HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nagyba%HUBME51.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: I need some help!
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:02:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bzo4M0.1qF.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Hi guys!
Sorry to disturb you, but i have a problem.
I would like to know the "adress" of the Technical University of Aachen.
I write to you because the person i want to find works on space research.
Please send the answer to my personnal "adress"(nagyba@hubme51.bitnet) because i
 don't often read this digest.
Thank's for all and i wish for all of you a merry x'mas and a happy new year!
               Nagy Balazs(dave)    :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:42:56 GMT

In article <ewright.725152007@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.192544.2996@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Today's overhead is horrible, but $100,000 1940s dollars is only about
>>$2 million 1992 dollarettes.... That's about 20 engineers in a Motel 6 
>>for six months, no machine shops, hangers, mechanics, flight test equipment, 
>>nada.
>
>You think a typical engineer earns $100,000 a year?
>
>I want to work for your company!
>
	By the time you also pay for FICA, pension, benefits, and
overhead, a $50,000 engineer can easily cost a company double his base
pay!  BTW, Ed, I ALSO help do the budgeting for my lab, so before you
ask, yes, I have some experience in this!

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:46:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.132824.14131@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <9gt204c@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>>If this is teh case, than
>>you have to treat the shuttle development costs as sunk costs.
>
>I have no problem treating the research vehicles which supported
>Shuttle (like X-24) being treated as sunk costs but I don't think
>development costs should be. That simply makes commercial development
>that much harder.

In military procurement, the development costs are charged against
the prototypes, X, Y, etc, and the operational vehicles of the procurement 
are charged at "flyaway" cost. Following this model, Enterprise ate the 
development costs, and it's retired. Current Orbiters are only liable for 
their $1.5 billion flyaway cost and their operational costs. 

Payload costs, including mission specialists and their ground support 
staffs, belong to the customer for the payload, Now in NASA's case, 
these costs all come out of the same pocket, but you're making faulty 
conclusions when you insist on lumping them for Shuttle while separating 
them, and ignoring large parts of them, for your favorite projects.
Remenber that the data gathered, and techniques developed by the Shuttle
program, the RL-10 development program, NASP materials, etc are available 
free to McDD for their program. Are you going to charge these costs against 
DC? To be consistent with the way you treat Shuttle, you should, but of
course this is nonsense accounting.

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
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: The University of Iowa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:15:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.203937.27599@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
>Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:39:37 GMT
>In article <1992Dec30.200706.29744@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>>>prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
>>>climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?
>
>>The fact that you can equate these two things just shows how
>>out of touch with reality you really are.
>
>Oh I don't know about that. I see lots of similarities. Both climbers and
>astronauts are small groups of well trained people. Both spend lots of
>money to do what they do. Both are limited to letting very small numbers
>of people do something exciting. After all, I will never climb Mt. Everest,
>nor (the way things are going) will I ever go into space.
>
>Now you might argue that space is the future of mankind and that a
>spacefaring civilization is more important than rock climbing. I aggree
>with that but must point out that if you think current government space
>activity has anything to do with that then YOU are the one out of touch.
>
>  Allen
>
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
>+----------------------115 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

Most polls show that the public wants a manned space program, and they
are willing to pay for it. Why do they want a manned space program? During 
the Apollo Program the answer was obvious, today it is not obvious, at least 
to me, why they want one. 

When JFK gave his speech in 1961 he talked about intangible benefits from
an effort to put AMERICANS on the moon. I don't recall that he said anything
about science and technology as a reasons for making the effort. There were 
many benefits including scientific and technical ones from the Apollo 
program. Was the money well spent? I think most people would say yes. 

