HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: How to build ion engine?
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:48:19 GMT

ron@vicorp.com (Ron Peterson) writes:


>Could someone please describe to me how to build a practical ion rocket
>engine?

>I'd like to know if it would be possible to build a micro-sized
>platform that could lift itself in the air powered by a solar cell
>or very small battery.  I thought that perhaps a tiny ion motor
>with a solar cell painted on its exterior might be capable of
>lifting itself off the ground.
>ron@vicorp.com or uunet!vicorp!ron

No.

Ion drives are low-thrust beasties that can't lift themselves against
gravity. They're useful for in-space use, when thrusting for a couple months
doesn't pose much of a problem...

Gee, now I have to come up with an extra-big .signature, because
my response is shorter than the question...

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/




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
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:30:36 GMT

In article <BuF8KI.DD8.1@cs.cmu.edu> "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov writes:
>
>
>I'm not sure if I would call it pollution, but "moral imperative"?
>What kind of gods are you guys making up, anyway?

All of them, plus the rest of civilization.  The moral imperitive
is to spread civilization across the solar system, instead of keeping
all our eggs on one planet.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Keywords: Space Shuttle, Orbital Elements, Keplerian
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 00:55:59 GMT

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 47     
1 22120U 92 61  A 92256.65956585 -.00000390  00000-0  00000+0 0    14
2 22120  56.9995 107.3006 0009560 279.4756  80.5384 15.89196901    06
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: 3 Booster Questions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:28:00 GMT

In response to Josh's statment about single engines for the booster phase of an
HLV.  

Josh the NLS one booster which as an Atlas II class launcher only uses one
STME booster (600,000 lbs thrust) for 20,000 lbs to orbit. Why? Lower labor
costs.  Titan IV costs much because of all of the labor involved in the build
up as well as the reliability issues that others have mentioned.  Funny that
I did not know this three weeks ago (about NLS having single engine) when
I spoke of the single engine "Baby Saturn" approach. I have to up the payload 
to orbit value to 60,000-65,000 for the F1A/STME combo to orbit. It still costs
less than an Altas to fly.  A Rockwell engineer I spoke with at the WSC thought
the baby Saturn might be as low as 55 million per launch.  This gets the cost
per lb down to less than $1000 bucks a pound.  This is mostly due to labor
savings in the booster construction.  Reliablity is a large question BUT 65 F1
engines fired without failure during the Apollo program.  This does give a 
baseline for an optimistic flight reliablilty percentage.

Dennis, University of Alabama Huntsville





Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
 
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:02:01 GMT


>It's also laughable to look at "global warming" when a single volcanic eruption
>kicks enough enough ash to DROP temperatures despite our many years of
>unregulated environmental engineering, hmm? 
>

A lot of the chemical waste we pollute the lower athmosphere with needs
several years to reach the upper regions.

>We also don't have enough of a dataset on our world to show what the "real" 
>temperature should be. I kid you not. Would you like to average in the ice ages
>and the time before the DinosaurKiller impacted? 
>

Even if some of the results of on-going research on the topic of global warming
were wrong, would you like to bet on that? Even if all the waste we're producing
wouldn't damage the environment at all: it's toxic and we're killing life forms
by simply dumping it in the oceans or whatever. And that's a fact. If you
disagree, watch the news.

I mean: I'm not afraid that life in whole will disappear from this planet, but
I'm quite sure that, if we continue like that, man will.

>Besides, population growth is self-correcting. People who have nothing better
>to do start little piss-ant wars and end up killing themselves off. 

>                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia
                               ^^^^^^^^
Definitely. (Yawn)



Andreas Weder
aweder@inf.ethz.ch


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.154301@cs.man.ac.uk> mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko) writes:
>Given that there are two bodies (Pluto and Charon), would it be
>possible to lose enough energy by sling-shotting around them
>repeatedly (the opposite to what's been done by the Voyagers, Ulysses,
>etc., at Jupiter)?  Or are they too small to have enough of a
>gravitational effect?

The velocity change you can get out of a fly-by is proportional to the
body's surface escape velocity (plus a whole string of other issues
that amount to a factor of 0 to 2, or so...)

Pluto's surface escape velocity is 1.1km/s, so at best you might
hope to get around 2km/s velocity change out of a fly-by. 

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ron@vicorp.com (Ron Peterson)
Subject: How to build ion engine?
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:04:45 GMT


Could someone please describe to me how to build a practical ion rocket
engine?

I'd like to know if it would be possible to build a micro-sized
platform that could lift itself in the air powered by a solar cell
or very small battery.  I thought that perhaps a tiny ion motor
with a solar cell painted on its exterior might be capable of
lifting itself off the ground.
ron@vicorp.com or uunet!vicorp!ron

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel)
Subject: Re: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:39:18 GMT
Organization: preferably none

In article <10SEP199220221219@iago.caltech.edu>, irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
|> quick development schedule, as well as a short flight time.  The current plans
|> are to launch in 1998 on an 8 year direct flight (hopefully).
		    ^^^^
I'm puzzled.  Given a small number of pretty standard instruments, and a
destination no more distant than Neptune which we've already visited, what
needs six more years to be developed?  This may be fastER but I'd hesitate
to call it fast.

	- Richard wanting to know more about state-of-the-art
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mirrors
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:33:45 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <9209111316.AA13587@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>How come those solar sails zoom across space while carrying a payload, then
>when you get to Mars and remove the payload (thus making them even less 
>massive), they just sit there? :-)

Park them in a position and at an angle where the combined effects of
Martian and Solar gravity balance the photon thrust.  Such positions do
exist; Robert Forward has patented the idea of using them for high-latitude
"geostationary" comsats.  The question for this application is, can you
find such positions where the reflected sunlight hits the planet?  (Bonus
for having it hit the polar caps in particular.)

An alternative is a dynamic system where the sails spend some of their
time as reflectors, acquiring velocity in some undesired direction, and
the rest of their time as sails, maneuvering back.  The question here is,
what's the best duty cycle you can achieve?

Frankly, if you want to warm up the planet, the idea of adding halocarbon
greenhouse gases to its atmosphere strikes me as superior.  The ratio of
results to effort seems much better.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:48:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.055145.15037@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>Is it the case that, by the time a probe could be readied, we would have
>just missed the launch window?  Or is there some other objection to this
>method this time?

If they can't get funding for a Titan, they plan to launch on an Atlas
and make a single Jupiter flyby. This makes the cruse slightly longer
(compared to direct Titan launch.) Also, if Congress delays funding for
a year, they would miss the launch window.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:49:21 EDT

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>Of course, the real problem with Venus is the lack of hydrogen, or the excess
>of oxygen.  Might Venus lose oxygen at a significant rate if there was free
>oxygen in the upper atmosphere?  Might free metal in the crust take in some of
>the excess oxygen?  The possibilities are interesting to think about, if
>nothing else.  :)

One suggestion I heard was to slam a few large comets into Venus, thus adding
hydrogen and blowing off big chunks of the atmosphere in one fell swoop.
Not exactly a low-budget operation, mind you...
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:47:02 GMT

	Bill Clinton claims he will cut taxes,
	balance the budget, and increase social spending.

	We all know those are empty campaign promises,
	but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
	hostile to technology and research spending
	and especially to projects involving
	space exploration and astronomy.

	If you've not yet done so,
	please register to vote.
	There's still time.

	When election day comes,
	please get out and vote.
	It's your right AND your duty.

	A non-vote is not a form of protest;
	it's a clear signal that you're happy with things
	just the way they are and you really don't care anyway.

	Don't stay home that day just because you're disgusted,
	and let a pitifully small percentage of people
	determine our nation's future.

-- 

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: TOPEX Update - 09/14/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  TOPEX, JPL, CNES
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 04:33:53 GMT

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. (818) 354-5011

                  TOPEX/POSEIDON STATUS REPORT
                       September 14, 1992

          The TOPEX/Poseidon satellite is performing nominally
and is healthy.  Attitude control, solar array, batteries,
telecommunications, and the on-board computer are all functioning
normally.

          In-Plane Maneuver #3 was performed successfully today.
This was the first burn performed using the four, small 1 Newton
thrusters.  The next TRIM Maneuver is scheduled for Monday, Sept.
21.

          The NASA altimeter remain in idle mode while the SSALT
is in track mode.  The SSALT will be turned off today and the
NASA altimeter will be commanded to track.  Over the weekend, the
SSALT had near overflights of both the NASA and CNES verification
sites.  Also, the SSALT overflew hurricane Iniki on several orbit
passes over the Pacific Ocean.  Before it was put into idle mode,
the NASA altimeter recorded 24-foot waves in the Pacific,
presumably due to the hurricane.

          Project engineers are analyzing why the Global
Positioning System Data Recorder failed to come out of idle mode
today when it was commanded to track.  Over the weekend the GPSDR
memory was reloaded, readout, and a checksum was verified.

          The satellite is now sharing TDRSS resources with the
shuttle.  TDRSS support continues to be excellent with no
significant impact to our mission.

                             ######
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Hitting Phobos with TOS
Date: 15 Sep 1992 21:47:20 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>Along these lines, perhaps we can steer upper stages headed for
>deep space into intercept trajectories, and get some observing
>time on a big telescope like Keck or Hubble to see what happens.
>For example, could Mars Observer's TOS be steered into Phobos,
>or would we have had to tinker with TOS's navigation box beforehand?
>Do we know Phobos' orbit well enough to steer blind? 

I suspect we have to more than "tinker" with the TOS "navigation box"
to hit Phobos.  First, planetary quarentine dictates that
TOS has a less than 10^-5 probability of impact with Mars.  There will
be no Mars avoidance manuever of the TOS after separation.  Given
the expected dispersion of the injection manuever, the aimpoint of
injection is also biased well away from Phobos and Diemos.  Steering into
Phobos or Diemos would require beefed up telecommunications capability
on TOS and probably imaging to do optical navigation on the inbound
asymptote.  Steering blind will get you nowhere in particular,
ESPECIALLY at Mars. 

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:57:40 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep11.074027.14938@rose.com> brad.thornborrow@rose.com (brad thornborrow) writes:
>Mars' gravity was not strong enough to keep oxygen molecules from escaping 
>into space over time.  So, even if one could start plant-life on Mars,  
>you'd have to have a heck of a lot of it to keep the oxygen from just 
>"floating away"!!!

The key words here are "over time".  You can give Mars an atmosphere that
will last many times the total length of human history.  That's plenty;
by the time it starts to thin out sufficiently to cause trouble, we'll
be able to replace it, if it's worth the trouble.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Terraforming needs to begin now
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:02:52 GMT
Organization: I would rather be windsurfing.


On the wall of a nearby office is this neat picture of a planet with
large amounts of liquid water, but large portions of the land mass is
brown -- dry, relatively lifeless desert.  How about some ideas on how
to terraform good old earth?  Starting with the Sahara or Austrailia's
outback.

I guess the hard part is getting fresh water to these regions.  Here's
my wild, uneducated, naive silly idea for all ya'll to shoot holes in.
There's tons of sand in these deserts.  You can use sand to make
glass, so, use all this glass to make huge solar distillation systems.
I'm envisioning long salt-water canals running from the Med. Sea, or
Oceans running hundreds of miles inland.  Covering each canal is a
greenhouse that heats the water up and makes it evaporate.  At the top
of the greenhouse, the vapor is collected and cooled of, and the resulting
distilled water is then pumped out into irrigation canals runing
perpendicular to the salt-water canals.

Yes, I'm an idiot, but tell me why.  Why won't it work?  What *would*
work?



--
============================================================================
Jeffrey Glen Jackson  _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com |     bust you up tonight."
x5120                  | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
                   ~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	Politically, I am neither conservative nor liberal --
		     I think for myself instead.
From: craig@geewiz.gi.alaska.edu (Craig Helmuth)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:39:27 GMT
Organization: Geophysical Institute

In article <1992Sep10.135754.1491@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug
Mohney) writes:
>In article <BuC31F.2L5@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
writes:
>>
>>It is extremely difficult to combine a reasonable payload and a manageably
>>short trip time with an orbiter mission.  Pluto is *a long way away*; to
>>get there in under a decade, the probe has to be fast.  Killing all that
>>velocity is inordinately expensive in mass. 
>
>Aerobrake? 
>
>                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia
>
>  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
>

At that temp, the term might be better spelled "Aerobreak"!    ;-)


Craig Helmuth        craig@geewiz.gi.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth)
Subject: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:22:00 GMT

Folks,
	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.
First, Staehle is trying to bring back the concept of "faster, better,
cheaper" that Goldin is pushing, which was so successful in the '60s.
As a result, the primary concern for this mission is COST.  After that,
is a rapid schedule.  Finally, they'll address the performance aspects.
	As a result, this mission WILL NOT use any exotic or unproven 
technology, just because they strike someone's fancy.  There are a lot more 
"down-to-Earth" missions that can be used as technology testbeds.  No ion 
thrusters.  No aerobrakes.  They are also limiting the scientific payload to 
only those instruments that have been deemed most critical to a Pluto flyby.  
These include a CCD camera, a UV spectrometer, an IR mapping spectrometer, as 
well as the radio science that can be done using the main antenna.  This means
no magnetometer.  No dust collectors.  Nothing else.
	The second criterion is schedule.  They want to get to Pluto before
its atmosphere freezes out, so that it can be studied.  As to when that will
happen, we can't really predict too well.  But the sooner we get there, the
better chance we'll have of studying that atmosphere.  That means we want a
quick development schedule, as well as a short flight time.  The current plans
are to launch in 1998 on an 8 year direct flight (hopefully).  No gravity
assists.  No secondary encounters.  AND NO ORBIT INSERTION!  It just can't
be done within the contraints of the mission.
	And finally, on the cost for the mission...Staehle has been given
a direct order from Goldin to keep the cost of the entire mission under
$400M, and we believe that it can be done.  There is to be no cost overruns
on this project, or it will be killed by NASA.
	Remember, the last thing we need is to overdesign this mission like
CRAF/Cassini.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
irwin@iago.caltech.edu                |
ih@deimos.caltech.edu                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:32:43 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:



>I'll be you knew alllll along that the evil empire wasn't so evil, didn't you.

That's not what the people in the former SU are saying. They're
saying it apparently _was_ what the right wing here said it
was.

[...]

>But the theory that dinosaurs were killed by a meteor impact is only a theory,
>right?

I'm sure a ten-mile-wide cube of rock hitting at cometary velocities
went relatively unnoticed, and had little to do with the death of the
dinosaurs.
--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/
Newsgroups: sci.space