HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 01/11/93
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:23:40 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Reply-To: S.D.Derry@LaRC.NASA.Gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: zip.larc.nasa.gov
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) wrote:

:                          MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
:                             January 11, 1993

....

: 5.  Following the end of Cycle-4, the Magellan mission will begin a
: "Transition Experiment" in which the periapsis will be intentionally
: lowered to allow the atmospheric drag to slow the spacecraft's
: velocity.  This aerobraking maneuver will enable the mission planners
: to circularize the orbit and gather high-resolution gravity data
: closer to the poles of Venus.

GREAT!!!

Has funding been found for Cycle 5, or at least for the aerobrake 
experiment?  If so, this is the first I've heard of it, but it is 
excellent news!

--
Steve Derry
<s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: soc1070                         
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: U.S. Government funding
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:21:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.162900.14264@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes...
>In article <1iaeeuINN7kq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn) writes:

>NASA is part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.  As such,
>it receives its funding from the U.S. Congress.  Under the U.S. Code,
>NASA can't engage in this kind of fund-raising efforts, nor can it sell
>advertising on rockets, hold bake sales, or even accept volunteer labor
>from corporations (several of which have offered free services to the
>under-funded Space Exploration Initiative).  NASA gets what funding
>Congress allows it and no more.  And that funding is not enough to get
>us "back to the moon... this time to stay."  If you have a problem with
>that, write your Congresscritter.  

How does that work with NASA as a launch service? For example, providing
launch facilities/personell to universities who have constructed payloads
and purchased a launch vehicle from the manufacturer. Or launching a
communications sattellite from the shuttle, owned & operated by a private
sector corporation? I thought part of the initial selling point of the 
shuttle was that NASA could recapture its investment through the "putting
stuff in orbit" business.

What about the big RCA logo on the Delta rockets (as seen in "the 
Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology")? I hope RCA had to pay
for that.

I am not trying to start an arguement or anything, it just seems that
what you said seems to contridect some of the things I've seen from
NASA. And the wonderful publications - I hope you make money on those,
it would be stupid not to.
------
Tim Harincar				Millions long for immortality			
Central Minnesota 			who don't know what to do with
Association of Rocketry			themselves on a rainy Sunday 
soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu			afternoon. -Susan Ertz
Xref: sparky sci.space:19181 sci.aeronautics:2717
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 20:01:08 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1993Jan8.145918.3604@newsgate.sps.mot.com> turner@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Robert Turner) writes:
>
>Isn't the elevator considered the safest mode of transportation meeting both the
>"if I get in, I get out" and "deaths per passenger mile".
>

a
Ah, this guy has never heard of elevator accidents?  
While kinda uncommon they do occur.  mostly due to improper door opening.



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: satellite costs etc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:16:58 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan1.165738.24729@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Redundancy is always desirable if it's affordable, but there is a practical
>difficulty with having *cold* spares in orbit. Will they work when we need
>them? 

A cold spare is unlikely to be completely cold.  More likely it will
operated in a low-power mode so that you can still run diagnostics
and self-tests on the hardware.

>They have to be cold spares if they share the same orbital slot and
>frequencies. 

Not true.  You can put two birds in the same slot but only use
half the transponders on each one.  If the transponder frequency
X transponder fails on bird one, you switch to the frequency X
transponder on bird two.  If bird one fails entirely, bird two
can take over the entire service til a new backup is launched. 




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Nova article in Quest (repost)
Organization: Motorola 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:47:02 GMT

If you are interested in Nova booster studies you should
check out an article in the Quest magazine, Fall 1992 issue.
"They Might Be Giants: A History of Project NOVA 1959-1964 Part 1"
by Keith Scala and Glen Swanson, 15 pages, many illustrations.

The same issue also has articles on Ranger, Sputnik, the Houston
Space Center, and more.. 55 pages total.

Quest:The History of Spaceflight Magazine has only been published for 
about a year and used to be called Liftoff.
They will probably send you a free introductory issue if you write:
CSPACE Press, PO Box 9331, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49509-0331 

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:21:15 GMT

In article <C0Cv53.CBC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <ewright.726192136@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>>> Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise
>>>> it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to
>>>> *test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's
>>>> fabrication done by tradesmen.
>>
>>Wait a minute, I never wrote that! That was Gary Coffman!

Yeah, and damn pretty too isn't it?

>Gary's comments (the >>> above) are squarely in the NASA mold:  if you
>do it right on paper, it will work the first time (although of course
>you test it just in case).  Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work
>that way, as witness any number of NASA projects that *didn't* work
>the first time.  Real-world development involves *finding out* what
>works and what doesn't... and you cannot do that on paper.  You have
>to test things *during* the engineering, not just afterward.

I don't know how you read such things into my statements, must be
the big lies of Wright that fool you. Of course you test as you go.
Of course you change the design when you find problems. *And* of
course you *plan* for that in your developmental budgeting and
scheduling. If you don't and instead operate with a "success"
orientation that everything is going to work just like you planned
it and there aren't going to be any delays or extra expenses, *then*
you'll fail more often than not to meet spec, budget, or schedule.
Engineers still don't bend metal though. Most of them don't know the 
right end of a hammer to grasp. That's what you've got skilled tradesmen
on the payroll for.

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
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:26:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan11.070745.23686@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com)) writes:
>By what mechanism do these rocks get here?  Volcanic action & random launching?
>How do they acheive escape velocity?

Probably by complex phenomena associated with large impacts.  One of the
sticking points on declaring the SNC meteorites to be definitely Martian
has been the difficulty in explaining precisely how they got off the planet.
Getting shrapnel from a large impact off the Moon is not hard, but Mars's
escape velocity is rather high for this kind of thing.

>Why do they end up so often in 
>Antarctica?  Or are they just more  visible there? ...

This one's just a sampling effect.  Antarctica is a great place for
meteorite hunters, because any rock found sitting on the ice *must* be
a meteorite -- there's no other way it could get there.  Elsewhere, it
is hard to tell whether a random rock belongs where it's sitting or not.

In particular, if memory serves, there are a few areas of Antarctica
where ice flows just sort of terminate, gradually eroded away by wind
rather than flowing into the ocean.  A meteorite which falls on ice that
is heading that way will end up on the surface in the termination area.
This concentrates meteorites from large areas over long periods of time.

A bonus is that the Antarctic environment is very cold and virtually
sterile, preserving the meteorites in very nearly their pristine state.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tes@gothamcity.uucp (Thomas E. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 01/12/93
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:39:19 GMT

Ron Baalke writes:
>Today the spacecraft is 50,015,515 km from Earth (31,078,200 miles)
>travelling at a velocity of 11.55 meters/second (25,829 mph).  One way
>light time is approximately 167 seconds.

I was just curious, so on 12-30-92 I wrote down the info about velocity,
and distance. The speed was 9.4083 km/s, and now it's 11.55 km/s (I
assume that's supposed to be km instead of meters). I was just wondering
what the change in velocity was from. The spacecraft is coasting isn't it?
And at the moment isn't the Earth and Sun's pull greater than Mars?

                                             Signed,
                                               Perplexed

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
| It's not my damn planet, understand  | Tom E. Smith                      |
| Monkey Boy?!!       John Bigbootey   | tes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov       |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: delisle@eskimo.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Data release delay?
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:19:29 GMT


	In a newspaper article I read a couple days ago, I saw that
NASA will delay the release of data and pictuers from the Mars Observer
when it arrives at Mars and begins it's job. Aparently the delay will
be of a year or more and live feeds that have been offered with previous
deep space probes will be restricted.  
	Is there any truth to this, if so why has this policy been set 
into force and by whom? This is unconscienceable and must be changed. 
It is all out wrong. There is no reason.



--
delisle@eskimo.com        
  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:39:32 GMT


Several postings ago, I mentioned the possibility of quark-catalyzed fusion.
As promised (and requested) here are some additional details...
 
I smilied [:)] my original reference to quark catalyzed fusion since it
doesn't really apply to the problem of catalyzing fusion in a ramscoop :(
but it remains an interesting possibility for power generation here on earth
*if* free quarks can ever be isolated.
 
