HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: 16 Aug 1992 07:53:05 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Nothing questionable at all about that number.

In article <1992Aug14.130334.8888@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>>
>>	Ok, we now have 4 potential solutions (HL-20, Soyuz, 2xPLS above);
>>Soyuz is $65 million per flight and $500 million to adapt (massively
>
>This is a questionable number.

Bullshit.  That number is derived from:
1) a hard quote on buying Soyuz vehicles that I got, multiplied by three
	to handle currency fluctuations.
2) the reported price from a GD Senior Engineer in the Commercial Atlas project 
	for a Commercial Atlas vehicle.

When I parametrically estimate, I say so.  This is not a paremetric
estimation.  Right now I'm expecting a set of mechanical drawings
of the Soyuz (I hope...) to do a detail engineering design on the
payload interface for structure, vibrations, etc. and I hope to
get some handle on the systems aspect as well.  Since we're
going to fly a bunch of these, the integration design can be
amortized very easily.  The $500 million I quoted for adaptation
is a massively paranoid parametric estimation.  The per-flight is solid.

>>	As you've said, neither PLS nor HL-20 is going to Phase B anytime
>>soon, though it's easy to point out that if they don't, we won't have
>>a ACRV for PMC Freedom (or for several years later 8-( ).  NASA gets
>>half credit for knowing it needs one and fails the exam for not
>>acknowledging it and trying to solve the problem by the time the need is
>>real... 8-(
>
>But we will have long duration Shuttles by the time of PMC. So the
>Shuttle can be crew transport, resupply, material return, and ACRV 
>until we get something better. Not great, but workable with the current
>fleet. We also get the use of the docked Shuttle's middeck and Canadarm
>at no extra cost.

	Oh great.  We're eating up months of shuttle time just sitting them
at Freedom.  With a four orbiter fleet and one permanently on station,
the number of flights per year will drop around 25% due to less time to
refurbish (or the same time with a two month delay).  We don't need the
middeck or Canadarm; we've got plenty of lab space (well, not enough, but
_enough_) and an arm on the station already.

	Think these things through...

-george william herbert
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:10:04 GMT


-- 
Gerald Cecil  cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is 
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **
From: Sproul@sproul.sproul.com (Mark Sproul)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Satellites in polar orbits - which/how many
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:42:12 GMT
Reply-To: Sproul@sproul.sproul.com (Mark Sproul)
Organization: Sproul Consulting
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.5v2


In article <1992Aug20.191642.21620@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, grege@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Gregory M Ellis) writes:
> On a recent camping trip in the North Cascades we observed what appeared to
> be several satellites (approx. 8 in an hour) moving in a south-to-north
> polar orbit and all on roughly he same track.  They appeared to be way too
> high for aircraft.  What were they?  
> 

There are a number ameature radio satellites, weather satellites and
military satellites in polor orbits.  I am active in the amateur radio
stuff and there are between 5 and 8 of them at the present time. 
I am not sure exactly.

-------------------------------------
Mark Sproul - KB2ICI
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kellmer@milton.u.washington.edu (Brent Kellmer)
Subject: Gus Grissom and the Mercury 7
Reply-To: kellmer@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:22:02 GMT

Not long ago, I read a passage from Tom Wolfe's _The Right Stuff_ and came
across something about a near-accident that Gus Grissom was involved in early
in the Mercury Program.  The incident involved a test flight of a RedStone
rocket that Grissom was flying a chase plane for.  Evidently (if I remember
things right), the RedStone blew up and nearly brought Grissom's plane down
as well.  

Does anyone out there know anything specific about the incident, or know where
I can get more information about it?  

Any help would be appreciated.

Brent Kellmer
kellmer@u.washington.edu
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:25:03 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> This is a questionable number. CIS is now quoting commercial  
launches
> on Proton for $65 million, not including payload, and the US and  
others
> are complaining that that is a below cost figure and unfair trading
> practice. The US wants them to charge $85 million like Arianne.> 


I had been under the impression they were charging much less than  
this, ie a truely subsidized cost.

I think it is questionable to call this an unfair price. Considering  
where they are on the learning curve, this sounds even a bit high. If  
there is anyone on line from Boeing commercial aircraft, I'm sure  
they could give us the expected cost of a rocket of which n copies  
have been produced on an assembly line. Boeing has that calculation  
down to a science. (Not that others don't, but then Boeing seems to  
be the only major producer of US commercial jet liners these days, so  
they must be doing something better than the rest).

I would suggest using the total production to date of Ariane and the  
cost of $85M as one point on the curve of cost vs total production to  
date.

I would not be surprised to see the $65M figure come out considerably  
higher than it should since it is being produced by a non-commercial  
(until recently) organization.

Add to this what a dollar can buy in the USSR at the present and I  
find myself surprised at how much they are charging. They must be  
learning capitalism quickly, ie how to take enourmous profits at the  
front end...

But underpriced? That's a crock of mercantilist bull****.
From: stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Request: Sex in Space
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:05:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Originator: stgprao@xing

In article <1992Aug12.190748.14718@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cej2421@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.E. Johnson ) writes:
>There was an article posted a few years ago dealing with experiments
>on sex in space.  If anyone has a copy of this, please forward it to
>my address. 

The article may have been wishful thinking.
However, the next shuttle mission has a married couple on it ...
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mlindroos@abo.fi
Subject: Interstellar Probes - How Fast Can We Go?
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:36:37 GMT

Hi everybody,
I was wondering about sending fast space probes to the heliopause. What's the 
fastest ship we can launch by using current technology? 
I have seen two proposals
so far. The first (ASTRONOMY 2/91) was about sending a probe towards Jupiter.
There, it would be deflected towards the Sun and perform a close flyby
at a distance of a mere 2 million km from the surface! The velocity at
perihelion would be enormous (close to 313km/s if my calculations hold).
At that altitude over the flaming inferno below, the escape velocity is 
only about 0.5 km/s higher so the probe would only need a brief rocket burn to
take off towards the stars. It would pass the orbit of Mercury in about
two days after closest approach! Neptune, 30AUs away, would be reached two
years later. According to ASTRONOMY, it would need about six years to
cross the heliopause which presumably is about 140AUs away (apparently
travelling at a speed of 120 km/s).
---
Another -NASAs "Thousand Astronomical Units" Project- would use a probe
equipped with a ion engine that slowly would accelerate it out of the solar
system. The engine would work for years and in the end the velocity would
be close to 100 km/s. This would travel 1000AUs in about 50 years. 
My question is, how fast can we go? Wouldn't it make more sense to send a 
ion-propulsion probe towards the Sun first to obtain a gravitational boost 
(OK, I know the problems of isolating it from the heat (5000-6000K) and 
radiation near perihelion must be enormous)?


MARCU$

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Fififinlandssvensk
     
Marcus Lindroos                             Internet:     mlindroos@abo.fi
Computer Science
Abo Akademi University
Finland
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Persied Shower
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:39:28 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Aug13.175325.8504@isunix.cdx.mot.com| Mehrtens_T@msm.cdx.mot.com writes:
|I was looking at the sky last evening, and I noticed that a bright star (like
|the North star) was moving!  It was "travelling" from north to south, approx.
|75 degrees across the horizon, at 10:25 p.m. EST in Massachusettes, at a speed
|faster than our intercontinental jumbo jets.  It dimmed, and faded from view,
|before it reached the center of the sky and never reappeared.  I wonder if this
|was the soviet spacestation?  I remember, as a teenager, viewing our
|spacestation (which travelled at a slower rate as viewed from the ground.) and
|ours may have been brighter.

No. Mir will return to evening skies for North America at the end of August.
For a few days it will appear in the southwest and move to the northeast.
For the two weeks after it will be seen low in the north moving from the
west to the east. Then for a few more days it will appear out of the 
northwest and move to the southwest. It will be visible in the morning
twilight and return to evenings in November.

I can't tell if you are in eastern or western Massachusetts. If it
is the Boston area, I couldn't find a good candidate for what you saw.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.
From: mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS fouling astronomy
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:25:28 GMT
Organization: Club Zen BBS - Fidonet/Internet - +1 408 734 2289

roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:

> Are there really persons out there who believe a fair assessment of
> the physical universe can be made by restricting our view to the
> celestial cones around Earth's polar regions?

About as many as believe that there'll be > 1000 SPS satellites in GEO
with 30% albido brightening up the night sky for everyone.

Give it a rest, folks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org - Michael Wallis
From: grege@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Gregory M Ellis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Satellites in polar orbits - which/how many
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:16:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Aug20.191642.21620
Organization: Western Washington University

On a recent camping trip in the North Cascades we observed what appeared to
be several satellites (approx. 8 in an hour) moving in a south-to-north
polar orbit and all on roughly he same track.  They appeared to be way too
high for aircraft.  What were they?  
Xref: sparky sci.space:11726 sci.physics:12769
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:00:57 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.030630.3919@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>Hmmm...  at the distance of one parsec, one astronomical unit subtends an
>>angle of one arc second.

>Coincidence.  Remember, one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun...

No, THAT, my friend, is the DEFINITION of a parsec...

>5150
>look ma, i can nitpick too! :)

huh?  or not

keith
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Terraforming Space
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:27:19 GMT
Distribution: sci.space
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

There have been suggestions of terraforming Mars, perhaps
even Venus. There may even be other planets or satellites
in the solar system that lend themselves to being improved
upon by man.

Well, I have a suggestion.

We can talk of sending manned flights to Mars, but we do
not have the technology yet, nor the budget for such a
prolonged and possibly ineffective space flight. Maybe we
haven't learned from recent attempts to mass produce
science, but miracle breakthoughs simply don't happen on
schedule if ever. So talk about terraforming with unknown
technologies is premature to say the least.

Yet we do have the capability of terraforming Mars or the
very least modifying Mars to support life of some sort. The
same could probably be said of Venus and other places.

If the Gaia principle really exists, and I find the
principle attractive, then we can let life do it's own work
on these planets.

It is a simple, possibly even elementary, matter to find
various bacteria, algae, fungi, lichen etc. that can exist
in the harsh environment of Mars. Or, for that matter, the
upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere. These life-forms
are small, light and quite capable of being transported in
rather massive quantities to these planets by presently
possessed technology. Should there not be appropriate life
forms, our present knowledge of biotechnology should lead
us to be able to develop some in fairly short order.

I suggest that we send a space vessel bearing our life
substitutes to Mars and Venus. The cost is relatively
miniscule. Thereon we can sprinkle the makings of man
himself.

Oh, maybe the results won't look like our ideas of life. If
Gaia lives on Venus I am sure that she is a Venusian Gaia.
We would find her, perhaps, a little hot blooded for our
tastes. The Martian Gaia might be more to our liking but
then again who is to say? So too for the Titan Gaia.

Would the Gaia principle work? I, for one, think that it
would. In any case the results would be a satisfying and
informative experiment that would cost pennies along the
lines of space travel these days.

Of course it would be unethical to interfere with any life
there may be already there. So considerable exploration
would be necessary to give a moral basis for such a
project. But consider this:  Should man never be able to
budge from this planet in earnest we will have had our
moment of godhood and brought life to pass. And perhaps,
after all, that is the true meaning of life.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent)
Subject: Beanstalks, Tethers - something I forgot to mention
Summary: Beanstalk,tethers, I forgot to mentionsomething
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:28:14 GMT

Another possibility I forgot to mention along with space fountains was
a variant of a launch loop.  You have, oh say six platforms above the
Earth, moving such that they stay above the same point - but lower than
GEO.  This normally can't happen, but if you have a huge "loop" around
the Earth, of pellets, each of which sort of strikes each platform and
bounces(??) in such a way as to maintain its altitude, and continue on to
the next platform.  It's been awhile, so I don't remembert this in detail
At some point, the pellets are boosted, to keep up their speed.  If anyone
wants a better description, I could look up the info.  (I really should 
know this, though.)

"I believe that there are moments in history when challenges occur of such
a compelling nature that to miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an
epoch.  Space is such a challenge."
		- James A. Michener 
-- 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent		e-mail: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS fouling astronomy
Date: 15 Aug 92 22:48:19 GMT
    <1992Aug12.044959.19501@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>     
 <1992Aug13.175839.24133@cfa.harvard.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Aug13.175839.24133@cfa.harvard.edu>
willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:

> Seriously, if we are building enough space infrastructure for SPS's,
> it should be easy for professional astronomers to have access to
> space instruments.
> 

Uh-oh. Looks like your assumptions (albedo = 30%, number of satellites
> 1000) are more convincing. That means the Milky Way is toast.

But, most of this thread is pointing in the direction that SPS is a
very advanced project, and maybe has to be. So, in the meantime, any
number of things can happen.

> > Also, the objection that
> > "there'd be nowhere on Earth you could get away from the handiwork of
> > humans - no remaining true wilderness" isn't really true: try Alaska
> 
> I give up.  The lattitude is only 60 to 70 degrees or so, and there
> are plenty of flat places where the horizon is visible. And the
> aurora is seldom bright enough to obliterate the bright planets.
> Maybe you were there during a _really_ bright display. :-)

Trees could block objects near the horizon, but come to think of it,
you'd have to be above latitude 82 degrees, which is more northerly 
even than Point Barrow, to get completely away from the
Con-Ed-stellation. GEO is about 6.6 Earth radii away, and 
arctan(6.6) = 81.4 degrees (My thanks to Mike McCall from Rutgers 
for pointing this out.); atmospheric refraction will give 
another 34'.

And I never saw the aurora from Alaska; I saw it from Arizona. 
(The famous 1989 March display: no kidding!)
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar System Journal
Keywords: planets,humor,NASA
Date: 15 Aug 1992 17:22:08 GMT
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Originator: kjenks@krakatoa

In article <1992Aug12.202853.15670@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:

Early in the article, Murphree wrote:

> [...] NASA's
>real business is PR and aerospace company patronage, not science.

Near the end of the article, he wrote:

>GALILEO AT JUPITER IN 1995
>
>Probe:  The in situ probe of the atmostphere is the best possible
>human participative experiencer for me.  Just read me the isotopic,
>elemental, molecular abundances with altitude profile.  I'll make a
>poster of it and put it on my wall.  [Sarcasm dripping off every word.]

Sheesh!  We give you PR fluff, you want science.  We give you science,
you want PR fluff.  There's no pleasing some people. 

That was a fun summary of interplanerary exploration.  More!

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: alexho@microsoft.com (Alex Howerton)
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:34:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <Bt5JJ7.396@research.canon.oz.au> naylor@research.canon.oz.au (William Naylor) writes:
>A private company called "Astrotech" has been trying to get
>into the space business (Astrotech is a public company; its stock
>trades on the American stock exchange in the USA).
My father has some Astrotech shares. He bought them when the company went
public in '85. They were going to develop private uses of the shuttle.
The '86 Challenger didaster put the company and the stock into a tailspin.
My father says the most recent annual report says they have bailed out
of the private space business.

If any of you are interested in exploring private space ventures further,
I publish a bimonthly newsletter on space business developments called
Space Times. Send me your postal address (I'm not doing an online version)
and I'll send you a sample copy.

Alex Howerton
alexho@microsoft.com

Space Times
P.O. Box 565
Lynnwood, WA  98046-0565
From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:07:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bt8nGw.7LJ.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov writes
> Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a
> possible water landing.  We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia
> to land in like the Russians.  

Uhhh, this may be stupid, but why not just land on the steppes of
Asia, or any other flat land surface that happens to be within reach
when an emergency hits?  It's not like the capsule would be reused,
nor need we worry about the Russians getting their hands on new
technology :-)  Heck, they'd probably appreciate the return of their
raw materials.

Jonathan H.
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS fouling astronomy
Date: 23 Aug 92 13:36:38 GMT
 <ZHgXPB8w165w@clubzen.fidonet.org>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <ZHgXPB8w165w@clubzen.fidonet.org>
mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis) writes:

> I have NO idea where you got your info in SPS systems, but it seems there
> is little in what you say that relates to actual SPS designs or proposals.
> The SPS systems transmit power in the microwave frequencies not in visible
> light. Get some facts, please!!

The power transmission has nothing to do with this. An SPS sits in
sunlight, reflects it just like the Moon or any other satellite: the
metal/silicon/ceramic structure certainly isn't invisible! This goes
whether the beam is visible or invisible, or even on or off. See the
calculation above, done by me and corrected by Steve Willis.
Newsgroups: sci.space