HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:09:16 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 <1993Jan7.080605.1770@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Apollo came in on time, as crash military programs sometimes do, and
>near budget, a budget more than double that of Shuttle in constant
>dollars, but where is it now? 

You didn't say previous spacecraft were expensive to develop,
or that, once developed, they might be cancelled for political
reasons.  You said that had 200% overruns.

If you can't answer the question, change the subject. :-)


>It's you who expouses your whole cloth failure-seeking strawman. I 
>expouse careful engineering planning for the inevitable developmental
>setbacks in any new venture. 

There's a difference between careful engineering planning -- which
is just what was done in Project Apollo and is being done with 
Delta Clipper and which you *hate* -- and spending three times
as much as the cost of the project on feasiblity studies, management
reviews, cost reviews, and redundant paperwork.  That's what you
espouse.  (Even the Shuttle program did not have enough unnecessary
overhead to please you.)


>That's not failure seeking, that's failure avoiding by providing 
>alternatives to risky sections of a program. 

Yet Project Apollo, which you rail against, was a success.  And
the Shuttle program, which you consider much better (though not
perfect) was a failure.

I guess when it comes to pleasing you, nothing succeeds like failure.


>There's a vast difference between the incremental improvements from
>one aircraft to the next in the series and in a clean sheet of paper
>design by a team who has never done any similar work. Name 5 vertical
>takeoff and landing reusable spacecraft designed by the MacDD team.

Name five jet airliners designed by Boeing before the model 707.
Name five unducted fanjets flying today.

Real engineers develop "clean sheet designs" all the time.  The
principles of engineering do not stop working just because a new
design operates in 0 psi instead of 5 psi.
 
I don't want to belabor the obvious, but since you seem to be
oblivous to suc things....

There have been hundreds of vertical takeoff and landing
vehicles built over the last 50 years.  Most of them are
called helicopters and, to best of my knowledge, every one
of them was reuseable.  A non-reuseable helicopter would
have been too expensive to develop, let alone operate.

Yet you don't claim that a helicopter is nearly impossible
to build.  It's the word "spacecraft" that makes you bug
your eyes and wet your pants.
 

>Knowledge of NACA airfoils and high
>bypass turbofans just doesn't transfer to vertical takeoff and landing
>rockets no matter how much you wave your hands about it.

Gosh.  It guess it's a good thing that spaceships don't need
airfoils or high-bypass turbofans.

 
Xref: sparky sci.space:18805 news.answers:4964
From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:20:35 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

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

> In article <C0Jv2M.74z.1@cs.cmu.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) 
> 
> > Since fusing protons is so hard, why not use deuterons?
> > They fuse at a lower temperature, and the reaction only
> > requires regrouping the nucleons, rather than invoking the
> > weak force to transmute p->n.  The Earth's d/p ratio is ~.0001.
> > Perhaps the ramscoop collector could selectively enrich d,
> > by selecting for atoms having a magnetic moment.
> 
> 
> Or, better yet, why fuse anything at all?  One can do the following:
> decelerate the incoming material a bit producing some power.  Now,
> accelerate some on-board reaction mass using this power, so that the
> two streams are now at the same speed.
> 
> Done properly, the thrust from the second part exceeds the drag from
> the first part.  The decelerated interstellar material needn't even be
> laterally compressed.
> 
> This scheme seems counterintuitive, but it violates conservation of
> neither energy nor momentum.  The kinetic energy of the vehicle
> does not increase with time, it only gets concentrated in less
> and less mass.
> 
> All these schemes suffer because the local ISM is so damned thin.  The
> solar system appears to lie inside a bubble of very thin, hot gas,
> perhaps the result of some "recent" supernovae in our neighborhood.
> 
> 	Paul F. Dietz
> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

But, again, that involves carrying on-board fuels, which is the _BIG_ 
advantage of the Bussard Ramscoop.  Carrying antimatter for the purposes 
of accelerating to a point where you are independant of it is not too bad 
a price to pay for the eventual fuel-independant p-p fusion, and even 
carrying some deuterium if you have to is not too bad, as that too should 
eventually be outgrown.  Carrying reaction mass with the intention of 
supplying it for the entire journey is hardly advantageous.

