HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Keeping ramjet stoked (was Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:46:08 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <C0GH9C.DA@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <wwLXwB4w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes:
>>2) you won't have to carry 
>>around what I see as becoming GIGANTIC amounts of antimatter...
> 
> The amounts of antimatter get huge only when you start trying to achieve
> seriously relativistic velocities.

Does a Bussard ramjet work *at all* below seriously relativistic
velocities?  

Seems to me below some large speed, which I recall as
something much bigger than .5c, you don't gather enough interstellar
hydrogen to keep things stoked.  Admittedly I remember details rather
fuzzily, and don't know how to apply them to the "ram-augmented
interstellar rocket" Henry is talking about. 

To learn more, by the way, consult articles by A.R. Martin and others
concerning "ram-augmented interstellar rockets"  (RAIR) in *Journal of
the British Interplanetary Society* somewhere between 1975 and the
present.   

Bob Forward did a bibliography of literature on interstellar flight in
the same period, which a couple of Czech guys updated later, all in
the pages of *JBIS*.   This may be very helpful to Jason Cooper in his
project.  Good luck finding a library that has this journal, though!

-- 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool)
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:24:51 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <ewright.726518580@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>When there's only one supplier in a market, that's usually
>a pretty good incentive for other companies to invest.  How
>many companies followed Federal Express into the day-next
>delivery market?

The success of Federal Express demonstrated that there was a large
market of buyers for this service, at the prices allowed by the mature
aviation infrastructure.  Investors jumped in to tap that market.  At
shuttle costs, even under private stewardship, buyers would not flock
in, so investors would be reluctant at best, except for the one who
would be guaranteed x launches at price $y (large) by NASA.  But even
if privatization of shuttle did not produce a competitive market,
perhaps the change of attitude needed for NASA to effect it would be a
Good Thing.

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:54:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.space

In sci.space, chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott) writes:

> The "space elevator" - basically dropping a cable from a geosynchronous
> satellite to Earth (and, of course, another one upwards so the centre of
> mass stays still) is probably the most *lethal* device one might conceive
> of building!  Imagine the cable breaks near the mid-point.  You have 38000km
> of cable falling to earth at *orbital* velocities, enough to wrap itself
> around the entire equator of the planet!  Go figure out the kinetic energy
> involved.  How much ocean would it vaporize?  Massive medium-term climatic
> changes at best - "nuclear winter" scenarios.  A new Ice Age a distinct
> possibility.

Most of the cable would vaporize long before it could do any damage.  The 
cable doesn't mass enough to survive reentry.  That is why we can have so many
meteors hitting earth at orbital velocities and not even notice.

Of course the first few miles of it would survive, which would be an 
impressive fall (!), but probably not disasterous if it lands in the ocean.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Government-run programs Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:09:22 GMT

In article <ewright.726356070@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan4.191800.12395@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>After the first Apollo landing, TV ratings for space coverage dropped
>>sharply. The media took their cue from that. It's only climbed into
>>the top 50 *once* after that, that was the launch after Challenger.
>
>And Star Trek was always at the bottom of the ratings...

Yes it was. It's done quite well in syndication over the years, however,
thanks to a small, but hardcore and vocal group of fans. More viewer
hours are probably spent watching Star Trek reruns today than during it's 
first run network release. But that's because you can find it at nearly 
any hour of any day on cable and independent stations. Some people watch 
it eight times a week. I find that rather sick, but then fan is just a
contraction for fanatic.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: peipyy@robots (PETER YASUDA)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Railgun in Southwest US
Summary: gas gun, not a rail gun
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:06:00 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center - Robotics Lab
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <C0HtJ3.Lqo.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ssi!lfa@uunet.UU.NET ("Louis F. Adornato") writes...
>uunet!eros.calpoly.edu!jgreen writes:
>> I've heard a rumor that some organization (SSI?) has actually
>> built a large railgun somewhere in the SW USA.  It's apparently
>> supposed to be big enough to put small payloads (>5 kg) into
>> orbit, though I don't know if they've done that yet.
>>
>> Is this a rumor or is there some truth to it?

