HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: UPCOMING on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:46:07 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/428.0 - <ParaNet(sm) , Arvada CO


 * Forwarded from "ParaNet UFO Echo"
 * Originally by Michael Corbin
 * Originally to All
 * Originally dated 8 Jan 1993, 18:45

Here is the schedule for the next two weeks on ParaNet's UFO radio show:

Sunday, January 10 9:00 PM Mountain/11:00 Eastern
        Guest:  Jim Speiser
                Founder of ParaNet and UFO researcher in Arizona.

Sunday, January 17 9:00 PM Mountain/11:00 Eastern
        Guest:  David Jacobs
                Author of Secret Life concerning the abduction phenomenon.

The show is heard over Galaxy 6, Channel 17, 7.5 MHz Audio.

Be sure to tune in with your satellite receiver and call in over our toll-free lines to speak to the guests.

--  
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?)
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:54:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0E1wv.I60.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Doug Mohney <sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu> writes:
> Actual use of a nuclear weapon .. would result in ..
> EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and 
> (possibly) electronics on the ground. 
> It would be bad. And a waste of good fissionables 
> for other purposes.

There could also be megabits of nugget-sized space 
junk to ventilate any later space vehicles.  But also, 
if plutonium warheads are "destroyed" by Smart Pebbles 
(or whatever they're being called now), couldn't the 
atmosphere be filled with enough plutonium dust to 
give every person on the planet bone cancer ?

-- 
* Fred Baube         * when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter
* Optiplan O.Y.           * have gone Berserk    cracking through the Walls
* baube@optiplan.fi       * it's an illUsion     you're sent Spinning
* #include <disclaimer.h> * you Cannot Shirk     you Have No Choice
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space List Flame Wars
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:52:26 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <C0BGzz.1FA.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>   ... The people trying to push this off into
>   other newsgroups, which are accesible neither for posting
>   nor reading purposes to much of the internet population, are
>   IMHO either ignorant of the status quo or actively supporting
>   said status quo...

While I'm reluctant to disagree with Phil after his most complimentary
comments on my contribution :-), I'm afraid I have to here.

If your site does not get talk.politics.space, there is a reason.  Your
site administrators presumably have decided that they do not wish to
expend resources on political discussions.  (If the lack of the
group is just because they don't know their customers want it... have
you told them about it?)  Moving such discussions to sci.space is NOT
a desirable response -- it might make them shut off this group too, on
the grounds that it's too political.

There's always going to be some spillover of politics into sci.space,
because space is a very politics-driven field right now.  But we can
try to keep the knock-down-drag-out fights in talk.politics.space,
where they really do belong.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 93 10:09:50 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp>    
  <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org> <72827@cup.portal.com>  
  <ewright.726167820@convex.convex.com> <72956@cup.portal.com>
  <ewright.726532221@convex.convex.com>

>In <72956@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>>  Are you saying that they had not even started production of
>>  Pegasus No.2 in April, 1990? Maybe this is true, but it seems
>>  a very strange way for OSC to be operating.
>
>They might have had a second, or even a third Pegasus under
>construction when the first one flew.  But a typical aircraft
>might fly 400 times before it's declared operational.  How
>long would it take to build and launch 400 expendable rockets,
>even if you could afford to?

    I'm lost... what were we talking about here?
    
    But for the record, how long will it take DC-1 to make four
    hundred flights? Much less than an expendable, I'm sure, but
    also alot longer than the 777 will.
    
    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: killing the shuttle
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:47:17 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <C0IAA3.Axy@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>You don't get rid of civil servants and politically-powerful contractors
>that easily.  If you wipe out the Imperial Deathstar, they'll only start
>building another one.

But you can transfer them to another program, which doesn't compete
with anything worthwhile.  (Such as Freedom or Mission to Planet Smurf.)



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:30:22 GMT

In article <C0KrBH.GIC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Quark-catalyzed fusion is for wimps. :-)

Compared to your description of magnetic monopole catalyzed proton decay, I
have to agree :-)

>Still... THAT's a Bussard ramjet powerplant for you!

No kidding.  Just to clarify what's going on, the exchange of virtual X
particles can change quarks into leptons and quarks into antiquarks.  Thus
the proton decay products are a positron and a neutral pion, i.e.,
 
                     +     o
               p -> e  + pi 

However, in order to account for the long lifetime of a proton, the X particle
must be 10^14 times as heavy as a proton (ouch!).  This according to the  
SU(5) grand unified theory.  
 
I didn't know that magnetic monopoles could also mediate such a reaction, too.
However, I was aware that people are looking for them anyway :).  On Feb. 14,
1983, a group from Stanford led by B. Cabrera recorded an event that looked
very much like  the passage of a monopole through their apparatus. 
Unfortunately, as in the case of free quarks, no one has seen a magnetic
monopole since. 

(I might also mention that the X particle plays a role in proton decay
which is somewhat similar to that of the W- particle in neutron decay.)
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Re; Shuttle Toilet
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:14 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <321010b68@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes...
>.......On shuttle, you couldn't dump the
>wastes overboard without the possibility of contaminating anything
>in the payload bay, and you didn't have the large empty tank to use.
>(The shuttle dumps waste water overboard, but is very careful about
>when and how it dumps the water from the holding tanks).  

Which reminds me, yellow stains were found on LDEF, the long duration
satellite that was in Earth orbit for 5 years.   The stains were analyzed
and determined to be human urine.  It was apparently discharged from the
Space Shuttle (I believe).
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:19:35 GMT

In article <ewright.726265944@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>We could fly Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan. 

>Why?  If we're buying Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians, 
>it would make a lot more sense to buy the boosters also
>and skip the integration problem.

Because I want the US to form a spacefaring civilization. Making some use
of foreign technology so we can get out from under a dead end system seems
a great idea to me.

>>We could build a small station with room and power equal to Shuttle. We 
>>could dock the two and get far more work done for far less money. 

>Who is "we?"  If you mean NASA, I don't think so.

Agreed. I was thinking of SSI's ISF. That way the taxpayers aren't
stuck if it fails and the builders will have a real incentive to actually
do the job.

>However, we haven't man-rated the Atlas or Titan since the 60's.  

No need. Man rating doesn't add anything to the safety of the
launcher. All it does is add costs and I see no point in doing it.

>The current assembly lines for those vehicles are pretty much
>booked already.

Not so. Both have plenty of un-used capacity.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: RE: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:45:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0IIG5.J1I.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Henry Spencer's ramscope talk sparked a question in my small mind.  How can
we talk about the performance of antimatter propulsion without knowing
the mass fuel ratio? How much hardware does it take to contain a "tank" of
antimatter (magnetic fields, etc.)?  Does anyone have the input required
for insertion into the rocket equation???

Also, I have seen a graph of anti-mmatter production in the world that
shows is rising on an exponential curve.  (antimater is produced by all
the big collider folks).  Now, suspending my engineering training and
thinking like a normal liberal economist, the exponential curve showed us
producing a kilogram of antimatter by the year 2050 or so.  That's not
to long from now....

How do they contain the antimatter before injection into the collider?  If
I remember correctly they have it going around in a racetrack in a holding
facility, no???

Grant Anderson
Ganderson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com
From: rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:02:50 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA


What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how long it 
will be until the world starts to see privately funded space colonization?

I've noticed that there are some _extremely_ capital intensive schemes around
which might make the marginal cost of launching mass to orbit fairly cheap.
(I'm thinking of mechanisms like Clarke's space "elevator" or Bull's 
gun). I'm more interested in technologies like the Henson Sling or SSTO
technology that might be more useful to private citizens and less likely to
be shelved or monopolized by governments or mega-corps.


Thanks!
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:19:05 GMT


If people want to support hardware development for space colonies, they
can support the Space Studies Institute. They are a real organization
and fund real work. They even put out a regular newsletter.

I think they where kind of drifting in the past but the unfortunate
death of Gerald Oneil seems to have galvanized them. Donations can
be sent to:

  Space Studies Institute
  PO Box 82
  Princeton NJ 08540

For $25 per year you become an associate and get their newsletter. For
$100 you become a Senior Associate and get extra stuff. I am a Senior
Associate.

Other good organizations are the National Space Society and the
Space Frontiere Foundation.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.space:18810 news.answers:4969
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:05:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.171824.25105@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Why does this have to wait for Freedom?  We could do that right now.  
>>In fact, we'd save money launching Freedom on Energia instead of Shuttle.

>The *redesign* (yet again) of Freedom required for it to be launched
>by Energia would very likely cost more than any launch cost savings
>that might be achieved.

An internal NASA group examining that posibility a year ago came fo the
opposite conclusion. They concluded that assembly costs could be cut
in half if the orbit was changed to 51 degrees and Energia was used.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------103 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: u.f.o.e.s.p.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:51:22 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

What became of the space advocacy group United for Our Expanded Space
Programs (u.f.o.e.s.p.) led by Graham Maughan and Linda Strickler?

-rabjab
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tes@gothamcity.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Keywords: U.S. Government funding
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:12:31 GMT


I'm just guessing on my figures, but wasn't 500 lbs of moon rock and dust 
brought back from the moon? And didn't the entire Moon program cost around
$67 billion? I think that puts the moon dust/rocks at about $134,000,000 a 
pound! But as Ken says, it ain't fer sale by Nasa.

                                                       Tom Smith

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
|                                      | Tom E. Smith                      |
| It's not my damn planet Monkey Boy!  |                                   |
|                                      | tes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov       |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:57:56 GMT

In <1993Jan06.171601.10077@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>	A) Alan will fight for Freedom and favor it over renting space
>	   on Mir, yet Freedom has yet to be launched. Mir Exists. 

Hmmm... I don't think anybody has ever accused me of fighting for
Freedom. Now I do think we should build ISF and other smaller, cheaper
facilities. Some crewed and others not. In the meantime I do indeed
support flying experiments on Mir.

I do this so that we can execute more experiments in a cost effective
manner. That way we can develop the materials and processes wich will
make space pay off and free space development from the whims of
Government.

>	B) Alan will fight to shut down the 4 Shuttles, a multibillion
>	   dollar program ) and replace them with a
>	   Soyuz sitting on a U.S. booster. Which hasn't been launched, but
>  	   with a few hand-waving tricks, manages to respark the whole
>	   U.S. aerospace industry. 

Lower cost attracts more demand. Compare the number of four function
calculators sold in 72 for $150 with the number sold today for $1.95.

Yes I think that lowering costs will respark the industry.

     Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------105 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.space:19040 sci.aeronautics:2706
From: fisher@decwin.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:21:16 GMT
Reply-To: fisher@decwin.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


It would seem to me that whether probability of exit or deaths per passenger
mile is a more valid measure would depend on why you want the info.

For example, the airplane vs car comparison probably makes more sense in terms
of miles, because I interpret the question to be "If I want to travel from
Boston to Chicago, is it safer to use a car or a plane."  Chances are
that you will exit the car more times between Boston and Chicago than you will
by plane.

On the other hand, if you are comparing it with the shuttle, the "per mile" is
specious.  The fact that you went 2 million miles to get from LC39 to the 
runway across the island, or the fact that the runway is 2 miles from the pad
is irrelavent.  So in this, I think I would compare entry/exit.

The other interesting part of this is that most airplane fatalities
(and so far all shuttle fatalities) occur close to entry/exit.  In other words
the length of the trip is unlikely to be significant to the probability of
fatality.  I doubt this is strictly true in cars.  While I have heard that most
accidents happen within 10 miles of home, I suspect that is because most of
person-miles spent in cars are within 10 miles of home.

Anyway...(why did I get into this discussion!!!!???)

Burns
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ISU
Date: 12 Jan 1993 11:01 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan12.013919.3524@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) wri

>I've heard that the 1993 session will be held at the University of Alabama
>at Huntsville but not much else... yet.  Thanks in advance.
> 
>--
>Dave Michelson
>davem@ee.ubc.ca
> 

Dave you better get on the stick because Friday of this week is the last day
to put in your resume for it. I do not know who to call. Irwin if you are out
there could you post Abrams address to this guy? ISU will indeed be at the 
University of Alabama in Huntsville this year. We are looking forward to this
event here.  Also to be in Huntsville this year will be the NSS ISDC 93
conference in May, The American Radio Relay League national conference in 
August, as well as the Students for the Exploration  and Development of Space
(SEDS) national conference, also in August. We also have every year the 
Wherner Von Braun Memorial Dinner and program, which is in October. So folks
this is what we are doing in our little town to support space, hope many of you
can come. 

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
From: mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Date: 7 Jan 1993 05:11:01 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: starburst.umd.edu
Summary: ?Delta Clipper accomodations for long duration flights
Keywords: DC,toilet,high-cost,long duration orbital logistics for astronauts

Well, it occured to me after being subjected to a little CNN Headline News
peice this evening regarding the new $23 MILLION DOLLAR toilet that will
be flying aboard the shuttle Endeavour (GAO is somewhat concerned about
this btw) that no mention has been made regarding this sort of thing
with respect to the proposed manned, operational Delta Clipper program.
Since DC-1(,2,3...) will have the ability to stay in LEO for at least
some days with astronauts aboard, one wonders what kind of accomodations
they will have while not engaged in flight activities (i.e. sleeping, eating,
and what comes as a result of eating).  A great deal of time, effort, and money
has been spent on STS to accomodate humans living in space during
week long missions in this regard.

What's the scoop here Allen?  Any info appreciated.

--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael F. Santangelo                 + Internet: mike@cbl.umd.edu      [work]
Computer & Network Systems Head       +           mike@kavishar.umd.edu [home]
Univ MD: CEES / CBL (Solomons Island) + BITNET:   MIKE@UMUC  [fwd to mike@cbl]
Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.history
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Retros & doors opening (was Re: Soviet space disaster?)
Organization: Motorola
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:07:08 GMT

In article <6JAN199307482632@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.201051.13058@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes...
>>parachute deployment that killed the solo astronaut, and the second was
>>an apparent opening of the door of a 3 man spaceship when the retro-rockets
>>were fired (and the cosmonauts weren't wearing space suits).  
>
>This is bizarre. It suggests that Russian and American spacecraft
>doors are designed by the same company...

It wasn't a door. On Soyuz 11 the seperation of the orbital module took
place when firing of several pyrotechnics all at once instead of in 
some order.  The shock from this opened the capsules pressure equilization
valve at a high altitude, it is normaly opened at low altitude to ease 
opening the hatch. 
This was all analyzed in great detail before the ASTP mission and is 
well documented in the NASA history for ASTP. For those who want all
the gory details, I hear that a US film maker is preparing Russian films
of the Soyuz 11 crew recovery, the Soyuz 1 crash and fire, and the
Nedelin disaster for release soon. That's all I know about it so far
so don't ask me any questions about it. If anyone knows more please
post it. 

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space