HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:05:16 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Ethan Dicks <erd@kumiss.cmhnet.org> writes:
>FICA payments come from employee "contributions" and from matching
>contributions from the employer.  "Self Employment Tax" is FICA, only
>you pay *both* parts.
>
>Take what ever you are paying (~7%-9%, I forget exactly what) and add in
>an equal amount from your employer.  Now kiss it goodbye, because anyone
>under 50 ain't gonna see it come back :-(
>
>-ethan

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right.  I have been going under the 
assumption that, when my time comes to retire, there will be no Social 
Security.  I will try to support myself with IRAs, investments, retirement 
funds, etc.  Don't expect your kids to take you in, they'll probably be 
living with you (and you will be supporting them).

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

Rick Kitchen
kitchenrn@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Acceleration
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:47:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C02ros.B49.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_)
-Subject: Re: Acceleration
-Date: 29 Dec 92 16:22:35 GMT

-In article <C00wHv.HK7.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
-] -Small force? I think they said the probe would feel an acceleration of 350 g's.
-]                                                         ------------
-] -It's receiving a force 350 times that of Earth's gravity at the surface of
-] -the Earth. That's quite a bit of force if you ask most people.
-]                                   -----
-]  
-] - Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball
-] 
-] Acceleration and force are not the same thing. In this case, acceleration
-] is force *per unit mass*. If you can keep the mass down on any given 
-] component, then the force isn't too great, even under high acceleration.

-F=ma, right? So if the mass is the same, then an acceleration 350 times
-that experienced on earth is due to a force 350 times that on earth, right?

That's right. So if you can make "m" small enough, then you can keep "F" 
manageable even if "a" is large. Of course, strength also decreases with
decreasing mass, but not linearly - I believe strength per unit mass generally
increases with decreasing size [2]. So if you scaled an ant or daddy longlegs
spider up to a mass of ten tons, the poor critter wouldn't be able to move
(numerous science fiction films notwithstanding). If you dropped Big Ben
onto a concrete surface, it probably wouldn't fare as well as a wristwatch
subjected to similar acceleration. :-)

[2] There are at least two relevant factors - the square-cube law, and
surface effects.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: LEI financing
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:27:45 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <n12d5t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Congress. This organization did pass the Launch Services Purchase Act...

And did deny Griffin any significant Moon/Mars funding at all.  The problem
is the word "Moon", not the word "purchase".
-- 
"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: james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:39:34 GMT

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

>In article <93002.204240SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>A functioning economy (a whole one - heavy manufacturing, food growing,
>>service sector, the whole nine yards) on the Moon is in a what military
>>position with respect to the earth?

>"Largely insignificant" is the description you are looking for.

I disagree.  I submit that a functioning moon colony will be 
able to dominate Earth orbit.  The depth of the gravity well is just too
big of an advantage.  It would form the orbiting equivalent of the
fabled "unsinkable aircraft carrier"

j.b.
From: davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: 24 Dec 1992 02:31:58 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net

In article <ewright.725152007@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.192544.2996@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>

By the time you add in all the overhead (benefits, office space, social
security) yah, an engineer does cost you $100K.  That's the figure
I've seen used at a number of companies as a rule of thumb for
costing out projects.
-- 
David L. Smith
smithd@discos.com or davsmith@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: vulch@kernow.demon.co.uk (Anthony Frost)
Reply-To: vulch@kernow.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors
Organization: VCS Kernow
X-Mailer: ReaderS for the Acorn Archimedes
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:14:34 +0000

 
  >> cost? (For that matter, how much does U235-depleted uranium
  >> cost?) 
 
  > I'd think it should be free to anyone wanting to haul it
  > away (though the governement probably doesn't treat it that
  > way). 
 
I believe a fair quantity of it gets used in munitions. A depleted uranium
slug coming out of some form of gun goes through armour plating quite
nicely. Apparently, along with the bits that go bang, kids in Kuwait are
encouraged not to pick up any they see round the desert due to slight
residual radioactivity!
 
          Anthony

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
Keywords: Galileo, JPL
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:42:35 GMT

In article <2JAN199323293310@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>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.  

!!  It did?  I sure don't remember seeing reference to that in the last
report but I'm glad to hear it.  
 
What was the "positive effect"?  How was it determined or measured?
 
Like everybody else, I'm *really* looking forward to seeing the HGA
deploy -- if only because I'm an antennas and propagation person who
would hate to see a problem with the antenna spoil the mission :-)
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:34:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec23.201155.29373@microsoft.com> steveha@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings) writes:
>What are the Pegasus folks up to right now?

The third launch is slated for January.  If that works out okay, they hope
to ramp things up very quickly in 1993.  There's a backlog of payloads
waiting for the second-launch problems to be solved.

(Yes, problems plural:  apparently they had both a first/second-stage
separation problem, and a fairing-separation problem.)  (Yet more proof
that God did not mean us to build rockets that shed parts on the way up. :-))
-- 
"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: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: satellite costs etc.
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:27:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.163935.20473@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I wasn't aware that DC was planned to have a GEO capability, or a large
>enough cargo bay to retrieve a major comsat.