It's not a rail gun; it's some kind of gas gun.  It's being built
by one of the Energy Dept labs.  It uses a really big piston to
compress hydrogen gas which drives the projectile out the launch
tube, which is mounted at a right angle to the piston.  Gas is
fed into the launch tube as the projectile passes by.

The first attempt will be a test with a light projectile.  If
successful, the plan is to scale it up.

Sorry, that's all I recall.  I don't even remember where the 
article appeared.

pyy
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: killing the shuttle
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:47:34 GMT

In article <C0IAA3.Axy@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>You don't get rid of civil servants and politically-powerful contractors
>that easily.  If you wipe out the Imperial Deathstar, they'll only start
>building another one.

Today that's true. However, if the conditions existed where a group was
powerful enough to end Shuttle then the situation would be so different
that it is impossible to say what would happen.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------106 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:30:31 GMT

In article <C0Hun4.13t@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>>But the airlines do not contract out their operations.  They procure
>>planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them.
>
>Actually, it is not at all uncommon for airlines to lease planes complete
>with crews, or to contract with specialists for support services like
>maintenance.  Leasing services are among the airliner companies' biggest
>customers.

Let's see, NASA should sell Shuttle and it's support facilities at cost,
lease them back from the buyer at a profit to the leasing agency, and
then they'll save big bucks. What's wrong with this picture? Airlines
use lease back arrangements because of the *tax* advantages the arrangement
offers. The leasing company profit is less than the taxes saved so everybody
but the average taxpayer wins. NASA doesn't pay taxes, they spend them.

Ok, let's try it another way. NASA sells Shuttle and it's support facilities
at cost to Rockwell. NASA then buys a *ticket* when it needs a launch on
Rockwell Spacelines, about 8 times a year. Rockwell Spacelines sells them
the tickets at about 1.5 times current Shuttle flight costs, got to recoup
the investment and turn a profit. The poor taxpayer takes it in the neck.

One more time. NASA sells Shuttle and support facilities at scrap prices
and writes off development costs as a bad investment. This is what Allen
wants. Rockwell Spacelines buys the scrap and begins operating it. Sells
NASA, NASDA, Hughes, and anyone else who wants one a ticket. Using commercial
operating practices, Rockwell Spacelines makes money, NASA et al get reduced
launch costs, and everyone but the poor abused taxpayer wins. (he always
loses anyway)

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:07:16 GMT

In <wwLXwB4w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes:

>Sorry, couldn't quote all of this one.  

>Firstly.  I see what you are talking about _now_.  Sounds not too bad.  
>However, it still seems to me that carbon-catalyzed may be a great way to 
>go.  1) your carbon keeps coming back and 2) you won't have to carry 
>around what I see as becoming GIGANTIC amounts of antimatter.  So what 
>YOU are talking about is using antimatter as a partial source of the 
>energy to get the hydrogen to FUSE?  Sounds good thus far...

I didn't get the impression that that was what he meant.  After all,
if you have antimatter to use in heating the bulk of your exhaust
products, why do you need fusion?  You could probably get the same
sort of energy into the exhaust just using the antimatter.  Of course,
yuou couldn't cruise forever, but I wouldn't think it would require
amounts of anti-matter that would seem ridiculously large, given the
scale of such a vehicle.

-- 
"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.
From: roussel@cicb.fr ( Franck Roussel)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: *** METEOSAT weather images, SORRY ***
Keywords: weather,meteo,meteosat
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:14:47 GMT
Organization: CICB, Universite' de Rennes I, FR

Hello everybody!

I am interested in METEOSAT weather images. I know there are many
  anonymous FTP sites, such:
    - cumulus.met.ed.ac.uk  in directory /images
    - nic.funet.fi               ''      /pub/sci/meteosat
  where satellite images of World,Atlantic,Europe are displayed.

Does anybody knows about other anonymous FTP sites like those ?

Especially, is there a server at the Meteorological Space Center
  of Lannion (Brittany) ?  I tried the FTP site "lannion.cnet.fr",
  but after typing the command 'ftp lannion.cnet.fr' it answered me:
    'Connected to lannion.cnet.fr'
    '421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection'


Thanks for all answers to my questions
Roussel

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstname: Frank                      E-mail: roussel@univ-rennes1.fr
Lastname : ROUSSEL                    Telephone: + 33 99 83 26 10

Address1 : 175, rue Belle Epine       CityStateZip: 35510
Address2 : CESSON SEVIGNE             Country: FRANCE
----------- Science without conscience is only soul's ruin  ------------
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool)
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:53:53 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <1993Jan8.134508.15155@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.220739.9367@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>>The market, for one thing.  Spin off shuttle to the private sector, and
>>you're likely to get at most one provider, and one buyer (NASA).  
>
>Nonsense. Run KSC like an airport and Shuttle like an airliner. There is
>no reason that several companies couldn't buy Shuttles and lease the
>hanger facilities like any other airport.

This idea is based on the assumption that _large_ cost reductions could
be achieved by the private sector, which I'm not ready to buy.  The
shuttle is intrinsically expensive, with its maintenance-intensive
SSMEs, tiles, etc, and the standing army needed to operate it.  The
shuttle is no airliner, sorry.  This, IMHO, precludes important market
expansion, and you end up with a situation not unlike military
procurement, where $80 screwdrivers are not unheard of.  Talk about
cost reductions.

Note that I'm not denying that savings are possible, but I'm still not
convinced that they would materialize, were NASA to try.

Besides, who would need Delta Clipper if the shuttle could be made
cheap?

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
From: keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:24:18 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
wrote:
> 
> NASA is chartered as a research organization, not an operational agency.
> Shuttle is operations, not research.
> 

And NASA also owns a wide variety of aircraft (ie: T-38, Gulfstreams,
Lears, etc.) and capital equipment (buildings, computers, wind tunnels,
etc.) that it uses for operations.  I'll ignore the capital equipment.  But
if I follow your argument, all flights not related to research should be
provided by a private firm?  What about training?  What about flights in
and out of Edwards?  I'd bet that NASA owns a few flight articles that are
used for operations and not for research.  Do we apply your argument
against using the shuttle for operations to those areas as well?

The Shuttle supporters (for the most part) continue to question whether or
not the DC-X/Y/1 supporters are suggesting that we cancel Shuttle before
DC-X/Y/1 is operational.  I've requested that the DC-? proponents put up a
straw man proposal of exactly when the Shuttle would be phased out.  This
request was ignored.  I'll reiterate the request:  Exactly when do you
propose discontinuing Shuttle operations?  Exactly when do you believe DC-1
will fly?  Exactly what will happen if DC-1, for whatever reason, is years
late, or turns out to be as problematical or more problematical as the
Shuttle?  

Its my impression that the Shuttle supporters are against shelving the
United States' manned space program merely to save a few billion a year. 
They aren't against saving money, they aren't against DC-1, they just
believe that there are unacceptable risks associated with depending on a
system that isn't flight ready, let alone exist.  I will not support a
position that requires the cancellation of the US's manned space program
years in advance of a replacement from the private sector.

But if you continue to believe that the supporters of the Shuttle are, by
definition, anti DC-X/Y/1, then continuing any discussion is pointless.  

Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
keithley@apple.com
"I have absolutely no responsibility in this matter, what-so-ever"
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:26:20 GMT


KaBLE is an engineering experiment to evaluate using Ka band to communicate
to deap space spacecraft. It can potentially support much higher data rates
than the X-band we currently use on MO. I don't know much about the details,
but the transponder on MO can receive and return the signal under the
right circumstances. There is a short window where we are on the High gain
antenna but are close enough to have the link-margin to do the experiment.