Also, the Bussard Ramscoop would be lucky to accelerate to the point 
where ISM is really useful inside of the solar system, so I don't think 
we'll have a problem with that.  It could take MONTHS to reach the 
velocities necessary for p-p fusion...

                                                Jason Cooper
Xref: sparky sci.space:19192 sci.aeronautics:2718
From: gandalf@wpi.WPI.EDU (James Michael Sambrook)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Summary: Elevators...
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:12:08 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

>In article <1993Jan8.145918.3604@newsgate.sps.mot.com> turner@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Robert Turner) writes:
>
>Isn't the elevator considered the safest mode of transportation meeting both the
>"if I get in, I get out" and "deaths per passenger mile".
>

Believe it or not, yes!!!  Also, it is the most widely used form of mass
transportation there is!!!

Besides, would Aerosmith ever sing a song called "Love on an Escalator?" :^)

					James

*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
*                              This Space For Rent                            *
*                        Call 1-800-FOR-RENT for details                      *
*                                                                             *
*              James Michael Sambrook, Aerospace AND Nuclear Engineer         *
*                  "Are you nuts?"           "Nope, just insane!"             *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: question about SETI
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:36:46 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <tim.726364246@giaeb> tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) writes:
>Lots of money (I understand) is being spent on SETI...

Actually very little, as these things go.  The ongoing SETI efforts are
quite small.

>So, we are left with a civilisation that is probably very far ahead of ours,
>but wants to contact us (for some reason).  Now, how would they go about it ?
>Surely they'd set beacons somewhere in space...
>So, my question is, given that we ought to look for beacons that cannot be
>missed:  has anyone examined the immediate vicinity of pulsars ?  I mean,
>REALLY examined them ?

Astronomers are very interested in the immediate vicinity of pulsars,
because it's an excellent bet that you can find objects of great theoretical
interest (accretion disks and such) there.  Peculiar and conspicuous objects
thereabouts would not be missed.  And yes, astronomers take the possibility
of finding an extraterrestrial beacon quite seriously -- the first pulsars
caused a considerable stir until it was clear that they were just natural
phenomena.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Nasa flight sim code
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:05:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Austin Dev. Center, Comshare Inc.


	Would anyone happen to know where a body could get information
on old flight simulation code written by NASA or any of the military
branches? I am interested in obtaining any code that might be declassified
and publicly availible. In addition, any data related to the flight models
of old or new aircraft would be nice.

					Thanks

					
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Don "Syco" Thompson                 |   I may be opinionated, but at least
Comshare Inc. dont@execu.execu.com  |   my opinions are my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "There's no kill like a guns kill".  Lt Commander Joe "Hoser" Satrapa, USN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: aad@siemens.com (Anthony Datri)
Subject: Re: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
Organization: Siemens Corporate Research, Princeton (Plainsboro), NJ
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:10:13 GMT


>To get the Mars rock I'm talking of down to earth didn't cost a single cent,
>by the way. The 18kg SNC-meteorit simply fell out of the sky in October, 1962
>near Zagami rock in Nigeria.

I must admit some skepticism wrt meteorites that are claimed to have been
ejected from Luna and Mars.
-- 

======================================================================8--<
From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP **
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 06:57:17 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

Thought I'd just do a blanket post on what I've seen here rather than 
reply to each individual message.  Firstly, do we have a verdict of anyu 
sort on whether or not antimatter-matter collisions are a good way to 
produce the heat required for fusion?  Or might it be best to boost the 
ramjet up to .017c (where the kinetic energy of the ship should roughly 
equal the energy required for deuterium-deuterium (or was that d-p?) 
fusion) using a more conventional method like nuclear pod propulsion, 
such as the Orion starship?  Secondly, if it _IS_ a good way to produce 
heat on the incoming H, does anyone out there have any idea how a 
_smaller_ version of something that would create that kind of antimatter 
(I figure it's probably better to produce it than to carry it) per second 
would be like?  I'm not looking for first-draft plans here, just concepts 
that may be used to DESCRIBE what such a device would look like and how 
(if necessary) it might pipe protons out of the stream.  Thirdly, if we 
were to STORE the antimatter, how would it be stored?  I have seen methods
for plasma, but can't seem to find antimatter storage.  

Any response welcome...

                                                Jason Cooper
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:14:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Is this relevant? Yes if we want to compare 
>>*vehicles*, no if we want to compare *programs*. It's important to realize 
>>that DC is projected to operate under a completely different set of rules
>>than Shuttle is forced to use. 
>
>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
>it costs, I don't see your point.

I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now*
has it's capabilities at *any* price. When that changes, I'll be happy 
to see it retired, but not one second before that.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: lightweight, big mountains
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:26:56 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


Hey, what if they made this real big mountain out of lightweight material,
like aluminum?  could they launch stuff off of it?

-rabjab
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:24:11 GMT

In <ewright.726186341@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <1993Jan4.165523.11040@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Technically possible, but militarily dangerous. You've just escalated
>>a brushfire conventional war into a nuclear exchange.

>Oh?  So what are you going to do about it?  MAD -- the aptly named
>legacy of Robert McNamara -- is still in effect.  If you retaliate 
>by launching a nuclear strike against your enemy's territory, he can 
>do the same to you. Are you prepared to sacrifice millions of your
>citizens to avenge the loss of one spy satellite?

>I didn't think so.

This same logic, of course, is sometimes used to show how it is
possible to nuke an enemy city and get away with it -- is he going to
sacrifice millions MORE of his citizens in a full scale exchange?
This is usually used to show why MAD ostensibly has nothing to do with
us not having fought a war with the Soviets over all this time.

The trick is that once the first nuke flies, things stop being
'logical'.  Whoever fired first, the other guy has now detected at
least one nuclear burst and has lost a lot of electronic assets (C3I
stuff).  He's blinded, uninformed, and knows the other guy has fired
at least one nuke.  What's he going to do?

>You might retaliate by attacking your enemy's satellites, but if
>he started the ASAT battle, it's because he decided he has less 
>to lose than you do.  (And if you're the United States, he's almost
>certainly right.)

Using this kind of tactic to get satellites is VERY dangerous, and I
would say it is generally a bad idea.






-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:51:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan12.171525.7437@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
...[others]
>>>Shuttle designers originally
>>>considered a titanium skin for the Orbiter, but even a metal as refractory
>>>as titanium wasn't up to the job 
>>
>>Yet Another Historical Error.  Refractory metals were up to the
>>job until NASA doubled the size of the Shuttle orbiter to meet 
>>military payload demands.  (And some engineers at Rockwell still
>>felt that refractory metals were viable, given sufficient ingenuity.
>>Langley, and possibly other NASA centers have since come up with 
>>refractory metals which they believe can do the job.  Some of these
>>were considered for use on the fifth orbiter.)
>
>Even the SR71 uses fuel to help cool it's titanium skin, and it travels
>more than four times slower than a re-entry vehicle. The only practical
>metal more refractory than titanium is tungsten, and no one would seriously
>consider a tungsten skinned vehicle. It would weigh too much, not to mention
>the fabrication difficulties or the cost. Using titanium instead of aluminum
>to *back up* a lighter heat shield is certainly practical, but with the 
>extremely good insulating qualities of available ceramic refractories, it 
>isn't necessary. An active cooling system could negate the need for a ceramic
>shield, but would likely weigh more and be prone to breakdown. A heat shield

	Actually, tungsten (and most refractory metals) wouldn't work
very well, since they oxidize at catastophic rates when they get too
hot (in air, of course), not to mention the weight.  And, while
titanium is more heat tolerant than aluminum, it still will crap out
at reentry temps.  I have heard of some really exotic plated light
metal alloys for making actively cooled honeycombs for the NASP.  They
looked at using our tunnel for some sample tests in combusting
environments, but we couldn't get the heat transfer rates they wanted
in the required time frame.  Our tunnel typically runs heat transfer
rates of 1.0-1.5 MW/m^2, and they were looking for more like 3-5
MW/m^2.  The upshot is that if you don't have a skin which can run
very hot in an oxidizing atmosphere (lots of atomic oxygen!), backed
up with good insulation, you'll have to go to either active cooling or
ablative cooling, depending on the length of exposure.
	We use water cooled nickel walls for our combustor, which have
proven very durable.  I have also tried mild steel with a nickel
plate, to save money, and it has done pretty well also.  The nickel
superalloys are heavier than titanium, but they will hold strength to
higher temps, and will resist oxidation, unlike tungsten and such.
-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Stages to Saturn)
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:33:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.180900.25657@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> hughes@gary.enet.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) writes:
>
>Does anyone know if 'Stages to Saturn' is still purchaseable?

Not a real one unless you find it at a used book store, etc.. 
I checked last summer and you can only get a photocopy through NTIS 
(National Technical Information Service) for about $60-70. 

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: skoester@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott A Koester)
Subject: Information wanted please....
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:06:11 GMT


   I would like to know all of the current space legislation that has been
passed and where I can read the actual and final versions of the bills or
treaties that have been passed, anyone out there help me out? (Don't bother to
tell me about the 'Back to the Moon' bill, I'm sending for information on this)
Also...I would like to know more about the organization Students for the
Exploration and Development of Space, any members out there?  Email all
responses please.



  Scott Koester
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: needed: a real live space helmet
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:50:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: golem.rabjab.18.726875452
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

When I want to feel like I'm in space lately I've been wearing a 
large goldfish bowl over my head, but it bumps around too much
when I drive.  Where can I buy a decent helmet or get one real cheap?
It must have earphones with little antennas coming out of them,
like the ones in Lost in Space.
Somebody told me there was a contest I could enter with cereal box
tops to win a spacesuit!  But I can't find the cereal.  

HELP!
-rabjab
From: higgins@fnalnl.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:27:20 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalnl.fnal.gov

In article <Jan08.193145.59326@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, wallacen@ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace) writes:
> There is yet another interesting book out there, called "Mirror Matter"
> by Dr. Robert L. Forward, another far-thinker in this area. He has
> worked with DOD and other interested parties on antimatter 

Quite true.

> as a
> *practical* energy source right now. 
   ^^^^^^^^^                ^^^^^ ^^^
This is hard to believe.           So is this.

Originally we were discussing the design of high-performance
interstellar propulsion systems, on a multi-century timescale where
antimatter may be competitive with other methods.  The short-term
prospects for it are pretty dismal.

> More interestingly to me, he mentioned that DOD is in the process
> of building an accelerator solely for the purpose of generating
> AM for use in space projects, both as fuel and for research purposes.

Vaporware-- unless it's secret, which I very much doubt.

> Presumably the "cold" AP mentioned in the recent Sci Am article would
> be part of such a system.

The U. of Washington ion traps are suitable for keeping only small
numbers of antiprotons, or other charged particles, so far as I know.

 
> Reality Check:
> We have never actually made antimatter. We have made anti-particles,
> but as yet they have never been cold enough to try to get them to
> link up into matter. Supposedly this experiment is intended in the
> relatively near future; perhaps Bill Higgins could comment on this.

Well, I would apply the word "antimatter" to any antiparticle, but I
understand what you mean:  matter made of neutral anti-atoms has not
been fabricated.  H. Poth and collaborators have done work on
antiprotonic atoms, where a negative antiproton orbits a positive
nucleus for a short time (it's a nice probe of nuclear physics).  They
would like to make antihydrogen (positron plus antiproton), but as far
as I know they haven't managed it yet.  My reference is a 1988
workshop proceedings, so I may be out of date.  If somebody is
planning to do this, it's certainly at CERN's Low Energy Antiproton
Ring, where the action is in this field.  Fermilab has no facilities
for work with "cold" antiprotons.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:49:50 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1ige15INN30a@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>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.

Unnecessarily, if so, since the solutions developed for Skylab actually
worked pretty well.  (Notably, the Skylab toilet worked.)  For rather
longer than a week, too.

I doubt that anyone has done enough detailed engineering on DC-1 to get
down to this level of nitty-gritty.  But it really isn't that big a deal.
The Gemini 7 astronauts spent two weeks in space a quarter century ago.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:18750 rec.models.rockets:3449