HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chaos@athena.mit.edu (Paul Shawcross)
Subject: Topaz II Reactor
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:52:06 GMT

Hi folks. I'm looking for information on the Soviet Topaz II space
nuclear reactor.  I know its a thermionic reactor and has been used
to power the radar ocean reconnaissance (RORSAT) satellites.  I also 
know about the SDI buying one, the hassles they've had doing so, etc.

What I need is basic information such as the reactor's size, mass, power, 
lifetime, and shielding.  I've been digging around, but haven't been
able to find out any of this info.

Either answers or directions towards answers would be appreciated.
Thanks.

Paul Shawcross
chaos@athena.mit.edu
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:59:55 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug16.203805.12423@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.160633.20164@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>No. Launch costs are dominated by support personel costs. Since we
>>only require one Shuttle launch to serve the function that you 
>>want to service with four separate launches, we save support costs.
>
>The numbers simply don't bear that out. Shuttle fixed costs are enoumous
>and for the past 11 years have been pretty independant of the number
>of flights.  Therefore the reduced suuttle utilization required by
>using Shuttle for ACRV WILL increase costs.
>
>As to my needing more launches, So what? All launches are not equal and
>mine cost a fraction of what yours cost. The bottom line is that shuttle
>based approaches for station crew rotation and resuply costs about $5 billion
>per year and expendable approaches costs about $1 billion per year. The
>expendable approaches also offer greater flexability and fallbacks should
>one component because grounded.

Shuttle fixed cost is around $5 billion a year, but support for Fred
after PMC will only occupy 1/4th the Shuttle fleet at any given time. 
That makes the cost of Shuttle support of Fred $1.2 billion per year. 
That's close enough to your figures that the increased program risk of 
developing *3* new vehicles easily makes the slightly higher cost 
acceptable. Using Shuttle keeps 3/4 of the fleet available for missions 
*other* than Fred. With your plan, that capability is lost.  

Gary
From: strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: space industry
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:33:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: rpi.2tgy7!k
Organization: The Voice of Fate

In article <1992Aug19.135709.17016@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1469100011@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>There are really no private space launch providers
>>outside the United States -- Arianespace is the closest thing.
> ^^^^^^^
>So what are Atlas, Delta, and Titan, chopped liver?
>
	Ah, No Allen, they are INSIDE the US. :-)

>  Allen
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------247 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


-- 
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  Strider@acm.rpi.edu
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."  
Carpe Diem                     |
From: 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
Date: 7 Aug 92 16:37:51 GMT




RRegarding payload penalty for different inclination missions.

Here are the numbers read off of a graph in the NASA Space
Shuttle Payload Accommodations Handbook JSC 07700 Volume XIV
Revision J of 1/27/88.

The graph is a little small so these numbers might be off by a
few per cent, these weights are in thousands of pounds:-

Inclination   Altitude: 100 nmi      220 nmi      300 nmi

28.45 deg               55           42           35

57    deg               40           30           23

Penalty:-               27 pc        29 pc        34 pc
(per cent)

The curve is a straight line between different altitudes, but I
do
not know whether you can interpolate linearly for different
inclinations.

I do not have data handy for any other launch vehicles right now,
but I will dig around some more and post anything I might find
later.

These numbers do at least illustrate why NASA is using a 28.5 deg
orbit for Space Station Freedom.   They are constrained on the
number of launches by Congress, and wish to orbit the maximum
payload weight.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:57:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.155955.24162@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Shuttle fixed cost is around $5 billion a year, but support for Fred
>after PMC will only occupy 1/4th the Shuttle fleet at any given time. 

The Shuttle flies eight times a year and four of those are needed for
Fred resuply. Thus Fred uses 50% of Shuttle at an anual cost of $2.5
billion (1.5 times the cost of doing the same thing with expendables).

If we use Shuttle for ACRV then Fred uses 100% of Shuttle flights for
an anual cost of $5 billion. This is five times the cost of doing the
same thing with expendables.

>That makes the cost of Shuttle support of Fred $1.2 billion per year. 

You have made a huge arithmatic error.

>Using Shuttle keeps 3/4 of the fleet available for missions 
>*other* than Fred. With your plan, that capability is lost.  

We have yet to see an economic justification for the minor additional
orbital capability which justifies the huge cost. When we do, we can
consider this position. Until then, this view cannot be considered
credible.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------248 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Seeding Mars with life
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:19:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Aug13.111936.172321
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Life started in a reducing, not an oxidizing atmosphere. If Mars has  
primitive life forms, then I would expect it to be anaerobic types  
unless evolution proceeded fast enough to make it to the  
photosynthesis/aerobic phase. Even if it did, it's currently reduced  
state would be a strong argument that such died out. But that does  
not necessarily mean the primitive ones did as well.

The point about energy source is a good one. I would have to see I  
simply don't know.

But it is telling that live bacteria have been retrieved from MILES  
under the Earth.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:09:00 GMT

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).
> 
>2 years ago they tried to convince NASA to sell them a space shuttle,
>which they would finance by a public share offering.  NASA refused for
>various reasons.
> 

Astrotech is in the space business now.  They are located at the spaceport
Florida industrial center on the NASA causway (or nearbouts).  They provide
payload integration services to a varitey of customers both military and 
commercial.

Also in response to another post about the Shuttle and its availability, the
routine landing of the Shuttle at KSC cancels the longer time in orbit
for the Shuttles and lowers the cost per mission by 3-4 million dollars.
Also for Allan's benefit that 8 per year launch rate was achieved BEFORE
Endeavour came on line. 

A possible other use for Shuttle is to provide service to the CIS station
as well as to SS Freedom.  Don't think your Atlas/Soyuz can do that Allan.
That is of course launching out of KSC.

Experimenting with lowering the message rate and reply overhead by responding
to multiple posts in one.

Dennis, university of Alabama in Huntsville
From: cooper@cos.com (Gary Cooper)
Subject: Re: Random Notes (Was Re: NASP, NLS, SSTO, etc.)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa  
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:57:11 GMT

In <1992Aug5.092726.3236@desire.wright.edu> jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:

>> at Mississippi State University for NASA and the NASP JPO.  It should
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This isn't the same mock-up that was at the '89 Paris Air show, was it?
I'm pretty sure that was made at VA Tech. 
-- 
Gary Cooper (not the dead one)    personal responses - cooper@cos.com
* * * * * * *  Standard Disclaimers Apply, Of Course * * * * * * * * *
      "The Vice-Presidency is not worth a pitcher of warm spit."
			- Vice-President John Nance Garner - 
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: He3 Power Source
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:08:22 GMT



-
>From: sth0:05:28ipknot.mit.edu (Scott Hannahs)
> Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
> Date: 14 Aug 92 23:50:11 GMT
> Subject: Re: He3 Power Source
>
>
> Any reason the moon should be richer in 3He than the earth? The natural
> abundance of 3He is about 7ppm in regular 4He which is from trapped
> alpha decay in natural gas wells.
-
I do not know how the abundance compares.   He-3 on the Moon comes from
bombardment by solar wind particles, which has been continuing for a
few billion years.  Unlike Earth, the Moon has no atmosphere, no magentic
field, and no Van Allen belts, so is completely exposed to the raw solar
flux.
By comparison, none of the solar particle flux reaches Earth's surface.

>I think the energy cost of gettting
> to the moon, mining the 3He and bringing it back would be more than you
> can get out of the 3He.  The major (only) commercial source of 3He ($90
-
Quick lesson in lunar economics :-
Transportation from the Moon would be by solar powered electromagnetic mass
driver. Operating costs essentially nil (except maintenance).
A modest one time capital cost will be incurred to launch and install the
small mass driver on Moon.  After that, you can transport infinite
quantities of lunar material for virtaully zero cost.
   Extracting He-3 from lunar soil is cheap and simple - heat it up a
little, using solar mirrors.   The cost of storing He-3 in its refined
state is more expensive than handling lunar soil, so it might be cheaper to
launch lunar soil to Earth, rather than the He-3, despite the fact that the
mass of the soil is much higher, the cost of transporting it is very low.
-
> US / liter STP federal research grant rates) is from nuclear weapons
> manufacture.  If you have some tritium around all you have to do is sit
> on your thumbs and bingo 3He.  Now that the arms race is over all the
> low temp physicists should start worrying about the availability of 3He.
> For awhile as warheads are deactivated things will be ok, but
> eventually....  No more research below 1K.  We do recycle the stuff but
-
And He-3 is elusive stuff.
It should be quite cheap to supply lunar He-3 to Earth for whatever
purpose.
Is there an easy way to store He other than cryogenci or gaseous ?  EG can
it be soaked into something, say, Palladium or Lithium (like Hydrogen) ?
It is already soaked into lunar soil, but at rather low concentrations.
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: GPS (Global Positioning System)
Date: 17 Aug 1992 17:09:24 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu
Summary: Getting info on GPS is hard.
Keywords: GPS