   Steve Collins MO Spacecraft Team (AACS)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:13:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <93008.103356DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>> Current antiproton production is geared towards physics, not
>> rocketry.  It is probably possible to create antimatter more
>> efficiently if that is the primary goal.
>
>This is probably incorrect, for two reasons:
>* Antiproton production and capture  efficiency limits the rate
>  at which antiproton storage rings can be filled.  If easily
>  obtainable improvements were available, I expect that they
>  would have been used already.

As I understand it, there are other constraints that also have to be
observed.  For example, they want antiprotons with more or less the
same energy.  Robert Forward, who studied the issue on contract for
the USAF, said production rates *could* be improved considerably if
you custom-built the hardware for it.

>* A rocket fuel needs to be cheaply contained.  Storage rings
>  are expensive.  Unfortuantely, antiprotons are created moving,
>  so they will need to be brought to rest to simplify the containment
>  problem.  This is an additional manipulation that the physicists
>  don't need to perform.

It doesn't look like a hard problem, however.  There has been work
done in that direction for various physics projects.  For example,
there was a LANL project -- no longer funded -- to decelerate and cool
antiprotons to essentially zero energy for measuring their gravitational
mass.  (If you believe general relativity, it should be identical to
their well-known inertial mass... but some of the weirder theories of
gravity say it should be different.)  I heard a talk by one of the
folks involved; he said that it was interesting physics to be sure,
but it was also a way to do antimatter-handling work with an eye on
longer-term practical uses.

If memory serves, first estimates for propulsion efforts say that the
trickiest problem is the latent heat of freezing when you try to
convert antihydrogen gas to solid pellets.  There is no shortage of
possible methods for most of the handling problems, although a good
bit of engineering development would have to be done to find out which
ones will work best.

>There is no free lunch.  Baryon number is conserved...

Well, unless you believe in proton decay, in which case it isn't...

>This means it costs
>the same 2mc^2 (at least) to make an antiproton that one gets back when
>it annihilates.

Indeed so.  Antimatter is a *storage* system, not an energy source per se.
But it's an outstandingly lightweight storage system, assuming the handling
gear's mass isn't too bad.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: re: Questions about SETI
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:56:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0IItx.J7H.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In reponse to Tim Roberts...

This is no flame...Look up the "Drake Equation" in a reference book.  This
is a nifty little equation that calculates the number of civilizations we
may "hear" while looking for them.  One variable within the equation
is the amount of time a civilization is at or around our technology level
and therefore would be radiating messages (we sent one out into space in
the '70s(?) from Puerto Rico) in such a way that our technology would be
able to "hear" and perhaps comprehend.  The only catch is that any
variable in the equation that turns out to be zero makes for a pretty
futile search. :-)  Don't tell Congresspersons that!!!

Only partially related to you question is a quote from the "Calvin & Hobbes"
comic strip that has Calvin Saying, "Sometimes I think that the surest sign
that intelligent life exists in the universe is that none of it has tried to
contact us."  :-)

One final note:  You stated that LOTS of money was being spent on SETI. 
Remember, this is space stuff, LOTS doesn't get combined with the word
money until you are above $100,000,000 per year  (a billion here, a 
billion there and pretty soon your talking about real money...)  The SETI
numbers are $100,000,000 over the ten year life of the program.  

[I KNOW I'm going to get flamed on that last paragraph....]

Grant Anderson
Ganderson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:45:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.220739.9367@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>>So what is so special about human space flight?

>The market, for one thing.  Spin off shuttle to the private sector, and
>you're likely to get at most one provider, and one buyer (NASA).  

Nonsense. Run KSC like an airport and Shuttle like an airliner. There is
no reason that several companies couldn't buy Shuttles and lease the
hanger facilities like any other airport.

The market is small because NASA keeps it small.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------106 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+