HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Terraforming needs to begin now
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:14:32 GMT

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?
2)  Is the cost of the enormous project going to be even partly paid back by
    the increase in farmland?  My guess would be no.  Keep in mind that the
    countries that need this are dirt poor.  Come to think of it, all the
    countries of the world seem to be broke about now.          

Maybe you should consider more realistic options.  For example, just turn the
solar energy you're going to be using into power and sell it to buy food with.
-- 
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a 
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener   
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 09/11/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Magellan, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:37:33 GMT

Forwarded from the Magellan Project

                      MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                        September 11, 1992

1.   Magellan has continued successful radar mapping
     operations since the restart on Thursday, 3 September.
     The area currently being mapped is the last significant
     unmapped region, covering 1.5% of Venus.  When finished
     on 13 September, the total mapped area will reach 99
     percent of the planet.

2.   Transmitter B's temperature remains near 58 C, varying
     about 2 C during the course of each orbit.  The symbol
     signal to noise ratio (SSNR) is positive during both 34
     meter HEF (High Efficiency) station passes and 70 meter
     passes which Magellan is sharing with Pioneer Venus Orbiter.

3.   Next Monday, 14 September 1992, Magellan will perform an
     orbit trim maneuver to lower the orbit periapsis altitude
     from 258 to 182 kilometers.  This will enhance gravity
     data collection for the beginning of Cycle-4 on 15
     September 1992.  The prime objective of Cycle-4 is to
     obtain a global map of the Venus gravity field from the
     new elliptical orbit.

4.   Also next week, in parallel with gravity operations, a
     week-long period of battery reconditioning will also be
     started.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Mars Direct
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:24:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.153956.6511@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>To get this figure, you altered the assumptions of Mars Direct. (E.g. not
>to do detailed safety studies on a space station, etc...) The assumption
>behind Mars Direct is to take some risks in this respect. The difference
>is $150 billion for one mission (if you carefully test everything out in
>advance) versus $50 billion for five missions (if you take a risk). While
>I agree your analysis is more like NASA's usual way of doing business,
>I think it also shows the problem with that approach.

So, you are proposing that safety studies constitute 1-1/(5*150/50),
or 93% of the cost of SSF?  That's interesting. :-)



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO has been achieved
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:11:05 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance

kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

>[..] a lunar SSTO was an achievable
>task in 1969. 

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

I have seen Mars ascent descent vehicle (ADV) plans, some of which included a
SSTO ascent stage, and some even being only 1-stage ADV, years ago. If I
remember right, Wernher von Braun described a Mars ADV with SSTO ascent stage
as early as the early 1950s; ok, that's out of date since it presumes a 
Martian atmosphere of much higher density than really present and therefore
had a winged Mars lander. About 1969 there was probably also a technology for
a Mars SSTO -- if one could only get there.

As far as I noted there are both SSTO and TSTO Mars ascent stages under 
consideration now.
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept. of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                            -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:00:14 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep10.151758.5676@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder) writes:
>>>*at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher).
>>According to a NASA politician, you mean.
>>There is no technical reason why it has to cost that much...
>
>I do believe that the figure would probably around 500 billion dollars.
>Remember: the whole mission would take more than 2 years to accomplish...

As best I can tell, Zubrin has done his homework.  Cost estimates are
necessarily somewhat speculative, but he's not off by an order of
magnitude... if you do things *his* way.

>You'd have to build a fairly big space ship to provide all the stuff needed
>to do such a flight (life support, food, recycling of water and waste,...).

His ship size appears to be adequate to the job.  This guy is not stupid;
he's not going to overlook something gross like that.  Problems with his
scheme would be found in the details.

>BTW, the figure's from a researcher at JPL.

What are the *assumptions* behind that figure?  Assembling a zillion-ton
ship in Earth orbit using only the shuttle as a launcher and taking all
the fuel for the return trip from Earth, I bet.

>Nevertheless, I would appreciate a short summary of Bob Zubrin's idea.

I'll see if I can produce one in the next few days.  The central idea I
can quote you right now:  using local resources -- making your return-trip
fuel using the CO2 in the Martian atmosphere -- to scale down transport
requirements to something comparable to a lunar mission.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:11:10 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Did Staehle's idea from c. 1984 for a small craft to fly through
Earth/Moon L4/L5, primarily instrumented with dust collectors, ever
take off?
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Venus orbiters
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:57:36 GMT
	<1992Sep1.151711.23979@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Sep6.185946.22912@access.digex.com>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: prb@access.digex.com's message of 6 Sep 92 18:59:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.185946.22912@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

   also word is that small light probes are hot for funding in the near future.
   cheap fast missions are being experimented with to avoid cost problems
   with  heavy big birds.

AO arrived today - they plan on 1/year 3years from conception to
launch, instrumentation to be ready in 2 years, total cost for
launch, excluding operations and analysis are to be less than
$35 million, 1/2 for development! Baseline launch vehicle is
Pegasus!

|  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	|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:52:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.004318.23942@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <+7qn_q-.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>>(I am reposting this at request)
>>
>>There have been suggestions of terraforming Mars, perhaps
>>even Venus. There may even be other planets or satellites
>>in the solar system that lend themselves to being improved
>>upon by man.
>...>
>>It is a simple, possibly even elementary, matter to find
>>various bacteria, algae, fungi, lichen etc. that can exist
>>in the harsh environment of Mars. Or, for that matter, the
>>upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere.


Thomas, would you expound on which bacteria or fungi can exist in a hot sulfuric
acid/sulfur dioxide environment?

>> These life-forms
>>are small, light and quite capable of being transported in
>>rather massive quantities to these planets by presently
>>possessed technology. Should there not be appropriate life
>>forms, our present knowledge of biotechnology should lead
>>us to be able to develop some in fairly short order.
>>
>>I suggest that we send a space vessel bearing our life
>>substitutes to Mars and Venus. The cost is relatively
>>miniscule. Thereon we can sprinkle the makings of man
>>himself.

Like his ashes, maybe. No, let's send Dan Quayle! He says that since there
are canals on Mars, there's water and if there's water, then there's air
and if there's air we can breathe.  I suggest we send Dan Quayle to Mars
so he can breathe there.


>Pseudoscience about Gaia notwithstanding, this doesn't work.
>
>The surface of Mars is extremely dry.  All terrestrial life requires
>liquid water to survive.  Even bacterial spores are quickly rendered
>nonviable in extreme dryness: experiments that place spores in air of
>near-zero relative humidity at 25 C find that the DNA begins to
>degrade, and the spores become nonviable within weeks (for this
>reason, the bacteria that supposedly survived in the Surveyor on the
>moon were likely post-recovery contaminants).

I think the most reasonable proposals involved life forms in the *regolith*,
not at the surface.  There is a great deal of evidence for abundant water 
in the regolith and there are places there where liquid water can exist.


>As for Venus: the clouds there are concentrated sulfuric acid.  Should
>anything be able to survive there, which is doubtful, it could not
>terraform Venus into anything remotely habitable to humans, as the
>primary problem is how to get rid of the atmosphere.  Converting it to
>oxygen and biomass doesn't work; there is just too much oxygen there.
>
>	Paul F. Dietz
>	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Really the most interesting aspect of terraforming either planet is the amusing
speculation.



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Relativity
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:49:13 GMT

In article <14902@mindlink.bc.ca>, Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay) writes:
> A recent SF book used relativistic mass to produce black holes.
> i.e. accelerate a spaceship until it's massive enough to collapse
> into a singularity.  Something seems missing in this equation.
> Could it happen?

No. Are you sure this was in a book? I remember seeing this in the
"Probability Zero" column of Analog magazine a few years back. It was
a short story that used this effect and was intended as a parody of
bad science fiction writing.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Xref: sparky sci.space:12877 sci.astro:9645 talk.politics.space:1192 alt.politics.bush:4955 alt.politics.clinton:5215
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:09:25 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Sep13.222223.24418@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.195609.29356@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>	Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests
>>that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment.
>>Both Clinton and Gore have suggested increased suppport for national
>>computer networks ("internet", maybe you've heard of it), and a major
>>part of Clintons economic policy is government funding of technical R&D.
>>Thats not what I usually think of when I think "hostile".
>
>	Because they're going to have to get
>	lots and lots of money from somewhere,
>	---without raising taxes or slashing social spending---
>	and they're going to have to do it in a Big Hurry,
>	since there will be a lot of pressure on them to get quick results
>	in order to prepare for the next election.
>
>	(4 years is a short time by political/economic measures)
>
>	Cutting deeply into research funding and space exploration
>	is an easy way to do this without losing too much support.
>
>	Perhaps you remember the slogans of the 60's:
>
>		We shouldn't be sending people to the moon,
>		while there are still people starving here on Earth.

Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
economically beneficial.  And you're probably totally off base, given
the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore.


--
"It's a Drake's Coffee Cake....  I have another one, but I'm saving
it for _later_."
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:50:56 GMT

>I'd appreciate if you would not lump me into a PC pigeon hole because I 
>prefer to maintain my life support system.

We were talking about Venus, not Earth, and I didn't think that
I was reffering to you.  I was reffering to people who naively
extrapolate Earth-bound ethics into space.

>If you want to make your backyard unlivable, go ahead, but the second you are
>doing things that make *everyone's* backyard unlivable, you should expect
>a response. If you think that this behavior is limited to vogue PC yuppies,
>you are quite mistaken.

You must have great barbeques in your backyard on Venus.  :-)  The point
is to make Venus livable, not to make Earth unlivable.  Ditto for
terraforming Mars, etc.



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Date: 11 Sep 92 07:24:32 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kennet) writes:

> Hearing all these wild ideas passed around on this Pluto flyby has led me to
> try to remind everyone of a few things concerning this mission. ....
> Remember, the last thing we need is to overdesign this mission like
> CRAF/Cassini.

Playing with ideas can also turn up useful, feasible techniques, along the
lines of the "Grand Tour" path using gravitational assists.  I doubt that
anything we post here will affect the Pluto missions, unless someone comes up
with a new idea too brilliant to pass up.

So stop spoiling being a wet blanket; we're having fun.  :)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: TSS EVA
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:57:46 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
-Date: 4 Sep 92 15:29:17 GMT
-Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

-Just commenting...

-Anyone notice that despite being designed for the Shuttle, TSS was
-_not_ apparently designed for astronaut servicing?

-Aster all the trouble the program has experienced from being
-tied to the Shuttle, they should have at least taken advantage
-of some of the advantages they could have gotten, and put someone
-outside in a spacesuit to shove on it or kick it or wave a dead
-chicken over it or whatever needed to be done...

-Moral of the story: If you insist on having the people there,
-at least use them... the way the mission was run, it might
-as well have been teleoperated, apparently.

There definitely was an EVA contingency - if the tether had failed to
retract, they would have gone out and used the hand crank that's available
to close the cargo bay doors to reel it in. They also had the option of
using the Shuttle thrusters to bring the Shuttle to the satellite, while an
astronaut hauled the line in hand over hand.

An unplanned EVA is a real nuisance, so they weren't anxious to have one when
they could conduct the activities from inside the Shuttle. Once they got the
TSS into a mode in which it could reel in, they apparently decided to play
it safe. The only question was whether to try to continue the deploy. But
they didn't know what the problem was, and they didn't know whether another
deploy attempt would make matters much worse. (Earlier, when they thought
the problem was buried loops on the reel, they *were* willing to continue.)
They were also running out of time - remember that the Eureca deploy took
a day longer than predicted, and the tether operations were behind schedule.

Another factor that hadn't been discussed on sci.space or in the news media
at the time - it turns out that even before the TSS mission, there had been
talk of another TSS mission in two years (see Henry's July 20 AW&ST summary).
Given the prospect of future use, it was very much in their interest to
save the satellite, and that didn't require an EVA. TSS may have a better
chance for a reflight than some other missions because it doesn't take up
the entire payload bay.

John Roberts              | The sea was wet as wet could be,
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov | The sands were dry as dry.
                          | You could not see a cloud, because
                          | No cloud was in the sky:
                          | No birds were flying overhead --
                          | There were no birds to fly.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jetson@vab02.larc.nasa.gov (Greg Fruth (JIAFS))
Subject: Re:    PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
Organization: VAB, NASA Langley
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:05:46 GMT

In article <abian.716595771@vincent1.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> In our Solar System, the planet VENUS is the only planet which sizewise,
>masswise and substancewise closely resembles our planet Earth.
[et cetera]
>     As mentioned above, a practical way for creating a life-sustaining ecology
>say, on Venus, is to put Venus in an orbit similar to the Earth's orbit, to
>begin with.  This is the way, the only way.
>
>Dr. Alexander Abian
>Professor of Mathematics
>Iowa State University

And while you're at it, please speed its rotation up so that its day is
shorter than its year.  Currently, the Venusian day is 243 Earth days
while the Venusian year is 225 Earth days.  I went there for spring break
and the bars don't open until 6 PM local time, which was ten months away!
Plus, my digital sundial wristwatch didn't seem to work.  I think it
had something to do with the fact that Venus's rotation is retrograde.
I wanted to see the famous spectacular sunset over the pink-green sea
but it was lunch time instead of dusk.  What a terrible vacation.

-- 
Greg Fruth                                      jetson@vab02.larc.nasa.gov
 ___            ___  ____               __      ____        ___  __  
/   \|   |  /\  |  \ |        /\  |\  | | \     |    |\  |   |  /  \ \   /
\___ |___| /__\ |__/ |__     /__\ | \ | |  \    |__  | \ |   |  |  |  \_/
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: SPS
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:34:49 GMT

> 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).
> 


Henry:

Not really. The way the fellow I know was doing it in a way that was  
quite hassle free.

The fuel consists of, roughly speaking, tightly wrapped aluminum  
foil. The oxidizer is water that is introduced to a lithium igniter.  
The resulting heat causes the H20 to dissociate. The O2 and the Al  
then react and release supply enough heat to continue to dissociate  
the water as it is introduced. Specific impulse is okay but not  
wonderful. But it hardly matters because the engine is so cheap and  
safe. The reactions are self sustaining (until you turn off the  
spigot). The plume is quite nice (I've seen a photo of an engine  
firing on a test stand in the middle of a farm in Somewhere, USA).

I've not spoken to him in several years. He was talking about going  
to a different igniter. A fairly standard one whose name escapes me  
at the moment. Don't know if he has used it yet or not. Or even if he
has gone any farthur at all. But from what I know of the person, I  
suspect he is still moving ahead.
Newsgroups: sci.space