Quark catalyzed fusion is similar in concept to muon catalyzed fusion
with a difference - quarks don't decay. 

From F. Close, ``The quark structure of matter,'' in The New Physics, 
P. Davies, Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989, p. 422:

"Some of the practical details have already been evaluated and are as follows:
 
"A pair of antiquarks with charge -4/3 come to rest in hydrogen or deuterium at
a pressure of 2000 psi (1.4 x 10^7 N/m^2).  They capture a molecule and form
a system with charge -1/3.  The resulting `quark-molecule' is very excited.
It takes a short time to settle down, `de-excite', and in this time it captures
another nucleus, of charge +1, and fuses.  A quark is released to go on and
do the job again.  The process can be summarized by the sequence,

         Q + [D(pn) + D(pn)] -> [3H(pnn) + p] + (energy) + Q,

where Q = quark, D = deuteron, and 3H = tritium.
  
"The new quark moves on to the next nucleus and can initiate further fusion.
The reaction rate is one per second at 2000 psi pressure.  For deuterium,
this releases 3.65 MeV energy per fusion.  A few grams of quarks could 
catalyze fusion and generate 10% of the total USA energy consumption!
 
"There appears to be only one weak link in the whole enterprise: no one has 
yet found isolated free quarks!"
 
Various people have found evidence which suggests that free quarks exist
including Brian McCusker (cloud chamber photo in 1968) and William Fairbank
at Stanford (a variation on Millikan's experiment using niobium coated 
tungsten balls).
 
At present, theorists conjecture that quarks are confined in colourless 
clusters (hadrons) but this has not been *proved*.  It seems possible that
free quarks may exist.

If nothing else, it is interesting to contemplate the possible consequences
of free quarks...
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ISU
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:39:19 GMT
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering

Where can I find out more about the International Space University?
A site that I could FTP some files from would be great.  What about
application forms? :)

I've heard that the 1993 session will be held at the University of Alabama
at Huntsville but not much else... yet.  Thanks in advance.
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:53:30 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan7.034841.19216@ptdcs2.intel.com> greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason ~) writes:

>While your arguments about availability are sound in principle, they
>ignore the element of risk.  Shuttle availability has a long time window
>to availability, in months, but it is reasonably likely to be available
>when predicted to be, with some error margin <error margin because the
>schedule is ill-controlled, only "reasonably likely" because of the
>possiblity of another crippling accident shutting the STS down>

It wouldn't take a crippling accident to ground the Shuttle fleet
for several months.  History has shown that.  It could be something
as simple as a crane running into the side of the orbiter stack
or a problem with the APUs.  

If an orbiter hits one of the wild pigs, which live just yards from
the Shuttle runway,  it could put the vehicle out of action for more
than a year, resulting in delays or cancellations of many payloads.

And when (not if -- given enough Shuttle missions, it will happen)
there is another fatal accident, Congress and the White House will
shut the program down for at least another two years *if not permanently*.

If assured access to space was a concern, NASA would being buying 
Soyuz spacecraft/launchers right now, just to hedge its bet.


>One point that gets lost is that while DC-X is "bent metal" and will 
>solidly demonstrate the "quick turn" aspects of a launch vehicle (or 
>not), it will NOT demonstrate the key SSTO capability of a vehicle with 
>the extremely small "dry mass" necessary to make SSTO work

The "extreme mass ratio" is an aerospace legend.  We've been
building vehicles with similar mass ratios for the last 30
years.  The Shuttle external tank has the right mass.  So
did the Saturn S-IVB stage.


>This is a fairly long-winded lead in to say that no matter how great DC
>may be, you cannot stop shuttle flights before an operational DC capability
>exists, 

But we will, the first time someone whose nameplate says "astronaut"
gets killed.
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Sea floor Planetary Protection really.
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:21:27 GMT

In article <C05Cr9.991@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.204838.14165@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>>... After it's mission is finished, MO will be raised to a high
>>enough orbit to prevent it's re-entry for X thousand years.
>
>This may be a little academic, since as I recall, as of its shutdown in
>1972, Mariner 9's estimated orbital lifetime was only half a century.

