HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov (Mike Ross)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:02:13 GMT

In article <C03Bu0.Dv1@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <30DEC199217541542@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>...2 inch piece of transparent tape which has some Moon dust on it.  This is
>>the first time that Moon dust is being offered for sale.   The Moon dust
... 
>>to be genuine by Superior Galleries and is expected to be sold
>>in the price range of $75,000 to $100,000...
>

>unless things have changed recently, the ownership of this Moon dust is
>best described as "disputed".  NASA's position is that all, repeat all,
>lunar material returned by Apollo is US government property, and any
>offered for private sale is stolen goods.
>

If NASA 'officially' knows this and allows the sale, does it waive future
rights to go after Moondust Marauders?  I'd love to know how much the
original technician got out of the whole deal. 

- mike
-- 
******************************** mike@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov *****
* Michael L. Ross/C33 | Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.   *
* Robotics Department | 2400 Nasa Rd. 1, Houston, TX 77062    *
*(713)333-7094 voice,(713)333-7201 fax**********boring, eh?****
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:19:23 GMT

In article <BzMwDx.KGw@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <72109@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>>we should look to develope cheap sats to go with DC-1.
>>>
>>   I thought we were already developing cheap sats, but these are to
>>   go up with Pegasus, Taurus, etc.
>
>There's cheap and there's cheap.  The satellites being developed for
>Pegasus etc. are *relatively* cheap because they're small... but they
>still (usually) cost millions each, and they're typically built to the
>same gold-plated zero-failures ten-year-life specs.  Drop prices by
>two orders of magnitude (not out of the question for DC-1) and many
>things would have to change.

Satellite costs have dropped dramatically since Sputnik in capability
per dollar, both in space and at the Earth stations that use them.
The absolute cost of satellites has increased, but their capabilities
have increased at a much greater rate. A ten year life zero defects
GEO comsat like K2 is much cheaper than a 1 year life package
that costs 20 times less. That's because most of the investment is
not in the satellite, it's in the Earth based terminals that use it.
Satellites cheap in the absolute dollars sense are only cheap in the
systems sense if their capability per dollar is high and their reliable
delivery of wanted services is high. Since the satellite represents
a single point failure node in the system, and since for most orbits
the satellites aren't retrievable or repairable, and DC won't change
that, gold plated zero failure satellites will continue to be the
cheapest approach for many systems uses.

Gary
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 93 15:48:20 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp>
  <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org>

>NASA is chartered as a research organization, not an operational agency.
>Shuttle is operations, not research.

    Shuttle is the only manned system we have, so it is in large part
    still a research article. I agree, however, that operations is
    the major part of the Shuttle system.

>>Pegasus as a current example of the effect of optimistic development
>>scheduling. That causes financial problems for a commercial venture
>>that government agencies can shrug off.
>
>However, DCX is on budget and has slipped very little (30 days in a three
>year contract). It looks like these guys know more than you about how
>do schedule launcher development.

    As Gary and I pointed out, Pegasus really started slipping after
    maiden flight... about eighteen months between flights 2 and 3, to
    be precise. That DC-X has slipped little prior to maiden flight is
    a good sign, but hardly justifies such smugness. 

    -Brian
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ISSECCo (Space Colonization Company)
Date: 25 Dec 92 22:08:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec25.140845.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

The following is paraphrased from a message I got, edited heavily..
 
=======================================================================
ISECCo...the International Space Exploration and Colonization Co.
We are a non-profit organization doing space oriented research and
development.
 
Our first project is building a biosphere. We want to build a
place that is just large enough to support a person...
 
There are a few other organizations similar to us, but we are the only
Alaskan group.
 
Actually ISECCo is more into Doing than Discussing.  One of the reasons
we formed the group is because our members were tired of doing nothing
but Talk about space--we wanted to do Do something Real!!!
 
We hesitate a little bit to do bliant advertising; we don't want to loose
net access privilages.  Now if someone like you were to talk about us...
that would be a different story.
 
