HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Asteroid report
Date: 21 Aug 1992 13:41:13 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>Recently, an associate mentioned there was a report of a rather large
>asteroid (or some object) approaching or within our solar system, and
>with a trajectory currently in our direction.  And that radio signals
>have been transmitted from said object.

I believe the object you're referring to is the Galileo spacecraft,
due for a last close flyby of Earth this Dec.  Its last port of
call some months ago was the asteroid Gaspra.  Please watch sci.space.news
for updates.

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wpns@miki.pictel.com (Willie Smith)
Subject: Re: The Federation is still here
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:13:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.150311.22585@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes:
[...]
>THIS IS A VERY FAST WAY FOR YOUR MACHINE TO GET SICK!!!  This sounds like a
>joke, but you have no idea where your floppy has been or what is on it.  And
>you don't even know who had it!
>
>We don't know who this "Lady Rhavyn" is.  He/She could be earnest in this
>effort, could be a dellusional fantisizer, or ...  You won't get any respect or
>support from me as long as you are ashamed of who you are.

Well, now, don't pick on the Federation folks, they aren't (near as I
can tell) living in the same universe as the rest of us.  Write and
ask for their 'position' papers, but be ready for some really hard
slogging.  After about the 5th instance of "Hmm, Ok, that's logical,
[...] WHAT?" I gave up.  They want to push human exploration of space
using a crystalline engine which no-one understands the operation
of...  Their funding comes from (will come from?) an incredibly
complicated scheme of publishing SF(?) and they've got a (paper)
conglomerate set up where everything owns everything else and the
folks on top hold _all_ the power and control _all_ the money.  Not
that there's any money.  Their first major purchase will be a
mainframe computer on which they'll set up a BBS-like thang.  Imho, a
lot of it sounds like the kinds of things 10 year olds talk about.
They seem to know all the buzzwords for any given technology, but
clearly have no idea what any of them mean.  Mostly harmless. :+}

Willie Smith
wpns@pictel.com
Xref: sparky sci.space:11768 sci.energy:3980
From: roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.energy
Subject: Re: He3 Power Source
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:05:32 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

eatlv@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.vandoren) writes:

>About 2 weeks ago I saw a series of 5 minute modern videos of great interest.
>One of them was about a proposal to use Helium3 mined from the moon as a power
>source on Earth. [...]
>
>Does anyone have more info, opinions on that proposal? [...]
>
>How hypothetical is this and is it practical?
>
>Lee

At present it's *very* hypothetical, and *highly* impractical. The way to
use He3 for power generation is via nuclear fusion [1]:

D + He3 -> He4(3.6MeV) + p(14.7MeV)

However, the reaction rate parameter (related to the fusion reaction cross
section and the relative speed of the reactants) is by far the highest for
the deuterium-tritium reaction:

D + T -> He4(3.5MeV) + n(14.1MeV)

Using D-T fusion, the major magnetic fusion experiments, in England and
the U.S., could presently only produce between 0.3 and 0.7 of the input
power needed to sustain the experiment [In fact these machines study D-D
fusion, which generates far less fusion power but only produces about half
as many neutrons, at lower energy.  D-T experiments are planned at each
facility within the next few years].

D-He3 fusion, while more environmentally benign (*much* lower neutron
production, leading to less activation, structural fatigue, etc.) requires
temperatures about ten times as great to attain similar reaction rates.
Even then, it would probably require higher plasma densities, further
complicating matters. In other words, we haven't licked the "simple"
problem yet (D-T) fusion, so don't hold your breath waiting for the tough
one (D-He3).

I think the lunar "environment" is safe from marauding bands of
strip-miners. For the time being...

Reference:

[1] NRL Plasma Formulary, 1990 ed. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington DC

--
 Dr. Donald W. Roberts
   University of California                                      Physicist
   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory         Recreational Bodybuilder
   dwr@llnl.gov                                       (better poo? :)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dearnsha@wizard.worldbank.org
Subject: Re: Early Warning of missiles and meteors
Organization: The World Bank
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:03:01 GMT

In article <6202@ucru2.ucr.edu> judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>A friend and I were having a discussion as to whether or not the early
>warning system used in detecting missiles can actually detect meteors
>that pass through the Earth's atmosphere.
>This was brought up because of the tidal waves that occurred in Florida
>which meteorologists theorized may have been a meteor.  My friend asked
>why didn't early warning pcik it up, and I argued that early warning
>could not pick it up.  If it could, then why did the meteorologist have
>to theorize about the meteor and instead not have solid proof from SAC?
>
>--
>I was contemplating Socrates' immortal words: "I drank what?"
>
>judson@watserv.ucr.edu
>

If I'm not mistaken, when a meteor enters the atmosphere it causes localized
ionisation of the atmosphere... I suspect that most Over-The-Horizon-Radars
(OTHR) that uses ionspheric propagation would detect these events. I'm assuming
that these equipment are senseitive enough to detect and process a very weak
echo from some point on land many kilometers away, so they should be able to
detect a body entering the atmosphere.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Opinions on NLS
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:52:29 GMT


I've been noticing a distinct lack of discussion on the New (or is it National?)
Launch System in this group, which kind of surprises me given the number of 
other topics that are discussed.  
	AIAA's journal has published two major articles on NLS recently, both
very upbeat.  They discussed the lower costs, high reliability, and the Keep It
Simple Stupid aprroach (though I don't think they called it that).  From the 
figures I've seen, it looks like the smallest of the launch vehicles would be a
nice commercial rocket and the largest has potential for SEI.  What AIAA has
said about the STME (Space Transportation Main Engine) is also similarly 
flattering.  Well, as you may know, I tend to get suspicious whenever someone
is particularly gung ho or especially down on a project, and I'm always 
skeptical about vaporware, but I'd like some facts to base my decisions on.
Would anyone like to volunteer an opinion?  (yeah, I know - dumb question :)

-- 
	Josh Hopkins       j-hopkins@uiuc.edu, or jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

		"A goal is a dream taken seriously."	-Uncle Walt.   
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:38:56 GMT

In article <5476@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes:

>Attaching Shuttle to Energia :-

>Have you figured what kind of saving could be achieved
>by flying the Shuttle without its main engines ?

I don't think it would be much. The figures I hear for an
Energia launch is about $500M (at least that's the price 
used to estimate Freedom launch). Since that is about what
it costs to launch a Shuttle anyway I don't see much savings.

Now if this allows Shuttle to fly a lot more often and the
Russians can cut the price....

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:27:13 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <9208101533.AA15222@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In <65516@hydra.gatech.EDU> Matthew DeLuca writes:
>>Allen, why won't you understand that there is more involved than simple
>>finance here?  You can 'save' $3 billion, but you better be happy spending
>>that $3 billion on social welfare programs, because it sure as hell won't be
>>spent in space.
> Without wishing to buy into US politics, I will merely point out
>that you are being pretty free with other people's money here. There is
>no requirement that any savings be spent elsewhere, as I understand that
>the US has a significant budget deficit which could do with a bit of
>help.

Yes, but the "savings" Allen quotes is 0.1% of the debt and there is
absolutely no guarrantee that Congress would apply any such "saving"
to reducing the debt. Indeed, Congress has shown a strong tendency
to spend every dime it can extort and borrow from the US taxpayer.
The space budget is literally less than nickels and dimes in the
US budget dollar, which is probably as it should be for such a long
term investment.

What is dangerous is the attitude that it's all right to kill Shuttle
or Fred to save such sums when it's an almost certainty that they
would *not* be reprogrammed to other space projects, but instead
would be redirected to welfare programs. To anyone willing to look,
social welfare programs have been counterproductive in nearly every case.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: space industry
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:57:09 GMT

In article <1469100011@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:

>There are really no private space launch providers
>outside the United States -- Arianespace is the closest thing.

So what are Atlas, Delta, and Titan, chopped liver?