Today we have AMERICANS in space on an occasional basis, with the possibility
of more or less continuous presence of AMERICANS in space within the next
decade. Is this worth what it costs? If the majority of the people think
so we will keep on with this program, if not we won't. There is no such
thing as an inexpensive space program and in particular a manned space
program. If we worked hard at mundane things like industrial engieering
we might be able to reduce the cost of placing something in LEO by 
perhaps 50%. That would be a good thing but it will not make it possible
for Joe Six Pack to vacation in space.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ground vs. flight
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:43:31 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1jt2zfd@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>>"Someday" was 1966, on Gemini 10.  And the target craft for the EVA wasn't
>>even stabilized -- it was an old Agena, batteries long since dead...
>>
>	I wasn't aware of this.  What did Michael Collins do while on
>the Agena?

Apart from just generally evaluating how easy it was to do -- not very --
he retrieved a micrometeorite experiment package that had been put on
the Agena in hopes that it could be returned to Earth eventually.

>	... what is
>the maximum mass that the RMS can handle?

I think it's rated for the theoretical maximum shuttle payload, 65klbs.
It's not rated for the full mass of an orbiter, which is why the station
arm will eventually take over the capture-for-docking job.

>	BTW, what has the success rate been with the RMS on grabbing
>stuff with a handle?  Anyone have any clue? 80% 90%?  Let's
>not even consider the stuff it's had to attempt to grab that didn
>have handles...

The arm really *can't* grab anything that doesn't have a proper grapple
fixture on it, because the "hand" isn't a general-purpose gripper -- it's
designed solely and only to grab grapple fixtures, and is very specialized
for exactly that job.

As far as I know, the success rate for grapple fixtures is 100%.  They've
sometimes had to proceed slowly and carefully, but I don't think they've
ever had to abandon a grabbing attempt.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: I thinI see our problem. (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 24 Dec 92  09:21:14

How many Vostoks are still flying? 
 
Lots - one landed outside of Seattle a few weeks ago.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Xref: sparky sci.space:18523 talk.politics.space:1658
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Public support for the space program
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:05:39
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<1992Dec30.230013.4102@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Dec31.015903.15161@cs.rochester.edu>
	<1992Dec31.184656.14629@cs.rochester.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: dietz@cs.rochester.edu's message of 31 Dec 92 18:46:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.230013.4102@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>>> The *relative* support of the space program is not very high.
>
>> Another Dietz assertion-without-proof... Please
>> provide data which shows the relative support.
>
>Okay!

The general consensus seems to be that public support for space
exploration is wide but not deep.  The majority of the people _do_
support government spending on space exploration, but only a small
minority place it among their top priorities.

The polling data presented does support Paul's claim that the relative
importance that most people place on space exploration is low compared
to the importance they place on more earthbound programs.  On the
other hand...

>   In response to the question
>
>     "I am going to ask you a question about government spending.
>      In answering, please bear in mind that sooner or later all
>      government spending has to be taken out of the taxes that you
>      and other Americans pay.  Thinking about the US space program,
>      tell me whether the amount of money now being spent for that purpose
>      should be increased, kept at the present level, reduced, or ended
>      altogether?"
>
>	   Year		Increase       Same   Reduce   End    No Opinion
>	   1984		   21%		48	23	5	3
>	   1986		   26		50	14	5	5
>	   1989		   27		42	22	4	5
>	   1990		   17		37	32     10	4

Even this data shows that a majority of the people (54%) support
spending at least as much as we currently do on space exploration.

In addition, another Gallup poll (quoted in Ad Astra about a year
ago), indicated that the public drastically overestimates the amount
of money being spent on space exploration.  Average estimates were
in the 5-10% range, when the actual figure is closer to 1%.

Personally, I believe that current spending levels ($14 billion/year)
could fund a vigorous, ambitious, manned and unmanned program of
orbital, lunar, and interplanetary exploration and development -- if
it were being spent properly...

5% of the federal budget ($60 billion/year) -- which most people seem
to feel is a reasonable proportion, if these polls are correct --
could fund a fantastic space program -- but again, only if it were
spent in the right ways and on the right things...