Send Request for Info to:
FSRRC@acad3.alaska.edu
 
======================================================================
Tell him I discussed it here.. Im doing the advertising and I am not a
member, so if anyone gets in trouble it should be me..
 

Thank you for your support.. Does anyone have other grassroot or larger space
development companies or groups/clubs/organizations..

Michael Adams
NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
Alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth on the Networks..
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Aurora
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:40:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzM65A.IuJ.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Colin Tinto wrote (15 Dec 92 14:17:54 GMT):

>For the last couple of years, people of the Western Isles (Last islands
>of Scotland before the open Atlantic) have been plagued by loud noises
>and rumblings which rattle the windows of their houses.

The Machrihanish base is a good candidate. It is located in the
Kintyre peninsula, SW Scotland. Secret aircrafts coming from
the USA could fly between Islay(*) and Northern Ireland before
landing.
Are the above mentioned Western Isles Islay and Jura, Mull and Skye,
or Uist(s) and Lewis?

J. Pharabod

(*) The "Islay Mist" is an excellent scotch whisky (blended, if
my memory is good).
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:24:01 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BzM3BE.GvJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>Realizing that it doesn't have the same instruments, is it possible that
>the recent Galileo lunar polar flyby (preliminary science press conference
>Dec 22) will tell us annything that might be helpful in making up our minds?
>Such as the exact placement of candidate craters?

It may supply some useful hints.  (For one thing, if it got a good look at
the south-pole area -- I forget what exactly it was going to see well --
that would be useful for mapping, because there is a modest area near the
lunar south pole which is completely unmapped -- the Lunar Orbiters got
no usable pictures there.)  It won't definitively answer the question; it
doesn't have the right instruments.

>So what happens if the government breaks what you consider to be a promise
>and decides a lunar resource mapper is a good idea? Given this "approval",
>is it possible that they would be willing to involve these guys?

Hard to call -- much depends on just how you assume the change would
happen -- but it seems possible.

There is no promise that the government won't pursue a lunar resource
mapper, but it seems unlikely at the moment.  Congress wouldn't give Goldin
a measly $30M to get one started.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Breeder Reactors
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:42:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzMy03.L6z.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Session's Answer was too flipant.  The reason the U.S. doesn't hav mre
ooops have more breeder reactors is that the anti-nuke forces won a battle
in the late seventies and President Jimmy Carter stopped the development
of them.  The arguements given revolved around the proliferation of 
Plutonium that the reactors "breed" and not on the safety of the 
reactors.  The nuke power industry was trying to sell them as the answer
to lmited supplies of nuclear fuel (o.k. expensive supplies) because they
produce 5 lbs of fuel for every 4 they consume.  Unfortunately, the 
plutonium is also a great nuke weapon resource.  


It should be noted that Japan is pursuing breeders agressively.  I believe
the shipment of fuel they are getting now goes toward a reactor that is
a breeder but I am not sure.  

Grant Anderson
Ganderson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: enno@fawlty9.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr E Davids)
Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:43:13 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>It's important to bear in mind that, with program plans and air-drag
>forecasts as they were in the mid-70s, it was clear that Skylab would
>not re-enter until well after the shuttle was flying and something
>could be done about it.  There wasn't any feeling of urgency about
>reboosting Skylab.  Then the US scrapped its remaining manned-spaceflight
>capability, the shuttle schedule slipped repeatedly, and air drag
>ran well ahead of schedule...  The Skylab rescue mission progressively
>moved up in the shuttle manifest until it was scheduled for only the
>second flight, but even that wasn't good enough in the end.

It always seemed to me that there wasn't any interest in keeping Skylab
even back then. Skylab as I understood it, was cobbled together out of
left overs (I presume ground spares mostly) from as far back as Gemini and
hence I always assumed they wanted to be rid of it so that when the time
came to build something new, no one could point to it and say they already
had a space station.

There is of course little evidence to support this point of view (and more
importantly, the facts at hand are adequately and more simply explained by
the difficulties NASA encountered building and flying the shuttle).


Cheers,

Enno.


-----------
usual disclaimers, etc.