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------247 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt (Rui Sousa)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Organization: SABER - Sistemas de Informacao, Lda.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:54:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.183403.1527@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
Path: pinkie!dec4pt.puug.pt!inesc.inesc.pt!mcsun!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!eng.ufl.edu!gnv.ifas.ufl.edu!jrm
   From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
   Newsgroups: sci.space
   Date: 19 Aug 92 23:34:03 GMT
   Article-I.D.: gnv.1992Aug19.183403.1527
   Lines: 20

   Whatever became of the idea of inflatable space habitats/workstations ?
   The savings on initial cost and on launch weight should be very great.
   Add to that the large size and configurational possibilities and you
   have an incredibly good deal. Modern materials, esp tri-weave carbon
   fiber, could strengthen an envelope and protect against ripping or
   bursting. All you need is a docking hatch and a few hard points to attach
   odds and ends to. The rest is just hot air. Internal partitions and
   compartments would be easy to build into such a structure ... or glue in
   later on. The large internal free volume of air would also add safety
   against explosive decompression. Self-sealing layers could deal with
   micrometeorites. If desired, thin interlocking plates of metal could be
   attached to the envelope to armor the whole thing. 

   What's the problem ? Is this perhaps a TOO CHEAP solution - meaning that
   the contractors couldn't steal enough money during development ? If we
   want nice BIG space stations, with loads of internal room, with easy
   expandability ... inflatable spheres sound like the economical solution.
   Any feedback on this ?

   -- Jim Mason 

Well, I think NASA has been doing some nice research on how several materials
cope with LEO atomic oxygen and radiation. If it turns out those THIN walls
can't do it, it would have been too soon to talk about inflatable structures
...
Despite that possibility (I hope those materials can do it) the idea seems fascinating from the ecenomic point of view!

Rui
-- 
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   ruca@saber-si.pt

                All opinions expressed here are strictly my own
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:18:42 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:

>Clarke also had his tower made of that famous variety of unobtainium,
>monomolecular filament.  Assuming he'd done some basic estimates, you
>have to figure that's the kind of tensile strength you need for a cable
>23,000 miles long.  He also had a captured asteroid stuck out on the
>far end as a counter-weight, possibly at a height beyond GEO.
                              ^^^^^^^^
Most definitely beyond GEO - the Center of mass needs to be at GEO for
the whole thing to stay above one spot.  i.e.,therefore,ergo: the cable
must go (pretty far) beyong GEO.

"[The space program] can help counter the head-on collision with the 
environmental chaos we now face; spearhead technological, competitive, and
political leadership; stimulate young minds to excellence; and forge cultural
bonds between nations for the benefit of all humanity."
				- Leonard David
-- 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent		e-mail: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jg90@castle.ed.ac.uk (J Gourlay)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: An educational request!
Date: 14 Aug 92 09:55:34 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Edinburgh University

I was wondering if anyone could help out a friend of mine. She is a
school teacher about to embark upon a SPACE project with her pupils and
was wondering if any organisations out there had school information
packs which they sent out free to interested schools. Ideally such
information should be targeted at the 8 to 10 year old age group and it
will be used by all of the school eventually. If anyone can help out
e-mail me or put my address for correspondance to the relative
department.
             Thanks in advance,
                     James Gourlay
                     Dept. of Physics
                     University of Edinburgh
                     Kings Buildings
                     Mayfield Road
                     Edinburgh
                     U.K.
                     (jg90@uk.ac.ed.castle)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:06:30 GMT

zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:

>bcollins@utdallas.edu (Arlin B. Collins) writes:
>   (Brian Kemper) writes:
>   > (Richard Martin) writes:
>   > > Please forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is a parsec?
>   > I know a parsec is a unit of distance equal to roughly 3 light-years ...
>   One parsec equals  30.857x10**12 km, 206265 astronomical units, and
>   3.2616 light-years.

Hmmm...  at the distance of one parsec, one astronomical unit subtends an
angle of one arc second.

keith
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:30:16 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <RXgkPB2w165w@clubzen.fidonet.org> mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis) writes:
>
>Excuse me, but what makes you think a 1 metre rock would "... be extremely
>bright ..." or be "... as bright as the Sun ..."? A metre isn't very big
>at all. My concern would be that something that small should create a wave
>of (presumably) several feet in height. Also, an impact would create
>multile waves, not a single wave, though the following ones would be
>smaller. Is that the recorded pattern at Daytona?

A meter isn't very large, but an ionized column of air one meter in
diameter and 200 miles high *is* very large and potentially very
bright. Remember that we're talking about an interplanetary object
plunging to Earth. Meteors have impact velocities as high as 40
miles per second. If the 1 meter meteor was iron, it's impact would
release kinetic energy equivalent to a 65 kiloton nuclear explosion.
It's not like tossing a pebble into a pond.

