have them available from a set of books that are a  
reprint of the complete set of "Impact" a magazine that was  
"CONFIDENTIAL" and published to pass information and knowledge  
between USAAF flyers in WWII.

Most of the cities were at least 50-70% leveled. Not just city  
centers; the whole damn cities, suburbs and all. The only difference  
at the time was that the A bomb only took one plane. They had already  
done the same to every other city. Those two were "saved" and left  
intact for this very special demonstration.

Trivia: a prisoner in a below ground jail cell very close to ground
	zero survived.
	At least 9 (and possibly twice that number) people survived 

	BOTH nuclear explosions.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Magellan
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:34:17 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BvtCrr.AHH@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>of course what i was wondering, is given the cheesy condition of the
>radar,  why not continue the stereo mapping of venus before they
>move onto gravity measurements.  

Probably because the gravity work is an important secondary objective, more
important than 100% stereo coverage, and they want to do the gravity-mapping
cycle before the money runs out.  It already got postponed slightly, I
think, to get the main radar-mapping mission done while the transmitters
were still in good shape.

>what i saw at WSC,  they have 98% appx of venus's surface mapped
>at two angles,  but only stereo views of appx 30% of venus.

Do remember that they don't *need* stereo views to get a full 3D model of
Venus.  That's what the radar altimeter (which has been working away at
the same time as the mapping, although with little publicity) is for.
It provides the large-scale absolute topography as background and as
calibration (so to speak) for the small-scale radar images.
-- 
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: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:34:28
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: Mark Goodman's message of 10 Oct 92 16:52 PDT

In article <1469100022@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:


   To:    sci.space From:  Mark W. Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org) Re:
   Benefits of Military Spending?  Date:  10/9/92

   Since my posting expressing skepticism about the claimed benefits
   of military spending there have been a number of thoughtful (and
   some not so thoughtful) replies.  I would like to respond to them
   as a group.

   Steinn Sigurdsson writes that the article he referred to, claiming
   that NASA procurement spending flows through the economy 7 times
   while most government spending goes through only twice, was based
   on NASA's own studies.  This makes me more skeptical than I was
   before.  Beyond the obvious potential for bias in having NASA
   evaluate the benefits of its own programs, NASA's terrible track
   record in self-promotion through economic "analysis" has left it
   with little credibility on such matters.  Still, I have not yet
   had the chance to look up the reference, so I won't dismiss it out
   of hand.

Obviously I have no way of personally verifying NASA's figures,
although two (non-US)government economists I talked to (one
macro, one micro ;-) seemed to think the figures were realistic.
The procurment multiplier is between 2 and 10 from the Nature
article - which BTW was written by some independent consultants
according to the acks., the citations were to NASA reports (which
I again note are _mandated_ by Congress, including the district
breakdown - anybody know if the methodology is also mandated?).
Note also that this does not include spinoffs or priming mulitpliers
(eg the current SSC argument, that by providing a large stable
market for high tech goods such as electronics and computers
provides the incentive to invest in facilities that also serve
consumers, I believe Motorola is pushing that line hard on SSC,
I suspect HP would agree with something like that, JPL was one
of the early large consumers of their calculators...).
	Arguably government expenditure that achieves short
term multipliers greater than 1/fraction of GDP used by gov
is directly justified, although personally I think expenditures
on space science and engineering development are justified on
intangibles alone.
	In the end OMB and CAO (sp?) will check NASA's numbers,
at some point you just have to accept that the numbers may be valid.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Xref: sparky sci.space:14194 soc.history:8856