Enno Davids
enno@eng.monash.edu.au
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:49:14 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <1hsfvsINN115@nuala.hal.COM> juan@nuala.hal.COM (John Thompson Reynolds) writes:
>
>In article <C01vE9.HsF.1@cs.cmu.edu>, 0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw) writes:

>My thoughts were along the line of constructing a hollow cylinder of
>powdered aluminum, into which you would pump LOX at a controlled rate.

>I seem to remember a somewhat similar design which pumps LOX into a tube of 
>rubber?  To stop the "engine", stop the flow of LOX.

>Obviously such a design would only be useful in a vacuum, and is probably
>no more reusable than an SRB.

Well, existing AP/rubber motors (like the SRBs) have the oxidizer embedded in
the rubber (the AP) - they also tend to include some aluminium because it
gives better thrust (the mix is critical because you want to control burn time,
keep chamber temps and pressures in a safe range etc etc - having seen the
results of NOT keeping the chamber pressure in safe range ....BANG).

A LOX/Rubber system would probably have Al embedded in the rubber anyway for
the same reasons. I'm a bit leary about it being restartable, certainly you
can shut it off, but after burning for a while the mechanical stabiliy of
the rubber is going to be a bit off - garbage may have blocked the nozzle
etc etc.

I doubt an Al engine will be reusable without lots of cleaning --- alumina's
going to be real hard to get off!! (Probably harder to clean than an SRB)
Why wouldn't it work in an atmosphere?

	Paul



-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
"Finally after much thought he tied a dollar bill to the top of the tree, it
seemed to fit - after all it was the premier capitalist holiday, besides after
the 'fall' of communism a star didn't seem appropriate anymore ..."
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Article on DC
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:52:10 GMT

The Dec. 1992 issue of Mechanical Engineering has a 4 page
cover story on the Delta Clipper.  It has a few details I had
not seen before.  Can someone explain in more detail Aerojet's
proposal for the DC-Y, the "integrated modular platelet engine"?
The description in the article was a bit too terse.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:32:07 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <19045@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>> Advances in technology, perhaps, but hardly recent advances.  The old
>> Saturn S-IVB stage could've been turned into a SSTO launcher...
>
>        This somewhat confuses the issue, in that it tends to imply that the
>technology necessary to build a DC-1 was available a generation ago.  The
>S-IVB derivative would be a ***non-reusable*** SSTO...

No, some of the S-IVB-based SSTO proposals were reusable.  I don't know
how well they would have worked, and I don't know that I'd plan a spaceline
based on them without waiting a while to see how reusable they really were,
but on paper it was feasible.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Galileo, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:29:00 GMT

In article <C0443L.8w2@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes...
>   Well, what now?  What else is being planned to free the antenna?  And is
>it expected to work?

The hammering sessions will continue all the way through the entire month
of January, if necessary.  Even though the first hammering attempt didn't
open up the antenna all the way, it did have a postive effect.  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: 23 Dec 92 02:03:19 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <ewright.725062372@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com
(Edward V. Wright) wrote:
> 
> 
> No, we're being misquoted.  What we actually said was, "Lead,
> follow, or get the hell out of the way."
>

   Ok, I've got it... Because you feel SSTO/DC-? is the only way to go, you
think we should either 
  (a) accept your points and participate in leading the charge for
SSTO/DC-?
      -or-
  (b) follow you blindly and accept what your saying about DC-?
      -or-
  (c) get out of the way and let you redistribute the $$$ in a way we
      disagree with.

   What if we don't accept your points, don't want to follow you (blindly)
and and don't want you to redistribute the $$$ in a way we disagree with?  

   As an example, I believe that doing science on Mir is a bad idea. 
Political winds change direction quickly.  Putting our scientific eggs in
that basket, and having that basket tip over is not something I relish.  I
also have other questions about accounting methods, having Nasa pay for
another Canadarm, etc., etc.  But I'll shelve those for now...  

   I've followed the discussion and exchanged email with Allen (et. al.)
privately. I would like to suggest something (different?):  

        Lets see a straw man proposal that clearly indicates (using the
published Shuttle schedule for the next few years) when the Shuttle would
go "off-line", what alternatives would be used for it, how much/if SSF
would slip, when DC-1 would come on-line and so forth.  Show timelines,
costs, changes in costs, etc.  If we're going to replace a Shuttle launch
with a Titan IV, estimate lead time to acquire that Titan and so forth.
I'll assume that all the range safety questions have been answered.

   If the Shuttle "detractors" wish, produce a schedule that replaces every
Shuttle flight starting with the next one.  This would used purely as a
center for discussion, because it would have to ignore the political
realities with cancelling the shuttle *today*.

   Then lets see a long term version.  In the case, I'd appreciate some
sense of political reality.  Insistance that we really can stop flying the
shuttle immediately will do nothing except convince me that you aren't
grounded in reality. 

   Because I've grown tired of arguing philosophy (and listening to
arguments).   Lets argue over which specific Shuttle mission can, or cannot
be replaced.  This endless frothing, which I've participated in, serves
little purpose (other than as a questionable sporting activity).

thanx,

Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
keithley@apple.com
"I have absolutely no responsibility in this matter, what-so-ever"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:02:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Distribution: usa, world
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Dec22.143159.4832@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:

>	Well, Paul, I won't even try to convince you with facts.  We'd
>still have flat-earthers if somebody hadn't run out to the "edge" and
>tried jumping off, despite all the great Greek geometry.  Humans seem
>to need to expand to keep a society vibrant.  We're starting to run
>out of physical and psychic room to expand on Earth.  Now, one could
>either make more room here (nuking back into the Middle Ages was the
>preferred technique up until recently) or look for more room
>elsewhere.  

>Frontiersmen have never been a large fraction of the
>population, but I submit that they have an impact on society out of
>proportion with their number.  So, no numbers, no proof, just another
>opinion why we as a whole should fund the fortunate few who get to go
>out and jump off the "edge".

Uh, Brad, this is all well and good, but Wingo is running around saying space
will be the savior of all mankind and civilization as we know it. 

He's also doing some Sagan-esque doomsaying which works nice to sell Carl
billions and billions of books, but does little in the way of providing actual,
quantifyable (key word) ways of demonstrating the planet is going to s**t and
SPACE, the FINAL FRONTIER is the only way to save it. 

When you cut past all the rhetorical garbage, a series of Malthusian doomsayers
have continued to set a deadline on when humankind and the planet are going to
break down, and every friggin' 20 years they have to go back, rewrite their
models and move the goalposts (all the while, collecting plenty of money as
they continue to drive their internal combustion engine cars, wear synthetic
fibers, and find new ways to get onto TV). 

We WILL end up off-planet. However, this process will be a series of small
evolutionary steps, rather than Absolutely-Positively-Overnight URGENCY
which Dennis insists IS necessary. 

Let's cut the crap here, and speak frankly. IF we needed to run out to the
Great Beyond to save our butts, we COULD do it. 

We don't NEED to do it. And we can do a whole hell of a lot more in improving
the quality of life for all mankind in our own backyards before we step up and
off the planet. 


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Shuttle operational costs
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 1 Jan 93 10:26:30

The problem with the shuttle is that the cost of getting the shuttles
ready for the next flight are too large.  It was not anticipated that
so many people would be required.  Indeed it was planned that the
shuttle would be operated like a commercial airplane.  Any future
reusable spacecraft must be planned to reduce these costs.  However,
the almost interminable discussions of shuttle vs. something else
haven't gone into detail on operational costs.  Does anyone have
information relevant to the following questions?

1. What is the distribution of manpower between various functions
of maintaining the shuttle operation?

2. How many people actually lay hands on the shuttles and shuttle
components between flights?

3. How many supervisors are there?

4. What costs are imposed by the split between Cape Canaveral,
Houston and other locations?

5. Would having more shuttles reduce the cost per flight?

6. Does NASA plan to reduce manpower?

7. What shuttle components require the most manpower between
flights?

8. How much expense is due to layers of bureaucracy?

9. How did manpower expended in shuttle operations change
in response to the Challenger crash?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.