Gary
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:33:45 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Aug11.124107.1@fnalb.fnal.gov+ higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
+In article <63811@cup.portal.com-, Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
+- Would it be possible to put something in near orbit over Nevada and 
+- attach tethers to it so that people could reach the object via 
+- elevators?  I know it wouldn't be easy, but is there a way to pull 
+- this off?
+
+Hmm. Interesting question.  To first order:  No, it's impossible, for two
+reasons.   
+
+When you say "orbit," you usually mean "Keplerian orbit," a free body
+that stays on its path without applying any thrust.  Nothing in a
+Keplerian orbit can hover over Nevada, since the plane of its orbit
+*must* pass through the center of the Earth.  
+
+It *is* possible for an object in orbit to hover over a spot on the
+Equator, if it takes exactly 24 hours to make one revolution AND its
                              ^^^^^^^^
                              23 hours and 56 minutes
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.
From: schatz@chaos.utexas.edu (Mike Schatz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Apollo Video Clips
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:46:54 GMT
Distribution: sci.space
Organization: Center for Nonlinear Dynamics, University of Texas at Austin

Does anyone know where I might obtain the video clip from one of the
Apollo lunar landing missions where an astronaut dropped a
feather and a hammer simultaneously? (I would like to show this to
a physics class I'm teaching this fall--it's a nice illustration of
the Law of Universal Gravitation)

Thanks

Mike

schatz@chaos.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:41:01 GMT

In article <5969.409.uupcb@matrix.sbs.com>, george.gassaway@matrix.sbs.com (George Gassaway)  writes:
> If "Estes" rocekts are not enough for you folk, try some of the
> commercially made larger rocket motors. Notably, Aerotech, who makes
> engines for consumers in the that go to E and F power. FAR more snesible
> than making your own. I've been into this hobby for 22 years and know
> better than to try to make up my own. Eventually, somebody gets injured
> of killed making up their own stuff. Just not worth it!!!
>

Not only do some people make their own stuff, some actually put the powder 
into little brass containers, stick lead plugs in the ends for projectiles 
and SELL the stuff to all sorts of people to use in things called "guns".  
"(according to the U.S. General Accounting Office) 138,490 Americans 
have been killed or wounded over the last 10 years by gun-wielding 
_children_ under _six_ years of age."   Definitely Just Not Worth It.  

     :) :-) :--)  [cute - ironic - meant to be silly -  I DO NOT want 
                   to take anyway anyone's ManHood ...  please ... 
                   don't anyone shoot me for this ... I KNOW how 
                   insecure slug-abusers and lead pushers are ... GAAAHHHHHH] 

--- please No Flames ---  end of message --- WHH --------
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Early Warning of missiles and meteors
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:35:54 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <Bt1Fwn.It8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:
>
>>In article <6202@ucru2.ucr.edu>, judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>>
>>A friend and I were having a discussion as to whether or not the early
>>warning system used in detecting missiles can actually detect meteors
>>that pass through the Earth's atmosphere.
>
>i know that they can track anything larger than a softball in close
>earth orbit (70's technology, today maybe they can track metallic tennis balls.
>
[good discussion of radar fundamentals deleted]
>
>they could detect it; if their systems were looking.  the military
>is rather sensitive about how sensitive their equipment is.  they
>wouldn't brag about seeing a 5 inch nick in the theorized meteor
>nor would they admit that a 1 meter chunk of iron plopped down 
>in the good ole U.S. of A. & they missed it.  (they were probably
>looking for plane loads of marijuana anyway.)

The one thing missing from this radar discussion, and the key thing
from the standpoint of meteor detection, is the clutter suppression
systems used on these radars. Because these strategic radars have
the mission of detecting incoming hostile missiles or aircraft, and
because there are thousands of sources of radar returns, the systems
are designed to automatically suppress returns that don't match the
threat profile. In particular they are set so that they don't report
objects travelling faster than an ICBM. Therefore a fast meteor will
not show up on the screens. If this were not done, literally thousands
of incoming threats would be reported per hour as small meteors were
detected. The raw radar data is too large to be permanently stored.
Only the filtered returns are committed to tape. So it's very likely
that the military has no record of this meteor.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space