HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:37:07 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BvAA50.HJL.1@cs.cmu.edu> PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:
>         Aurora
>         TSTO/XB-70 like aircraft (AW&ST, August 24, 1992)
>         X-30                     (AW&ST, September 14, 1992)
>         HALO                     (AW&ST, September 14, 1992)
>         HL-20
>         SSTO/DCX/DCY
>         others ?
>
>Could somebody on this list explain the differences between these
>projects ?

Okay, here's a quick rundown.

There may or may not be something called Aurora.  If so, it's secret
and so is its performance.  Same comments for AW&ST's spaceplane/B-70ish
combination.

The X-30 is/was a project to build a high-hypersonic aircraft ultimately
capable of reaching orbit.  It is dying because the pricetag for flight
vehicles is too high.  The project has done some useful work on things
like high-temperature materials, which other projects may use.

HALO is a *proposal* to build what is essentially an X-15 followon, a
medium-hypersonic research aircraft launched from an SR-71.  Most people
like the idea (the prominent exception is the X-30 lobby), but it's still
a paper project.  No money, no commitment.

The HL-20 is a small design study to build a lifting-body reentry craft
which would be launched on an expendable booster, probably a Titan.
Think of this as more or less an Apollo-capsule followon.  Many people
like the idea, and it has been studied in small ways, but there is no
commitment to build it yet.

DC-X is a suborbital (in fact subsonic) test vehicle now being built for
the SSTO project.  DC-Y would be the orbital prototype, not yet approved
or funded.  SSTO goes by at least one other set of initials depending on
who you're talking to.  It's aimed at building a one-stage fully-reusable
space launcher, unlike the X-30 in that it is a wingless rocket-powered
vehicle that takes off and lands vertically, also unlike the X-30 in that
it is avoiding unnecessary new technology, and finally unlike the X-30
in that it should cost an order of magnitude less to find out if it works.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: daver@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (David Ray)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: GOES images from ftp site?
Date: 4 Oct 1992 05:33:49 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu

It seems that vmd.cso.uiuc.edu has stopped their collection of GOES
weather satellite images. They haven't had any new ones in 5 days.

Does anybody know what happened? Are they going to start having them 
again, or are there other sites that have weather satellite photos 
available?

Thanks,

Dave
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hage@netcom.com (Carl Hage)
Subject: Re: What is this ?
Organization: Various Places
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:52:50 GMT

PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:
: Have the U.S. some kind of RPV with such performances ?
: 
:  Seconds after    Heading                    Speed    Altitude
:    lock-on       (degrees)                  (knots)    (feet)
: 
:       00            200                       150       7000
:       01            200                       150       7000
:       02            200                       150       7000
:       03            200                       150       7000
:       04      sharp 200          acceleration 150       6000
:       05       turn 270             = 22 g    560       6000
:       06            270                       560       6000
:       07            270                       570       6000
:       08            270                       560       7000
:       09            270                       550       7000
:       10            210                       560       9000

It must have a warp drive since it managed 1000 feet of altitude change
while going only 150 knots (253 f/s). Does anybody know what kind of
accelerations are typical in an air-air or ground-air missle? What
about a MARV ICBM reentry vehicle?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: overpopulation
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:26:57 GMT

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>Best guesses I've seen have been 8-10bn, actually. No serious
>demographers are talking about 16bn any more. Read some demography (I
>did, after the last time this went around here. I was a doomsayer
>before).

But this is just because the great die-off has started. Mind you, it
won't get like many DOOM sayers said (another depopulation, etc). Just
like the doom sayers say: population will stagnate as natural limits set
in. I expect it to level off pretty much at this level (8-10 bn), with
of order 100-200 million extra deaths/year due to war, famine, disease,
and natural disasters (how many noticed the carnage in Bangladesh last
year?). But remember, this was Malthus's scenario, too. 

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:15:31 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <Bvn8vG.Fwx.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>> Yes, I can.  It doesn't simply come down to "everyone has
>> their own values, and everyone's are as good everyone else's."
>> Nor does it simply come down to the public interest being that
>> of the private intrests of the majority.  Taken to extremes, your
>> statement becomes "we can't tell the Nazis they are wrong. If the
>> majority of the people support them, what they are doing must
>> be in the public interest."  



>Why then democracy, if not to settle differences between different  
>views and special interests?

Is democracy that great in a situation like this?   Do we progress by
only doing what the majority wants?  Even the British socialist
George Bernard Shaw did not think so.

Quoting from memory,

	The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment.  The
	unreasonable man attempts to adapt the environment to himself.
	Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

One cannot expect the mass of the public to attempt to soar with the
eagles, or to even realize the joy of striving.  At most one can hope
for grudging support, and non-interference.

>> Besides, in a sense, isn't the above statement hypocritical.  Many
>> people in America don't think space is all that important. 

>> Space enthusiast have always felt that it was OK to tell them
>> that they're priorities were wrong and that they should think
>> more about the future.



>Hardly. If the majority don't want the government to do anything in  
>space, the government will do nothing in space. Which is fine with me  
>anyway because I'd rather it be done privately.

But there is a rub.  The present legal and political situation restricts
what can be done privately.  I too advocate doing it privately, and this
means that the governments have the obligation to get out of the way.

>Some people think space is important. Many more people hug trees.  
>Even more people cut them down. Each is an interest, and although  
>balanced somewhat by other "ideals" in the case of most people, the  
>ultimate vote is always with the wallet, ie the local personal issue  
>has more to do with the typical vote than "issues" and "causes". 


>"In a democracy people get exactly the government they deserve"
>			-  Probably H.L. Mencken

And too many believe that the government can solve all problems.

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: Sasha.Degner@f5.n7103.z5.fidonet.org (Sasha Degner)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: BLACK HOLES
Date: 3 Oct 92 14:42:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: catpe.2523.2ACF3744
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7103/5 - The Chatterbox, Durban

Black holes are extremely fascinating seeing that so many theories have
been developed about them. I have a couple of questions about them and
if anyone knows anything in answer to my questions please inform me.
 
1) What exactly are black holes?
2) Is there any truth in the theory that they may be created by alien
life forms?
3) Is there a black hole close to our galaxy?


--  
INTERNET: Sasha.Degner@f5.n7103.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:52:06 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1adn73INNrkb@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> scott@psy.uwa.oz.au (Scott Fisher) writes:
>How do you save money by turning off a spacecraft or an instrument on the moon,
>is someone charging for the bandwith they take up in the electromagnetic
>spectrum? :-)

You save money by stopping control and data collection activities here on
Earth.  At which point you have a choice:  leave the transmitters on,
perhaps to interfere with future space activities, or turn them off.
The usual choice is to turn them off.

>... Why not get some amatures/groups
>around the world to take on the projects?

For most of these things, amateurs simply do not have the resources to
make any useful contribution.  DSN's antennas are *not* small and their
receivers are *not* cheap; I doubt very much that the best amateur setup
on Earth could get any useful data back from Magellan, quite apart from
the problem of doing anything with it afterward (those pretty radar maps
require very large amounts of computing).

Bear in mind, also, that you get useful data back only with a team of
specialists keeping an eye on the spacecraft and telling it what to do.
Especially for ailing birds like Magellan that have to be nursed along
carefully.

Mostly, this sort of thing is just an order of magnitude beyond what
could be done informally.  The number of organizations which have the
equipment and technical expertise is extremely small, and they all have
their own work to do.

The Apollo lunar instruments might have been an exception.  They weren't
complex, they were mostly just sitting there sending data, and they were
close enough that a *really good* amateur setup might have been able to
receive from them.  Continued operation just might have been within reach
of amateur efforts, barely.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.space:13696 sci.astro:10216 talk.politics.space:1309 alt.politics.bush:7036 alt.politics.clinton:7629
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:56:48 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep29.165616.6348@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>What i was thinking was this.  Every 6 months auction a bunch of pershings...
>meanwhile  qualify the sounding comapnies to handle these launches, and train
>them on how they are prepped...

You're still basically telling them "either use our Pershings or die".
This is essentially a government-organized sounding-rocket service that
happens to be implemented by private contractors (who get the choice
of cooperating or going bankrupt).  What happened to free enterprise
and innovation?

Note that the successful companies, under this plan, will be the ones
who run minimum bare-bones organizations solely for Pershing launches,
and plan to simply go out of business the moment the Pershings run out.
Companies that are trying to keep their own launch capabilities alive
for the long term will have a hard time competing.

>it's not socialism to have a social policy.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and craps like a duck, I
call it a duck.  A "social policy" whose side effect is to destroy all
private competition for government-supplied launchers is socialism.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: 27 Sep 92 12:29:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <26SEP199222073863@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:


  > 1. Shuttle is not a failure 49 out of 50 ain't bad.  Look to Congress
  > and Cap Wineburger for the high operational costs of the shuttle.

In other words, "the shuttle's not a failure, and it's not NASA's
fault anyway!".   Can you write two sentences without contradicting
yourself?

The purpose of the shuttle was to reduce the cost of getting into
space.  The shuttle has been a dismal failure in meeting this,
its primary goal.

  > 2. Clinch River Breeder.  Congress cut the money due to Three Mile
  > Island and the anti-nuclear hysteria.

Wrong.  The CRBR was cut mainly because it was completely unnecessary.
The need for a fast-track development of breeders was predicated in
the assumption that world-wide uranium consumption would grow much
faster than it has.  Today, the spot market price for uranium is
around $10/lb.  Breeder reactors makes no sense at all at this price.

 > 3.  Synfuels.  Jimmy Carter's idea to destroy mountains in the west for 
 > shale oil.  Would have been so toxic to the environment that even the
 > oil companies did not want to deal with it.  Bad idea pushed by so called 
 > environmentalist President (can you name his latter day descendant?) Of Gore
 > you can.

Oil shale was only one part of the synfuels program.  Petrochemicals
from coal was another.  Note that we are still mining huge amounts of
coal, so the environmental effects are occuring anyway.

Synfuels failed because the price of oil dropped, not because
environmentalists complained.  Oil companies were leery of oil shale
development because they could make no money on it.

 > 4. Fusion.  Still the best long term solution to both terrestrial energy 
 > needs and intra-solar system propulsion systems.  No failures in the
 > technology just failure of will in Congress to fund this needed technology.

Nonsense.  Fusion has turned out to be a hell of a lot harder than the
hucksters had promised us.  The reactor concepts are engineering
nightmares.  Since availability of fuel is not the problem with
fission -- capital cost and scale of the plants is -- fusion is
solving (or, rather, promising us it will solve) the wrong problem.

As for intra-solarsystem propulsion, it would be economic idiocy to
work on fusion just because we might have a use for fusion rockets in
100 years.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.051539.26766@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs]) writes:
>Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: The spacecraft's orbit is deteroriating, and it is expected to plunge into the
>: atmosphere of Venus within a week.
>
>What is the current operation status of Pioneer Venus? 
>Would we be able to get any useful data as it enters Venus's atmosphere,
>or will its method of destruction be of no real use to us?

Performace is healthy aside from deteriorated batteries and solar panels. This
is a normal affect due to old age in a demanding environment.  Our group has 
been receiving UV imaging and spectral data on a regular basis, since 
launch.

It seems to be that what will stop useful data transimission is atmospheric
drag steering the PV antenna away from Earth lock. There is no predicting
when that will happen exactly.  If for some bizarre reason the spacecraft
is not steered before drag starts signifcant heating, thermal overload will
be the limiting factor.

Contrary to some beliefs, PVO is not simply on a crash course into the 
center of the planet. It is in a highly elliptical orbit with a periapsis
that is slowly decaying.  It has a 24 hour orbit period and literally every
day, at closest approach, the s/c dips a little deeper into the atmosphere
and suffers more drag. The next orbit, then, has an even *lower* periapsis.
Around Wednesday, this effect will become so pronounced that it won't be
able to continue through the orbit and will have its orbit slowed so much that
that periapsis encounter will be its last.

Our instrument will be watching UV emission from the plasma which forms around
the s/c as it flies through the tenuous upper atmosphere.  We expect to see
atomic oxygen, CO and perhaps even carbon, although who knows? It's
never been done before.





-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky sci.space:13824 news.answers:3191
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Amber
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:14:59 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu (Joe Dellinger)
-Subject: Re: Amber (Was: Re: Population)
-Date: 5 Oct 92 05:57:51 GMT
-Organization: School of Ocean and Earth Science Technology

-In article <9210010007.AA08683@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes...
-> I believe the current (and recent) record for DNA extraction is ~25 million
-> years, for a termite trapped in amber. Reconstructing the entire genetic
-> code from DNA fragments and using that code to produce a living organism
-> are additional challenges.

-	In the Sept 1992 "Natural History" magazine, Stephen J. Gould
-writes that the "current" record is for chloroplast DNA from preserved tree
-leaves in the Clarkia lake beds, 17-22 Million years old. The Clarkia
-preservation is extremely unusual: leaves falling right into an anoxic lake
-bottom, rapid burial, and an anoxic environment continuously maintained until
-present. Even so they still haven't managed to get nuclear DNA.... yet.

-	He says the "previous" record was from a 13000 year old Sloth.
-From .013 to 22 is a pretty healthy jump!

I believe the previous record was some millions of years less, but still
millions of years old, and was also nuclear DNA extracted from an insect
(loosely speaking) trapped in amber. The termite DNA announcement showed up
in the newspapers in the last month or two - and it's not unusual for monthly
magazines to have several months delay for publication (to say nothing of
the time required to write and proofread the article).

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ALSEP Termination Report
Date: 2 Oct 1992 00:26:48 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

Here is the final word on ALSEP:

     ALSEP Termination Report, James R. Bates, et.al.,
     1979, NASA Ref. Pub. 1036.

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:56:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Sep28.155652.4298
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Bv5tDu.9qH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>I saw an interesting article on p 27 of the September 14 AW&ST.
>
>Apparently Ames has proposed a Mach 10 class manned research aircraft as a 
>more conservative approach to building NASP.  The idea would be to collect data
>on hypersonic flight before trying to build a full orbital vehicle.
>
>The Hypersonic Air Launch Option (HALO) would be a piloted vehicle that would 
>be launched from an SR-71 at Mach 3 and 70,000 ft.  It would use a LH2/LOX
>rocket to reach Mach 9, then test variations on a scramjet engine at speeds up
>to Mach 10-12.  It would be designed to fly 50-100 flights over a period of
>several years.
>
>Proponents say it is a more rational approach to building NASP and more 
>fiscally acceptable.  Opponents say that it's an unnecessary sidetrack that 
>will delay NASP and end up costing more money.
>
>Personal Opinions:
>   I tend to agree with the proponents.  I'm not sure if that's because it      
>sounds like better engineering technique or becuase I like the idea of stapling
>a scramjet to the top of a Blackbird :-)  I don't know enough about the current
>state of the art in NASP technology to know if it's needed though.
>
...
>Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?

	My worry is that, while it may give some useful data, the
SR-71/HALO proposal would siphon $$ out of other necessary propulsion
research.  There is still an awful lot of research needed in the
(non-black) propulsion program.  Detailed diagnostics of the primitive
flow variables associated with these combustors is spectacularly
scarce, and the flying models they are proposing will not have the
instrumentation necessary to get that detailed information.  The
prototype engines built to date (that I know of) have a lot of "seat
of the pants" style engineering in them.  That's not bad, but with the
slim margins we'll likely have between success (technical and fiscal)
and failure (anything from Challenger-style to just wretched
efficiency), I'd like to see more detailed info.  Of course, then
there's possible black programs...who knows how long it will be before
that data would be public.
	Then there's the possibility of losing a SR-71 mother ship,
like the M-12 that got destroyed in the previous drone launches.  They
can say they won't lose another, but...

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:57:18 GMT

In article <BvEEwK.Joz@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>On 30 Sept 1977, the surviving Apollo lunar surface instruments -- left by
>Apollos 12, 15, 16, and 17 -- were turned off by ground command, because
>money could no longer be found to receive and record their data.

Why on earth did they turn them off?  Maybe stop listening for a while, but
why turn them off?  What if they had wanted to listen again sometime in the
future?

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space