I have just read the famous 76-page brochure on GPS put out by Trimble
Navigation.  It hardly qualifies as a manual or technical documentation.
When I call Trimble Navigation for information, they give me the phone
number of a guy that won't be back for two weeks.  According to the
brochure, US taxpayers are "investing over $12 billion" on the system.
I would think there would be at least an address I could write to for
a good bibliography on the system without having to go through some
company that makes it money keeping public information away from the public.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hrbob@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.e.wiersbe)
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:28:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.211654.23731@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:

<much deleted>

>
>I recommend _educating_ the public about the dangers of 
>rocketry et al.  Getting them involved _responsibly_ if they
>want to get involved.  Isn't there an American Model Rocketry
>association that does just that?
>
>
>-- 
>Chuck Divine

There are actually two organizations that deal with safe consumer rocketry, the
National Association of Rocketry (NAR) and the Tripoli Rocketry Association. 

There are motors available today that will outperform anything you could make
yourself, not to mention being safer and legal.

You can contact these organizations at:

    National Association of Rocketry
    P.O. Box 177
    Altoona, WI 54270
    (715) 834-8074
    (800) 262-4872
    Email: 71331.2506@compuserve.com

    Tripoli Rocketry Association
    P.O. Box 40475
    St. Petersburg, FL  33743-0475
    Tripoli Rocketry Association, Inc.
    P.O. Box 339
    Kenner, LA 70063-0339

Bob Wiersbe	NAR# 44588	hrbob@ihlpb.att.com
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
	<1992Aug12.013040.618@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Aug12.024141.4913@utdallas.edu>
Date: 12 Aug 92 00:48:54

bcollins@utdallas.edu (Arlin B. Collins) writes:
   (Brian Kemper) writes:
   > (Richard Martin) writes:
   > > Please forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is a parsec?
   > I know a parsec is a unit of distance equal to roughly 3 light-years ...
   One parsec equals  30.857x10**12 km, 206265 astronomical units, and
   3.2616 light-years.

This talk of parsecs and so forth reminds me of my favorite volumetric unit:
the barn megaparsec.

A barn is a unit of atomic cross-section, 10^-20 cm^2.  A barn megaparsec is
about 1.6 teaspoons!

--
Craig DeForest:  zowie@banneker.stanford.edu  *or*  craig@reed.bitnet

"So, if you guys make a living looking at the SUN, why do you spend so much
        time at the SYNCHROTRON, working UNDERGROUND at NIGHT?"
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:20:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bt4yxu.C0.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> Allan you have still not addressed with numbers the propostion that  
the
> Shuttle will become MORE useful as the return of large payloads  
grows more
> common in the SSF era.
>

WHAT large payloads? There ARE no large payloads until we actually GO  
somewhere. There is nothing in LEO to bring back. And if we do have  
regular access to LEO, we should just cannibalize any hardware we  
send up that stops working. Just ship new stuff up if it can't be  
fixed on orbit.

Oh, true, there may be an occasional exception. But can the price of  
bringing down the exception pay the full cost of keeping a standby  
capability that is otherwise not required?

In any case, I think the entire discussion thread is pretty much over  
moot points. The shuttle will be flying at least through the end of  
the decade, regardless of what we say or what it costs. The private  
measures Allan and others, including myself are suggesting will be  
coming on line in the early years post-2000. The shuttle will  
continue working until it is driven from the skies by economics.  
Since it is the only vessel now flying, it is, by definition, the  
currently most economical choice. Sad maybe, but unavoidably true.  
For the moment.

The ACRV debate is a somewhat seperate issue, since there is no  
capability to replace. It has a basically free shot at the emergency  
return market.

If it is successful there, a good marketer can start cutting into  
other facets of the shuttle market. Hell, everyone else will be doing  
the same. There will be no sudden change of funding status.  
Alternatives will simply kill the shuttle via the death of a thousand  
cuts... over a period of perhaps 5-10 years.

The shuttle has already lived a longer time than most of the really  
early cargo aircraft (ie pre-Ford Trimotor and DC-3). It will have an  
honored place at NASM and will probably be sitting there before 2005.

If we are still flying 25 year old spaceships with 35 year old  
technology in 2005, then one would have to assume that the United  
States will have become a minor, if not trivial, player in world  
affairs by that time.

For the shuttle to still be flying then would require that US private  
ventures have been held back. I seriously doubt this will be the  
case, so I would not fear greatly for future US world status.


Guinness is good for you			amon@cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Mini Energiya(?) & MIR replacement
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:19:33 GMT

Last week's AW&ST had a CAD sketch of the redesigned MIR 2 station on a 
launch vehicle I can't identify.  It *looks* like a cut-down Energiya core, 
judging by the relative diameters of the strap-ons/core.  Has anyone seen 
this configuration before?  I recall that the brief article mentioned that 
MIR 1 will be operable until 1995. Someone here mentioned last week that the
core module will have to be replaced soon. Details on this & MIR 2 anyone?
-- 
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of 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: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Arthur C. Clarke interview
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:15:46 GMT
Distribution: sci.space
Organization: :noitazinagrO

In article <OREILLY.92Aug13073826@olivia.la.asu.edu> oreilly@olivia.la.asu.edu (Tom O'Reilly) writes:
>Apparently Arthur C. Clarke was interviewed on NPR last week. I didn't
>catch it - anybody have a synopsis?
>

I caught a fragment.  It seems to have been inspired by the tethered
satellite experiment, giving Clarke a chance to push the Orbital Tower
idea.  He reiterated his contention that it takes only $100 worth of 
energy to "get up there", by which I assume he means GEO, which is the
lowest orbit per se that you can get to via beanstalk.  I find that a
little hard to believe.  I could believe 200km, but then you wouldn't
be in orbit.  If you had a counterbalance system that sent mass down 
at the same time as other masses went up, you might make it to GEO for $100.

-- 
||)) Dump the Whatizit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and..
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:35:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bt6onM.KIG.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> As to the $65 million firm price for Soyuz, I've posted about this
> several times. That may be the price quoted *now*, but wage rates
> in the CIS simply can't stay at $12 a month as their economy  
changes
> 


I agree, but my conclusion is different. I say buy it quick while it  
is still cheap. It's like knowing there is a sale due to a temporary  
glut on the market but knowing the prices are going to be double or  
triple next Christmas. Would that be a reason for not buying now and  
buying as much as you can? Of course not.

As their price goes up, it will meet other prices coming down as  
other launchers fight for survival.

What more central tenant is there to capitalism than "Buy cheap, sell  
dear?"
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: What about Saturn?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:34:00 GMT

In article <qeHkPB4w165w@clubzen.fidonet.org>, mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis) writes...
>laurecr@eng.auburn.edu (Chase R. Laurendine) writes:
> 
>>         Maybe this topic has already discussed, if so, sorry for waisting
>> your time.  With all the interest in using Energiya's payload capacity for
>> SSF and the fond memories of the Saturn V program, I am curious to know how
>> the payload capacities of the two compare.  If the Saturn rockets had
>> comperable payload capacities, what would it take to bring the Saturn out
>> of mothballs.
> 
>At least 2 of the 3 remaining Saturn Vs, I'm afraid. Among other problesm
>(like the missing ring segment from the one they had to cut in half to fit
>in the Smithsonian), the initiators on the S-I engines (those nice BIG
>engines) were all hand wired, each one individually according to the
>specifics of that one's manufacture and sequencing the things was
>similarly custom work. The paper trails are gone. They're more likely to
>blow up than go up, and there's no guarantee that what worked for one
>would be transferable to another, even if you DID manage to get one of the
>pad. The costs of re-engineering the Saturn V would be compribale to the
>original development costs scaled up to 1990's prices. It's a LOT cheaper
>(IMHO) to put money into SSTO-type vehicles than to try recapturing our
>"glorious youth". Enough nostalgia ... let's get on with the job.
> 
>        Michael
> 

First of All you would not use the three existing Saturns. They are just rust
buckets now. There are enough engines in storage at the Marshall Space Flight
Center to build at least one and maybe two Saturns. BUT that is not what
I am proposing using the F1A engines and a new set of tanks to launch both
medium and heavy payloads. There would be two different diameter tanks that
would lift a variety of payload weights to orbit The largest of which would
lift over 300,000 to LEO which would be a Saturn V with STME engines in the
second stage in lieu of the J2's.  The cost of this for the the smallest 
(50,000 to LEO) would be less than Arianne or Titan IV or V. Using common 
engines would also help to drive down the costs for a Lunar version. remember
we are talking about going back one day.  There is congressional testimony
that states that the cost of reviving the Saturn is no more than for NLS and
that is by someone that opposes the Saturn.  I don't have the reference anymore
but Wales I think does.  So enough talk without any backup.


Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville