HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:47:27 GMT

On 29 Sep 92 15:57:34 GMT, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) said:

Bill> Apparently the fact that the A-4 was a nasty weapon that killed lots
Bill> of people overshadows the importance of the anniversary.  

Bill> In this country, the Confederate Air Force is allowed to tell us what
Bill> a great plane the B-17 was without visible interference...

The B-17 wasn't built by starving slave labor.  The factories weren't
filled with representatives of the "mongrel" subhuman races that could
be worked without food or heat or hygiene until they dropped dead or
were hung "pour encourager les autres".

I was just looking at the V-2 in the NASM yesterday.  (Fascinating the
way that they used an oversized bicycle chain to move the fins.)  The
display has some rather understated remarks about the fates of the
work force and it is eloquently silent about Werner von Braun's role
in obtaining and using these peoples.  Looking closely at some of the
factory photos, with the emaciated workers, is rather nasty.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 05:06:22 GMT

In article <BvEEwK.Joz@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>Fifteen years ago today, for the first time, NASA deliberately switched off
>instruments on another planet that were still returning good data and gave
>every prospect of continuing to do so for years.  It was done to save money.
> 
>On 30 Sept 1977, the surviving Apollo lunar surface instruments -- left by
>Apollos 12, 15, 16, and 17 -- were turned off by ground command, because
>money could no longer be found to receive and record their data.
>-- 

May 15, 1993 may mark another sad anniversary.  That's when Magellan is
scheduled to be turned off.  It will be the first time that NASA has turned
off a functioning spacecraft.  NASA has recently communicated to JPL that
this will still happen.  The reason is similiar, to save money.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:09:22 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <phfrom.330@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
>A-4 was the original name by the Peenemuende team; A-1..A-3 were preceeding
>experimental rockets...

Actually it goes further than that...  Here's a quick rundown on the A
series.  There is some disagreement among publications about punctuation,
but both Ley's book and von Braun&Ordway (History of Rocketry and Space
Travel), which I'm inclined to consider authoritative, make it "A-4",
not A4 or A.4 or anything else.  The "V" designations, incidentally, were
coined by the Propaganda Ministry, not the military.

A-1	150kg test rocket; engine fired but design never completed
A-2	larger test rocket; two flown as proofs of principle
A-3	750kg test rocket; three flown; guidance system inadequate
A-4	operational ballistic missile, aka V-2
A-4b	A-4 crudely modified to add wings; attempt to extend range of
	production A-4 design as near-Channel launch sites were lost
	after Normandy; two flown in 1945, one successfully (believed the
	first winged craft to go supersonic)
A-5	subscale A-4; 25 flown to test guidance systems (note that this
	was *before* the first A-4 flights); size similar to A-3
A-6	A-4 redesigned for storable fuels; design complete but never built
A-7	more or less a winged A-5; test model for A-8/9; some flown
A-8	improved A-6 with wings for extended range; never built
A-9	improved A-4 with wings for extended range (much more polished
	design than the later A-4b); never built; manned version sketched
A-10	scaled-up A-4 meant to carry A-9 as second stage for transatlantic
	range; never built
[A-11]	(designation never formally assigned) still bigger scaleup meant
	to carry A-10/A-9 combination for three stages total; intended
	for manned orbital flight; design sketch only
[A-12]	(designation never formally assigned) yet another scaleup, meant
	to carry A-11 and winged A-10 to place 25-30T in orbit; concept only

Incidentally, the reason why the A-4b wasn't called something like A-11
was the same reason why von Braun's later orbital launcher was called
"Jupiter C" even though it was a souped-up Redstone and not a Jupiter:
the A-4 had much higher priority for resources than any other A-project,
so calling the winged variant A-4b got results much more quickly.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Psalms from outer space?
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:12:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnalf.1992Oct1.141210.1
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

Trivia time:

A friend has stumped me with the following question:

>  Which Psalm was it that was read from space by an astronaut?        
>My mom was wondering  (she guessed Psalm 8).                          

The best I can come up with is that some passages from Genesis were
read byt the Apollo 8 crew on Christmas in 1968, but I have no record
that they read Psalms or any other part of the Bible.

Can anybody do better than this?

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:12:16 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3


	Don't forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki people!!  Those along with
Dresden would have to be some of the most infamous single hours in
history. The point is that these events should never have to be
repeated in history.  Are we all so stupid, as to not have learned
from our mistakes?  100,000 plus lives disapearing in a heartbeat
is too powerful to ignore.  Many people will argue that the A-bombs
should not have been used, but then 1,000,000 casualties more would
have been suffered by our side alone...We can't second guess the
past or try to change it, but we can remember it and change the
Future for the better!

Ryan M. Gill
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:04:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.170715.1564@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>          
>          
>                           UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
>
>               I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos" 
>          programs on PBS during summer 1991.  In one of them, he STILL 
>          maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO 
>          Spacecraft, "just stories". 
>    
>               I should think that by now he would have heard about the 
>          Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were 
>          found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the 
>          U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger 
>          somewhere.  The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on 
>          Earth, and some of it even had ALIEN SYMBOLS written on it.  
...
>                                   Robert E. McElwaine
>                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

	What planet did THIS fellow fall from???  C'mon, guy, post to
alt.conspiracy or alt.ufo.what-ever. :-)

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Organization: :noitazinagrO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:14:20 GMT

Nick Haines (nickh@CS.CMU.EDU) wrote:
: I love this guy. Best laugh of the morning.
: 
: Nick

I was wondering if his BS stood for Bachelor of Science or something
else.

Speaking of BS, check out soc.culture.british, "VNS News for 30 Sept."
for details of Clintons leap onto the e-mail bandwagon.

--
||)) There is no truth to the rumor that:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||)) Lotus are suing Apple for copying the look and feel of their lawsuits )|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:49:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.230428.16928@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson) writes...
>Re: the Apollo lunar instruments  
> 
>Henry suggests that monitoring and recording the downlink from the
>ALSEP transmiiters would have been barely within the capabilities
>of a team of amateurs or, I suppose, university researchers.  As
>opposed to a NASA/JPL/GSC type of organization.
> 
>Can anyone provide us with the downlink specifications?  Effective
>Radiated Power (EIRP), frequency, type of emission...  
> 
>It would then be a simple matter to set up a link budget and
>determine just what would be required in terms of a receiving setup.
> 
>It would have been a bit much to expect anything worthwhile to be
>done by amateurs in 1977 when the ALSEPS were shut off but today would
>be a much different story, I'm sure.
> 
>--
> 
>Dave Michelson
>davem@ee.ubc.ca
> 

The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon.

We have been doing EME communications in the Amateur World since the 
fifties.  (EME is Earth-Moon-Earth). EME sends a signal from Earth, bounces
off of the Moon and returns to Earth where it is recieved.  There are many
reports in Amateur Radio magazines such as QST (American Radio Relay League,
Newington CT.) that report on hams recieving the audio and video from the
Astronauts, which is much harder than simply receiving the digital telemetry
at a low data rate.

So the answer is that no one was really interested in
doing that at the time and there were no space advocacy groups with any
power around at that time to publicize the fact and scream about it on this
net (which did not exist at that time either).

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Psalms from outer space?
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:16:08 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct1.141210.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>
higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

> The best I can come up with is that some passages from Genesis were
> read byt the Apollo 8 crew on Christmas in 1968, but I have no record
> that they read Psalms or any other part of the Bible.

And it was SO much more appropriate than a rousing chorus of "Santa
Claus is coming to town," which it is RUMORED ground controllers were
afraid they were going to get...
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: p257shu@fs1.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Susanne Huettemeister)
Subject: pollution of space around MIR station ??
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut f"ur Radioastronomie
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:18:59 GMT

A short time ago, the German cosmonaut who went up to the CIS space
station MIR this year gave a talk in Bonn. During this event, he stated
that small particles are piling up all around the station *due to its
gravity*, forming a cloud dense enough to interfere with astronomical
observations.

Does anybody on the net know if this is possible? Isn't it more likely
that the cosmonauts just throw their garbage overboard and that it stays
around for a while? Or might electrostatic effect be involved?

Is this really a problem that has to be taken into account by the 
builders of FRED, too?

Any ideas out there?
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:36:15
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: Mark Goodman's message of 01 Oct 92 17:38 PDT

In article <1469100018@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:


   important issue than the space program.  I continue to believe that.
   I find the pipedreams that human space exploration offers an economic
   bonanza incredible, at least for the foreseeable future.  I don't think

So, obvious question, how long is "foreseeable"?
As you are working "in" [sic] Congress can we
assume that it is order two years?

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Military funding
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:41:50 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

>As I stated in my previous post.  Until the programs are set up to
>orderly divert the money to another R and D effort, it should stay in the
>military budget where at least it is going some good.

This is plain silly!  The only good the (extraneous) military budget does
is to pay people to work.  We might as well pay them to bury rocks one
day, and dig them up the next.

Cut the general tax burden by the amount cut, and the companies that
would love to hire technically educated people will have the means
to hire them.  They don't right now, because the tax burden is too high.

Also, once the people in the military are making wealth (rather than
things like weapons, which don't get used in peacetime, and are there-
for, not wealth) the general prosperity of the country will improve.

This extra wealth could easily cover the R&D the military does,
especially if you buy the argument that military R&D is not as
valuable as, say, car R&D or VCR R&D.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
Xref: sparky sci.space:13922 sci.astro:10358 alt.sci.planetary:109
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: vulch@kernow.demon.co.uk (Anthony Frost)
Reply-To: vulch@kernow.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: VCS Kernow
X-Mailer: ReaderS for the Acorn Archimedes
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:18:55 +0000

 
  >> What we REALLY need to do is convince investors that
  >> starting a colony on the moon in our time is as good of an
  >> idea as starting a colony in the new world was back in the
  >> 17th century. 
 
  > Let's see, ole Chris landed in the New World in 1492, the
  > first viable colony landed in 1620. Apollo landed on the
  > Moon in 1969. So we should expect private enterprise to land
  > a commercial colony on the Moon about 2097. Let's call it
  > New Plymouth. In the meantime, I guess we'll have  
 
I think the Spanish would disagree with you there, they had viable
settlements in place by 1505 in the areas first reached by Colombus. A more
depressing time scale would be the gap between the viking settlements in
Vinland and the european settlements in that area during the 17th century.
 
          Anthony
From: yannb@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Why not Mir? was(what use is freedom?)
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:18:21 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana



			I don't see why NASA, ESA, and the Japanese Space 
Agencies should spend all that money on this Space Station Freedom.  My 
question is:  why not spend less, and have each country but a module on 
the Mir?  The Russians have a Mir on the ground too; in mothballs.  
			This second Mir is also to be launched into orbit 
using the powerful Proton rockets, which would be much cheaper to use than 
the current NASA shuttles (It has been qualified for operations in space). 
The first Mir station (the one thats up there now) , has proven itself to 
all space agencies of it's durability and worthiness.
			Intsead of building a whole new space station, 
which would take millions of $$$ and years to build, the world should turn 
towards the already constructed and mothballed Mir, which is gathering 
dust somewhere in Russia. 
                                      /\                  
    yannb@yang.earlham.edu          |/  \
                                    ------       
                                    |    |
    Yann Bandy                      | /\ |           
    808 Abington Pike               | || |
    Earlham College                /| \/ |\             
    Richmond, IN                | / |    | \ |
    47374                       |/  |    |  \|
                              | /   |    |   \ |
                              |/    |    |    \|
                              /     |    |     \ 
                            |/      |    |      \| 
      MiGs                  |-------|    |-------|       
                                    |    |
          are                       | /\ |
                                   /| || |\
             MASTERS!!           |/ | || | \|
                                 / _| || |_ \
                                 |/  =||=  \|
                                      \/
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:50:55 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BvAus3.G4G.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>The forging of a coalition can easily turn an initially elegant solution
>into a committee'd monstrosity to get a large enough constituency on board.
>The shuttle is an excellent example of this.

I think it was Charles Sheffield who commented, approximately:  "A mouse
designed by the government isn't an elephant -- it's a giant squid, with
tentacles running off in all directions.  Apollo worked so well because
for a short while, all the political vectors pointed the same way.  That
will not happen again."
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:31:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Oct5.133115.10677
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1OCT199219492037@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>
>The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon.

This is incorrect. That figure is the round trip loss at 2.3 GHz for
a signal beamed from Earth, passively reflected from the Moon, and
received again on Earth. The free space path loss from an active
transmitter on the Moon to an earthbound receiver is less, about
196 db. This figure is frequency dependent with lower frequencies
having less path loss and higher frequencies having more. The
figure is for isotropic antennas. Antenna gain scales up with
increasing frequency for the same physical size antenna, balancing
out increased path loss.

MDS on amateur receivers in the 1970s was around -136 dbm. It's
about 10 db better today with a typical multimode getting down
to -146 dbm. Specialized GasFet preamps can improve that by another
20 db today for under $100, though not in the 1970s. So about 20 db 
of antenna gain would bring a 1 watt signal on the Moon into detectability
on modern amateur equipment. That's the kind of setup that is typical of 
users of the amateur satellites. With a 12 foot dish, 30 db of antenna 
gain is available giving you a 10 db C/N ratio. That's within reach of 
home satellite systems.

Anyone willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars could receive
a 1 watt signal from the Moon with sufficient margin to decode digital
data, or copy analog voice. An EME grade station is probably still
required to pick up video, or high bandwidth data.

Gary KE4ZV
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:18:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvEJ3s.MLE.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> The problem with this is that I've met some space enthusiasts
> over the years who would vote for Adolf Hitler if they thought
> he would support a strong space program.  Almost ANY issue has
> to be put in perspective, and balanced off against others. A
> candidates view of space explorations is ONE issue by which I 

> judge the candidate.  You can argue about whether it should be 

> one of the most important ones or one of the minor ones, but it
> certainly should not be the ONLY one.
> 


This should not be a problem for you. Under this scenario, Adolph can  
only get elected if:

	a) A majority of the population consider this to be the
	   primary  issue, in which case, by any definition of
	   "public interest" it then IS. Neither you nor I can
	   make something the prime issue just because our
	   personal opinion says it is.

	b) Adolph has enough support due to his stands on other
	   issues to garner a majority via the sum of the the
	   different public interests.

	c) He doesn't make the mistake of saying he's going to
	   execute or drive out of the country many of the leading
	   scientists and engineers required for that space program.

The later is partially tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point  
to it. Those of us pushing for space are indeed pushing an entire set  
of values and a vision of the future that is built around space. 


You cannot castigate us because we do not happen to share YOUR  
particularly set of values and priorities.

The truth is, I am personally not voting on a single issue. I have an  
entire social/economic/technological agenda. (In case you haven't  
noticed :-) But I am NOT going to knock someone who does.

If you want to argue about ethics and values, I'll refer you to Tommy  
:-)

-------------------------------------------
Spacekind of the Earth Unite!
You have nothing to lose but your gravity!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton