HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:32:37 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight,
>NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I
>wrong?

Yes, those restrictions have been relaxed, though not removed
entirely.  Remember the Intelsat salvage mission?  


>>constructed its own communications facilities and rented those to
>>commercial customers,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Is NASA doing that?  On any scale bigger than small, occasional excess
>capacity?  If so, I agree it's playing games with its charter.

It's certainly tried.  The original plan for the TDRS system
called for at least one on-orbit spare, which would be leased
to a private company for commercial service until/unless NASA
needed it.  This never happened because NASA had trouble just
launching enough TDRS satellites for a minimal constellation.


>As for NASA hiring its own flight crew, constructing its own
>communications facilities and in general operating the shuttle system
>on its own instead of contracting out the whole works, I don't see any
>inherent problem with that.  Just like I don't hire Tektronix to
>operate my oscilloscope in the lab.  

There is some difference between operating an oscilloscope
and operating an airline.  At least six orders of magnitude
worth.  And I don't think you actively try to put other people
out of the oscilloscope business, do you?





Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:11:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.195658.8028@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>NASA could consider leasing shuttle services if a provider were available;  

Providers are available. NASA has turned them down.

>but there's none, and with orbiters at $1.5 billion a pop,
>plus gigadollar infrastructure, 

1. Don't compare govenrment costs with private ones. The private ones
   will be far lower.
2. Getting money isn't a problem if the market is there.

>air.  With shuttle costs at their astronomical levels (even if reduced
>30% by private industry's magic wand), NASA would likely be the major,
>if not only, customer.  

They sell the services to NASA. So what?

>A would-be shuttle service provider would want
>a multi-year commitment for a fairly large number of launches before
>investing, 

Like what DoD did with Titan IV or NASA did to build Shuttle in the
first place. Not a problem, it happens all the time.

>today is that either i) NASA flies the shuttles, or ii) they stay on
>the ground.

Since NASA has explicitly refused to even think about proposals, this
statement cannot be considered accurate.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:08:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>The shuttle system itself may not be considered R&D anymore, but it's
>the manifest that tells you whether it's doing research  or mere
>"operations."

No, the Shuttle is always doing operations unless it is Shuttle
itself which is being experimented on. When Shuttle carries spacelab,
it is engaged in operations *IN SUPPORT OF RESEARCH* but not research.

When somebody flies a roll during re-entry to see what happens, that
is research.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Biosphere and Pests
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:57:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan4.145739.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Reference Biosphere, email FSRRC@acad3.alaska.edu for info on
his one man biosphere..

For possible help with pests and such, might give my Step-Dad a call he and my
mom have a very good garden without pesticides and use lady-bugs and worms to
produce composte and to get rid of posts, and use other methods (natural)..

My Step Dad is Richard Green, Master Gardner:

Richard Green
4711 Kupreanof
Anchorage, Alaska 99501(?)
907-561-4938.....

After all if he can grow Kewis in Alaska, he can help anyone with anything..



Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
PS: tell him I sent ya.. He thinks Im a worthless bum..
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:31:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan8.144819.1031@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>You're just using the antimatter to heat hydrogen, so the rocket's 
>efficiency is of the same order as the Nerva nuclear design: Isp = 850-1500
>or so, depending on how well it can be engineered.

Right premise, WRONG conclusion.  Nerva's exhaust velocity (aka Isp) was
limited by the maximum temperature of its core materials.  That is utterly
irrelevant to an antimatter rocket.  Gaseous-core fission rockets, which
are a more realistic comparison, appear to be capable of exhaust velocities
of hundreds or thousands of km/s (i.e., Isp in the 10000s or 100000s).
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Great stuff at NASA (was Re: Latest Pegasus news?)
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:00:53 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <72528@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
[responding to Allen Sherzer's question:]
>>This is not the case. There is lots of great stuff going on at NASA. I
>>criticize the unproductive things NASA does so that we can have more of
>>the good stuff. Why does that bother you so much?
> 
>      Because very seldom does anyone ever mention the great stuff
>      going on at NASA.

Emphatically *not* true.  That's why God made Dennis Wingo.

Bill Higgins                         | Favorite carol around Higgins house:
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory| Glooooooooooooooria
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV     | In excelsis Deo
Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET      | Deo
SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS          | Daylight come and me wanna go home
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Bussard ramscoop
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:28:41 GMT


-From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
-Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
-Date: 3 Jan 93 15:36:30 GMT
-Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

-> Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
-> only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
-> of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.
-> 
-> Building the ramscoop itself is the easy part (difficult though it is).
-> Getting the hydrogen to *do* something useful, once collected, is hard.
-> Using it as reaction mass for an antimatter-powered jet engine is going
-> to be much easier than trying to burn it raw.
-> -- 
-> "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoolog
->        -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

-Ah, but that would defeat the entire purpose of the ramjet itself!  You 
-are now carrying around a mass of fuel equal to what you are going to tak 
-in in the scoop.  Now we get into all of the standard limitations, as the 
-faster you want to go, the heavier the ship's going to get, the more fuel 
-you'll have to carry, the heavier the ship's going to get, etc. ad 
-infinitum.  The *REAL* advantage of the ramjet is that this is not 
-happening.  The fuel is just waiting out there, and it just so happens 
-that the faster you go, the more you're going to collect.

A "conventional" antimatter drive uses millions of parts of ordinary matter
for each part of antimatter. Thus if the main thing you carry along is
the antimatter, you can still potentially benefit from gathering your
reaction mass as you go.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore)
Subject: Re: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 20:06:23 GMT

<K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET> writes:

>Why buy 1gramm moondust for about $4000.- (or 1 pound for $2'000'000)
>when I bought 4g Mars rock for $350.- two years ago???

>To get the Mars rock I'm talking of down to earth didn't cost a single cent,
>by the way. The 18kg SNC-meteorit simply fell out of the sky in October, 1962
>near Zagami rock in Nigeria.

>Taking all the known SNC meteorites known, there are hardly more than 100pounds
>of mars rock available. Thus, $100.000 for a two inch tape of moondust is quite
>a high price|| I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down
>somwhere...

Why not go out and buy a tektite? Even cheaper!

>So kepp watching out for these space rocks|
>  Herbert
From: Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Fiber optic umbilical
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 04 Jan 93  10:30:14

Putting a fiber optic umbilical on a remote sensing platform designed to
traverse rough terrain seems very odd to me.  Can someone explain to me why 
this was done?  A few things come to mind such as eliminating the weight
required for a radio and associated power supply.  Also the fiber optic does
allow for high reliability and high speed data transfer.

I'm *not* throwing stones at the Dante folks.  I'm just doing some head
scratching and hoping someone will explain this to me.

Thanks.

--- Mark Perew  Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
--- Mark's Information Repository and Funtime Emporium (1:103/208.201)


--- Squish v1.00
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts)
Subject: question about SETI
Keywords: SETI
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:50:46 GMT

OK, I'm a rank amateur, I don't normally read this group, so please be gentle
with me.....

Lots of money (I understand) is being spent on SETI, on the usual quite
reasonable assumption that there may be millions of civilisations out there.
Now, it seems to me that it would be astonishing if another civilisation were
at exactly our point in technology.  Those that are far below would not be
able to send or receive anyway.  So we only need consider those that are in
advance of us, perhaps to almost unimaginable amounts.  Further, we need only
consider those that want to contact a backward civilisation like ours - if
they don't want to, they'll make sure we never know about them.

So, we are left with a civilisation that is probably very far ahead of ours,
but wants to contact us (for some reason).  Now, how would they go about it ?
Surely they'd set beacons somewhere in space that could not possibly be
missed.  And, remember, their technology is probably millenia (at least) ahead
of ours.

So, my question is, given that we ought to look for beacons that cannot be
missed:  has anyone examined the immediate vicinity of pulsars ?  I mean,
REALLY examined them ?

Wouldn't this be better than searching more-or-less random points in space ?

Tim

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:08:49 GMT

In article <1hrcplINNd4u@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec29.164256.18889@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
>rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>
>>In article <ewright.725152007@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward 
>>V. Wright) writes:
>
>>>You think a typical engineer earns $100,000 a year?
>>>
>>>I want to work for your company!
>
>>	By the time you also pay for FICA, pension, benefits, and
>>overhead, a $50,000 engineer can easily cost a company double his base
>>pay!  BTW, Ed, I ALSO help do the budgeting for my lab, so before you
>>ask, yes, I have some experience in this!
>
>Wow, your lab pays for FICA?  I'm impressed.  It takes up about a third
>of *my* salary, when combined with income taxes.  Right out of my pay.
>I was under the impression it came out of everyone's pay, that that was
>the idea behind "Social Security".
>
	Your employer also contributes an amount about equal (I think)
to that deducted from your paycheck.  So, yes, Social Security zaps
both you AND your employer!
-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:49:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ida.726295295@atomic> ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt) writes:
>... It was a square design, which surprised me; the
>heliogyro design, developed by R. H. Macneal ... has several advantages,
>including stability (its spinning), and ease of deployment...

The stability produced by that spin is actively undesirable if you have
a maneuverability requirement.  A sail designed to be deployed in Earth
orbit, in particular, has to do 90-degree turns twice per orbit (to get
full advantage of sunlight in the "downwind" half of the orbit and
minimize losses during the "upwind" half).  JPL got away with it because
their design was launched to escape by conventional propulsion.

The heliogyro is also a very flexible structure for its sail area, with
extra dynamics problems arising from those long thin blades.  (This is
also another area where the spin hurts, because the blades see constantly
changing Sun angles to complicate their dynamics.)

Mind you, there is a whole lot to be said for easy deployment.  Deployment
is a big problem for solar sails.
-- 
"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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:03:50 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan12.171525.7437@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Even the SR71 uses fuel to help cool it's titanium skin, and it travels
>more than four times slower than a re-entry vehicle...

However, it does it for a much longer period.  I don't claim to be a
hypersonics guru, but my understanding is that you get *very* different
design solutions for a "hypersonic accelerator" and a "hypersonic cruiser"
(where the former is at hypersonic speeds only briefly, accelerating
towards orbit, and the latter spends much of its operating life there).

The X-20 Dyna-Soar's heat protection was mostly refractory metals, as
I recall.

>The only practical
>metal more refractory than titanium is tungsten...

A curious claim.  The X-15 used titanium only for its *low temperature*
structure, and did not use tungsten at all.  Most of its hot structure
was stainless steels of various types.  They are heavy, but not impossibly
so.  The B-70's wing and main body was stainless-steel honeycomb.
-- 
"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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: launcher costs by type of economy
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:52:44 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan5.214143.21291@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>I agree that, other things being equal (an important precondition!), free
>>societies are more efficient than command economies.  Nobody has yet tried
>>building a space program on free enterprise.
>
>That's because nobody can show a high enough return on investment to
>interest private capital markets...

That's not actually a prerequisite.  I worded my posting carefully. :-)

A fully private space program would have to show a return on investment,
although just how high, and how soon, depends on who's doing the investing:
Ross Perot could probably fund his own small space program without having
to convince anyone but himself that it was a good idea.

However, you can build a space program *on* free enterprise without having
to find private money to get it started.  Government funding *can* be used
to build free enterprise rather than bypass it.  Buy services, not hardware.
Specify objectives, not methods.  Pay for results, not for attempts.  Give
market guarantees, not subsidies.

It worked for aviation.
-- 
"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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: DC cost estimates
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:55:02 GMT

In <1992Dec31.223517.18578@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>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.

Opportunity costs have little to do with the costs of DC in the
scenario given, Allen.  Opportunity cost is an economics term used to
describe the things given up because a choice is made.  The large
opportunity cost being described is NOT being able to do certain
things for a number of years if we scrap the Shuttle before DC is
ready to replace it.

As an example, one of the 'opportunity costs' of scrapping our prior
capability before the Shuttle was ready was the loss of Skylab
(because we had made a choice that left us with no ability to reboost
it). 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Fiber optic umbilical
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:47:46 GMT

In article <37410aff@ofa123.fidonet.org> Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>Putting a fiber optic umbilical on a remote sensing platform designed to
>traverse rough terrain seems very odd to me.  Can someone explain to me why 
>this was done?  A few things come to mind such as eliminating the weight
>required for a radio and associated power supply.  Also the fiber optic does
>allow for high reliability and high speed data transfer.
>
>I'm *not* throwing stones at the Dante folks.  I'm just doing some head
>scratching and hoping someone will explain this to me.
>

I don't know how Dante's umbilical is put together so I can't comment on that
but...

In the early 1980's, Northern Telecom pioneered the development of a helical 
sheath that greatly reduces the stress placed on an optical fibre due to either
bending (bad!) or stretching (worse!).  The helical sheath was developed in
response to problems encountered when laying underground cables using
a machine called a "ditch witch".  

I don't have any details handy but I'm sure someone else on the net can
provide them.

---
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: Re: Anti atom stability, etc...
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:35:09 GMT

\Having a limited education in cryogenics is hampering my understanding
/of this phenomenon. I understood that helium cannot exist in liquid
\state at 6 Atm.

In general gas laws work the other way: increace the pressure, and the
"boiling" point of the liquid will increace.

\I can't see how one may "contaminate" it, either.
/Would someone kindly enlighten me? ( in layman's terms, if possible )

You're at the super-collider, and you need layman's terms?
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but sooner or later you're
going to be dealing with _large_ amounts of liquid helium...

\-- Ed Faught WA9WDM faught@berserk.ssc.gov
/ Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

Phil 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: pub/SPACE/GIF at ames.arc.nasa.gov EMPTY ???
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:08:00 GMT

In article <C0FGvx.7n5.1@cs.cmu.edu>, PAUL@DCS.Prime.COM (Paul van Harn) writes...
>Can someone please enlighten me as to what has happened with the FTP site
>ames.arc.nasa.gov, directory pub/SPACE/GIF ? I tried to get some of the
>Galileo images as described in one of Ron Baalke's messages, but I couldn't
>find ANY files in that directory, and I'm sure there used to be LOTS of them !

The hard disk that the GIFs are on sometimes goes offline.  When this 
happens just let me or Peter Yee know, and we'll get it back online. 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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.