Followups are directed to talk.politics.space.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:00:21 GMT

In article <21DEC199218250184@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.163942.17983@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes...

>>I asked Wingo to bring up a resource that could be obtained from
>>space that was not substitutable, used in small quantities so that
>>price rises could be tolerated, or in short supply.   He suggested
>>platinum.
>
>Paul Platinum is only one of many metals that, if we have at a minimum, a 
>translunar transporation system would be cheaper.

So, trot out your claims so I can shoot them down.  And no more
of that lunar titanium nonsense, ok?  I debunked that last time.

BTW, it is *not* obvious that having a translunar transportation
system would make platinum group mining economical.  This system would
have costs, which could be high, as would the mining operation.  Since
the market for platinum is rather small (a few billion $/year), it by
itself cannot justify much space activity.

Moreover, there's a subtle shift you're making here.  I could even
agree that someday space activities could be profitable.   Well,
wonderful.  What I'm not willing to accept is poorly conceived
neomalthusian nonsense about space being *essential*.  Apocalyptic
claims of this kind are *classic* propaganda tools, used by all
sorts of quasi-religions.  They require evidence.

 >of technologies as justifications for the program. A serious considered look
 >at the problems of pollution, population, and wealth generation from a 
 >systems perspective clearly show the advantage of increasing the resource
 >base upon which mankind must draw for survival and prosperity.

Blah, blah, blah.  This is all vacuous mouthings.  Please present
*specific* things which we can judge.

 > must press forward without Von Braun. Your arguments within the narrow
 > context of your statements may by true. What you are forgetting is
 > that there is much more to this world than your perspective and your
 > view.

I'm willing to be convinced by facts.  Just what convinced you, if
not facts?

 > Wake up, look around, if we do not take this chance it may be a very
 > long time before the chance will come again.

Please justify that.  Looks like more crap to me.  The world is
getting, on average, wealthier and more productive, so I would have
thought that the future would hold more spending on luxuries like
space.  Just what is it that we must do *now*?

 > The destiny that the
 > dirtballers want leads in the end to poverty and a dimming tomorrow.

When unable to supply a rational argument, resort to proof by assertion.
Wonderful.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: I thinI see our problem. (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:58:35 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 <!jt240c@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>	In reality it sounds more like you are talking about DC-10,
>DC-12, etc.
>	Unless you are saying that a 747 is the same plane as a DC-3
>was.
>	If your claims are about 50 years from now, or even 20
>eyars from now, I'll buy them.  

I think it would do you a world of good to go out to your local
airport and look around.

Do you have any idea how many DC-3s are still flying?  After 50
years?

And the 747, which you cite as an example of a modern airplane,
is well over 20 years old!


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: steveha@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings)
Subject: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:11:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Applications Division

What are the Pegasus folks up to right now?

I have a sci.space posting from 1990 that speculated that by the end of
1992, there might be one Pegasus launch per *month* (thus, 12 launches in
1993).  I don't think this is happening.  But what is happening?
-- 
Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings    ===^=== :::::
uunet!microsoft!steveha  steveha@microsoft.com     ` \\==|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: feg@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (forrest.e.gehrke)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:59:26 GMT

In article <C04vJI.AB9.1@cs.cmu.edu> KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil writes:
>>
>>Take what ever you are paying (~7%-9%, I forget exactly what) and add in
>>an equal amount from your employer.  Now kiss it goodbye, because anyone
>>under 50 ain't gonna see it come back :-(


6.2% up to $55,500 in 1992 for Soc.Sec. and 1.45% up to $130,200 for
Medicare from the employee and also from the employer.

>And now we hear that the Clinton administration is proposing to push back the 
>retirement age so that they won't have to pay out so much Social Security.  
>If the trend continues, by the time I "retire", the retirement age will be 
>90!