Why do you always limit your thinking so Gary? First of all, the DC-Y
payload bay is almost the same size as Atlas. A production DC would have
a payload bay of whatever size the market needs. Second of all, you aren't
thinking of how lower costs will affect operations. Maybe a modified
DC-1 is used as an OTV to get payloads where they are returned to LEO for
repair (and not brought back to Earth). Maybe you use lower costs to fly
redundant satellites, each less relaible. When one breaks, it uses a
high efficiency electric engine to come back to LEO where it is repaired,
refueled, and returned. Maybe we abandon comsats in GEO and place them in
LEO. I can think of lots of alternatives.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------118 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Galileo antenna questions
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:11:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C051E7.DxB.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Ron Baalke has passed on the report that the Galileo antenna
didn't open in response to repeated hammering on the deployment
mechanism.

My first question:  Is the hammering at a constant frequency?
Why not vary the frequency continuously in a "chirp", hoping to
find a resonance that vibrates the whole antenna?  If there are
any springs in the ribs, there may be a resonance in the 1 second
time range.

My second question:  During the quick-look playback of the first
Gaspra pictures, shortly after the encounter, there was a lot of
concern for wear on the tape-recorder rewind mechanism.  Many
rewinds were required to play back a few pictures.  Is this still
a concern?  How will the Ida data playback be managed (at 10 baud),
and the images from Jupiter & the moons?  What will the data rate
be from the vicinity of Jupiter?

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Polar Retrograde Orbits (was: cryptocraft photo...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:34:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzMHE1.6K6.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


In Space Digest V15 #573,
I Forgot <pthomson@iastate.edu> writes:

>>In <1992Dec19.005254.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>
>>  description of observation: 
>
>>    Observation:  Unknown 
>>    Observers:    I. Cooper, W. H. Hathaway 
>>    Date:         night of 8-9 JUN 1991 
>>    Time:         ~3-5 minutes both before and after 12:40:30 am EDT 
>>                  - this time checked via phone while object was 
>>                  being followed 
>>    Site:         Severn MD,  Long: 76 Dg 38 Mn W, Lat: +39 Dg 11 Mn 
>>...
>>  Identification: It had all the familiar steady motion of an 
>>                  Earth satellite, but _not_ in a common Direct orbit from 
>>                  West to East.  Motion actually more like from NE by N to 
>>                  SW by S.  If a satellite, it was in a near-polar orbit, but 
>>                  Retrograde.  
>
>>Wm. Hathaway 
>
>
>Just a couple observations.  Having done some studies of the Soviet space
>programs, I found that most of their lower orbit satellites that need polar
>type orbits, are in retrograde orbits.  This is due to problems with launch
>sites being located inland and having populated areas downrange.

This may be true concerning Soviet satellites, but there is another reason
for polar retrograde orbits: they can be Sun Synchronous, i.e., the
orientation of the orbit plane will remain fixed relative to the Sun as the
Earth moves in its orbit.  So the spacecraft will continuously view the
surface of the Earth at the same local time at any given latitude.  The
table below, from page 69 of _Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control_,
James R. Wertz, Ed.,  gives an idea of the properties of Sun synchronous
orbits. 


  Mean      e=0   |         e=0.1
Altitude     i    |    i       Hp     Ha
  (km)     (deg)  |  (deg)    (km)   (km)

     0     95.68  |
   200     96.33  |
   400     97.03  |
   600     97.79  |
   800     98.60  |  98.43      82   1518
  1000     99.48  |  99.29     262   1738
  2000    104.89  | 104.59    1162   2838
  3000    112.41  | 111.94    2062   3938
  4000    122.93  | 122.19    2962   5038
  5000    138.60  | 137.32    3862   6138
  5974    180.00  | 168.55    4738   7209

i=inclination, e=eccentricity, Hp=perigee height, Ha=apogee height

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Pave Paradise, put up a parking lot." -- Joni Mitchell
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 17:19:29 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <BzqMxr.MuH@zoo.toronto.edu> <1992Dec27.164247.20711@ke4zv.uucp>
  <1992Dec27.203327.21241@iti.org>

>We may all be thankful that the people at OSC are willing to try things
>to see if they will work. Left to you, nobody would ever try anything
>since everything which doesn't exist today, in your view, can't be done
>and won't work. Progress is never made by pesismist.
>
>  Allen

   What do you call the TSS tether experiments this summer? Brand new
   technology that could revolutionize orbital transfer and power
   generation. That was those despicable fools at NASA doing this.
   Just because NASA isn't deep in development of a new space booster
   (why bother when SDIO already is) doesn't mean that they aren't
   doing important work. Just about everything they do on the Spacelab
   missions is the (ahem) dull background work needed before going on
   to bigger and better things. It's not fair to denounce NASA for
   laying the foundation while praising OSC and McDAC for erecting the
   skyscrapers.
  
   -Brian   

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: relocating planets
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:15:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C03KqG.86p.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

There's no need for the nuclear reactors to move Ceres.
You can use a much smaller asteroid to tranfer angular momentum & energy
between Ceres & (say) Vesta.  Ceres needs to be moved only enough to
either approach Mars, or a resonance with Jupiter; probably the resonance
is closer.  And, of course, the smaller asteroid could be manipulated
with a still smaller asteroid, etc.  The same scheme could be used to
eject Ganymede from its orbit around Jupiter, giving you a larger working
mass.  Of course, the tides from even a Ceres close approach might be
a problem:  Assuming Ceres's mass is 1/8 that of the moon, it would cause
equivalent tides at 1/2 the Lunar distance, ~ 30 Earth radii.  If it
passes at 1 Er, that's 27000 times the tidal force.  Could be fun to
watch, from a safe distance.

Wrt accurate gravity measurement & orbit prediction, I'd guess that the
uncertainty principle is the greatest problem; you can't know Ceres
position & velocity accurately enough to predict more than (say) 100
encounters ahead.  The steering rockets would have to be capable of
influence exceeding hbar; pea shooters would do.

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Sea floor Planetary Protection really.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.204838.14165@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes...
>On a related note, the designers of Viking were worried that
>the Soviets would land a probe on Mars before their landing without
>following strict sterilization procedures.  This, they felt, might
>contaminate Viking's biological results.  Luckily, the soviets decided
>to follow similar guidlines. 

There still is a concern that some of the Soviet spacecraft that made
it to the surface of Mars may have caused some kind of contamination.
The Soviets have said that they have sterilzed their spacecraft, but they
have never disclosed the method of sterilization. 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:28:00 GMT

	Here goes McElwaine again!!!
In article <1992Dec21.110606.2970@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
>
...drivel...
>   My three special topics for this AUDIO LETTER are:
>
>Topic #1--THE ADVANCE PREPARATIONS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION
>Topic #2--THE ABORTED FLIGHT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE "COLUMBIA"
>Topic #3--THE NASA COVERUP OF THE "COLUMBIA" DISASTER.
>
...
>   What changed it all was the secret "Battle of the Harvest
>Moon" in space September 27, 1977.  This secret space battle,
>which I made public that month in AUDIO LETTER No. 26, took place
>barely one month after the first gliding tests of the space
>shuttle Enterprise.  Russia's military take-over of space was
>under way!
>   Only the next month, October 1977, a newly operational Russian
>Cosmos Interceptor shot down SKYLAB.  SKYLAB, along with its crew
>of five American astronauts secretly aboard, died in a giant
>fireball over the United States.  I reported on SKYLAB's fate
>that month in AUDIO LETTER No. 27, and also revealed that NASA

...stranger and stranger...
...then Columbia gets blasted!...
>   Then the armed Cosmospheres opened up with their neutron
>beams.  Firing at point-blank range, each Cosmosphere fired just
>two bursts from its beam weapon.  The first salvo flooded the
>cockpit area and an area near the engines in the rear.  Young and
>Crippen died instantly, the neutron radiation having totally
>disrupted all activity of their nervous systems, brains, eyes,

	Anybody got an idiot-seeking missile we can launch at
Wisconsin?? :-)   <---smiley for humor impaired

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC cost estimates
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:35:17 GMT

In article <C04M9F.58D.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>Allen generally takes projected "worst-case" cost estimates for DC
>and multiplies them by two or more in making his calculations, which
>I think shows he is aware of the problem. 

Actually, I doubled the estimates I have seen. They are more likely to
be the reasonable estimates and not 'worst-case' estimates.


>I should make one additional point regarding Allen's calculations - they
>don't include the large opportunity cost if the Shuttle program should
>be cancelled before DC is fully operational 

I con't follow this. It seems to me that if Shuttle is cancled it could
more than double the market for DC flights. This could roughly cut DC
costs in half.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------114 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? 
Distribution: world
Organization: None
Reply-To: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:16:52 +0000

In article <neff.14.725817375@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu> neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu writes:

>I recall an estimate of 50 flights by a NASA spokesman. This may be a
>realistic estimate, or it might be optimistic, it is unlikely to be a
>pessimistic estimate. This number is consistent with the statement that
>the last shuttle flight will occur in 2007. This statment appears to be
>based on the following assumptions: 1) All future shuttle flights will be
>successful. 2) The flight rate per year will be increased from three to
>four flights per year per shuttle. 3) No further shuttles will be built.
>4) The lifetime of a shuttle is 50 flights.
>
>

What's due to replace the shuttle in 2007 - the DC?  I *sincerely* hope
that the shuttle fleet won't be "run down" in anticipation of a 2007
cut-off, regardless of whether or not a replacement is *actually* 
available by then!  If NASA's historical record is anything to go by,
a replacement due to enter service in 2007 is unlikely to be ready by
then....

Chris
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Marriott                           | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk    |
| Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
| (Still awaiting inspiration              | CIX: cmarriott              |
|  for a witty .sig .... )                 | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------