True, I should have checked my numbers.

The quarantine requirements state that the probability of impact
before Jan. 1, 2009 must be less than 0.0001.  The probability
of impact between Jan. 1, 2009 and Jan. 1, 2039 must be less than
0.05.  As a result, MO will be raised to a Sun-synchronous orbit
with an altitude of about 370 km after it's mission is complete.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:14:36 GMT

Since fusing protons is so hard, why not use deuterons?
They fuse at a lower temperature, and the reaction only
requires regrouping the nucleons, rather than invoking the
weak force to transmute p->n.  The Earth's d/p ratio is ~.0001.
Perhaps the ramscoop collector could selectively enrich d,
by selecting for atoms having a magnetic moment.

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-Y funding
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:08:50 GMT

In article <C0HJEq.DrA.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>->(And if these incidental payloads were not subsidized, the market
>->might be even smaller.)

>-Not so. If NASA implements the voucher system authorized in last years
>-authorization bill they could launch more payloads for less cost. 

>I was thinking of the commercial (rather than government) payload market.

That's the rub. The governemnt launches (some of which are commercial)
account for well over half the market. It it all swiched to commercial,
we wold see at least a 30% reduction in cost to orbit.

>The Shuttle has lots of "nooks and crannies" for small payloads, and if
>the government is using the Shuttle anyway for the large payloads and
>human-tended experiments, then there's very little marginal cost to the
>government in also using the Shuttle for small payloads

But at what cost? Providing these people subsidies to fly Shuttle only
kills alternatives like ISF and Commet. All we are doing is keeping
the expensive system and killing the cheaper alternatives. I submit
that this is a bad idea.

What's wrong with vouchers? That way the users are encouraged to use
the cheapest service available. Doint this will cut costs and allow
more payloads to fly. It will encourage the creation of cheaper
alternatives and help everybody.

>which need to be returned to Earth after several days in orbit), 

Why do you assume that Shuttle is the one and only way to do that?
If your correct, then the voucher holders will pick Shuttle. If not,
then a market suddenly exists to provide these services.

>You seem to be implying that the market even for small payloads is almost
>exclusively government-funded - that the private sector for the most part
>just isn't interested in launches of small payloads - because if there were
>a private market, and if commercial launchers were cheaper to the customer
>even with the subsidized prices of GAS cans, etc. on the Shuttle, then the
>private customers would choose the private launchers even with the current
>setup.

Except that Shuttle distorts the market. It makes it seem much smaller
than it actually is. This slows or halts the competition which reduces
costs. Vouchers wold open the whole makret to competition.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: future space travel
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:09:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0n61s.7o8.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: future space travel
-Date: 10 Jan 93 02:32:25 GMT

-In article <rabjab.7.726624045@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes:
->Seems like the future will see expanding development of robotic systems
->that will be used to explore every planet and moon, at a vastly 
->reduced cost over sending humans.  

-It is yet to be established that this can be done effectively, except
-perhaps on the Moon where speed-of-light lags are short.  Just flying
-around and taking pictures is the easy part.  Interacting with a complex
-planetary surface, without minute-by-minute human attention, is vastly
-more problematic.  None of the currently-proposed Mars robots, for
-example, is going to have anywhere near the fossil-hunting efficiency
-of even an amateur paleontologist.  Unless robotics improves greatly,
-in-depth investigation of planetary surfaces will still require humans.

On a related note, the Discovery Channel recently replayed an episode of
"Living Planet", which among other things featured the dry valleys of
Antarctica. Conditions there are very reminiscent of Mars - bitter cold
much of the time, bare rock, high winds, and dryer than the Sahara Desert.
(There's even fairly intense UV, by Earth standards.)
Yet life is there - algae living under rocks, sheltered from the most
extreme cold, and getting light needed for photosynthesis from sunlight
shining *through* the rocks. Other algae are found *inside* rocks, located
between the component crystals of the rock.

I agree that currently-envisioned probes would have difficulty finding
life under those conditions. That's not to say that unmanned probes
aren't extremely valuable (and useful as a precursor to manned exploration)
in the near term.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space