90 may be somewhat pessimistic, but it *should* be raised.  In
1935 when age 65 was chosen most retirees lived less than 3 years
more, so Social Security didn't have to pay out very much.  Now
very many people live 20 years more and the system has some problems 
with that.  For present retirees this system is a nice Ponzi scheme.  
But it obviously can't continue this way.  (This thread doesn't belong 
here, but I couldn't resist responding).

Forrest Gehrke feg@dodger.att.com
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: satellite costs etc.
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:29:00 GMT

In article <1hfromINN3a5@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <BzqBvs.J8H@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Actually, henry.  both of you are sticking to the clarke orbit model.
>
>Most of the effort in the Telecom industry is oriented towards
>LEO comm sats.  store and forward or multiple fast relay satellittes.
[deleted]
>Oncve again,  for LEO  commsats,  rendevous is quite feasible.
>
>you could even use the shuttle to  grab them up.

I'd note that we haven't actively been using LEO commsats since Telestar
for video or other high bandwidth downlinks. The Iridium concept is a
narrow band quasi-cellular phone proposal. Seamless handoff for video
and high bandwidth data is a thorny problem, but can likely be solved
as we move from analog to digital transmissions. High bandwidth still
requires high link budgets, however, and Earth stations are not necessarily
going to get cheaper unless the satellites get much more powerful, and
larger, than is currently projected for LEO. Clarke orbit has the real
advantage of allowing high gain fixed dishes to set the link margin.

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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:14:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.002522.4127@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>> The Space Transportation budget this year was about $5 billion, if
>>> memory serves. NASA flew 8 Shuttle missions this year. 

>>This number does not include NASA overhead, amortization of the orbiter,...

>This is a tired argument. NASA is not a private company, is not chartered
>to work like a private company,...

Completely irrelevant. The question of the cost of a shuttle flight is
something the taxpayers are entitled to know. One element of that cost
is the development of the vehicle.

Knowing the cost is important so that our tax $$ can be spent wisely. A
serious problem wiht governemnt is that it doesn't consider cost a relevant
factor. Your willingness to ignore costs only encourages the wasting of
more money and makes it impossible to learn from past mistakes.

Just because NASA isn't a profit making entity doesn't mean there isn't
a bottom line.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------121 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Aurora chase planes (was Re: Aurora)
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:42:05 GMT


In article <1h8beqINN9hv@news.cerf.net>, davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>
>I think people are getting a little too hung up on the "chase" word.
>If I recall right, what started this was that an observer said he
>saw this unidentified plane being chased by an F-15 or F-16.  As
>an observer, how can you tell if one plane is "chasing" another or
>accompanying it?  (Mary's definition of "chase plane" is the standard
>one for testing aircraft but we're really talking about an "accompanying
>plane")  Unless there was some major manuevering going on you can't say
>that the F-15 was "chasing" or attempting to intercept with the intent
>of shooting it down or identifying an unknown plane rather than accompanying
>it as a "chase plane".

If I saw one aircraft, armed or not, I would feel safe to assume it to be a
"companion" plane.  If I saw two, armed to the teeth, one behind and slightly
below, the other off center, above and further behind ... The Air Force guys I
grew up with call that "snakes and pistols".  ie Sidewinders and guns.

If you were to see only one "chase" aircraft, it is probably just that.  Most
air forces (includes USN) prefer to fly in wing pairs.

Not that I speak with any real athority.  Mary, does this seem like a plausible
explanation (although not complete).
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |"Pacts with the devil are not legally
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |binding!"
PADI DM-54909                     |-Friar Tuck   _Robin Hood:The Hooded Man_

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:45:49 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan1.181236.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>... I have heard of the supposed race to the moon with solar 
>sails, to celebrate the 500 anniversary of Columbus, not sure if it 
>actually came about..

Actually, it was a race to Mars.  It didn't come about; the organizers
flubbed the job of fundraising pretty spectacularly.  It's been revived
as a race to the Moon under somewhat different ground rules.  Timing
and funding is still rather indefinite, last I heard.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry