HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:04:31 GMT

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>I understand the Europeans are pushing to relax the sterilization
>requirements for Mars landers (they have a spacecraft planned that may
>be cancelled if they have to sterilize it).  A study just came out
>concluding that the only landers that have to be sterilized are those
>doing exobiology experiments.  It concluded that contaminants from
>other landers would not spread.

Wow, just the conclusion they needed!

Can't they sterilize a smaller lander? Maybe just send the probe real
close to the sun on the way?

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: 20 Questions About the Delta Clipper
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:04:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.162316.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>Good article.  

Thanks.

>question 21:  What type of system does DC use to maneuver in space?  

It uses its main engines for orbital changes. The RCS is based on gaseous
oxygen and hydrogen.

>22: How does it deorbit?

It fires the main engines to slow down and enters on one side which
is made of materials able to stand the heat. At about 50,000 feet it
flips over so the base is down and fires the main engines again to
come in for a landing.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------227 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to terraform Mars?
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:15:12 GMT
Distribution: ch,local,eunet,uk,na
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH

>If you refer to Dr. Robert Zubrin's work and agree with his results,  
>then we find that the turnover to a warm, wet CO2 planet is rapid  
>compared to a human lifespan, ie a few decades at most. The turnover  
>to an Earthlike world using plants and genetic engineering would  
>indeed be the work of many generations (if you assume serious limits  
>to the eventual capability of nanotechnology).

Did Dr.Robert Zubrin simply stop the simulation/calculation as soon
as the Marsian atmosphere reached earthlike temperatures and compo-
sition or did he continue?
The athmosphere, as we all now, seems to be an enourmously complicated
system. It gets kicked out of balance due to meteor impacts, changes
to the angle of Earth's axis and the like. 
So if you would be able to heat up this system in a few decades it 
probably wouldn't be stable at all. It would cool out, heat up
again and maybe would never ever find it's balance again.
I'm very suspicious if a "solution" to a problem like this turns out
to be a brute-force method.


Andrew  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre)
Subject: Star Chart
Organization: Ironpig Arcadia, Coventry, UK
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:11:50 GMT

Hi,

Is it possible for me to find a star chart (or set of charts) that show
Sol's position in the Milky Way compared to other stars? All I can find
here are charts of the Milky Way *from Earth* which don't actually show
where we fit in to the rest of the universe. Is there one on archive 
somewhere?

Well, I was kinda hoping it would be in a planar format (like a topographical
map - 2-dimensional) and I would need the distances between the stars in
parsecs (3-dimensional... [or +5... -5 from the x-plane in parsecs]). Does
this make any sense?

I hope it does.

Thanks in advance,

-- 
        	 **Ridley McIntyre - Ronin Ironpig**			
		     gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk
		 -----------------------------------
     "It'll be a cold night tonight... If it's cold." - Iain Morales
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: 20 Questions About the Delta Clipper
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:02:45 GMT

> actual wear and tear on the engines.  You may find the atmospheric  
transit
> has strange affects (look at the British Comet) that negatively  
affect
> wear and tear, requiring more maintainance than required.  And this 

> 


The problem with the Comet had nothing at all to do with engines. It  
had to do with metal fatigue on the fuselage and an insufficient  
number of rip stops. This is not likely to be a problem on DCX as  
materials are much better understood now. Not to mention that  
simulation, while not perfect, allows problems like this to be  
uncovered before prototyping. It even eliminates the need for  
fullscale models (as has been noted by Dani I believe) and thus cuts  
cost at the same time it cuts design risk.

The DCX is a simple craft using off the shelf parts and well  
understood technology. There may be some flight regimes in which  
there is something to be learned, but I suspect there is not much  
from a science viewpoint. Unlike other vehicles built in the past,  
its design is not a research project. This is a skunkworks aviation  
project whose only goal is operational hardware.

If you want to find out everything there is to know about DCX that is  
in the public domain, pickup the last couple volumes of SpaceDigest  
from the archives.



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:38:39 GMT

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <BuFoFx.2Mr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>>>Let me key you in: Starvation in Ethopia and Somalia is due to political
>>>warfare and strife, not because there's a lack of food production. We're not
>>>going to starve ourselves off the planet. 

>> I've always wondered about logic like this.  I suppose the increasing 
>> population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus
>> making food available?  Sure.  Makes sense to me.  If there's food in the 
>> grain elevator they have no excuse for going around and starving themselves
>> to they?

>Your non sequitur appears to be the following: If there is
>overpopulation, then people would starve.  People are starving.
>Therefore, there is overpopulation.

I think my question was legitimate.  Do you believe the situation is going to
improve as population gets larger?  I'm not so worried about "overpopulation"
per se.  What I do believe is that allowing people to have control of the 
number of children they raise will result in a lower growth rate, which I 
believe to be an improvement.


-- 
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a 
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener   
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: RL-10
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:10:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <BuHtv1.3ps@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Jerry Pournelle claims to have told Quayle, in the course of selling him
>on SSX (the project that, somewhat mutated, became Delta Clipper), that
>he didn't want astronauts flying it -- he wanted test pilots.  Why?
>Because "astronauts are national treasures", and if you kill one, your
>program grinds to a halt for a couple of years.  If you kill a test pilot,
>you name a street after him at Edwards, and carry on flying.

Probably more astronauts now than test pilots, if you include the mission
specialists. 

Of course, "national treasure" is a strange way to put it.

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:14:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep9.025730.29227@cbfsb.cb.att.com> wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes:
>I suppose that someone has figured out what design to change, or do better,
>to avoid "stuck antenna" problems?

It's really very simple:  don't use a folding antenna.  Or if you must
use one, launch the mission on a shuttle (heresy! heresy! :-)) and unfold
the antenna before upper-stage ignition, so there's somebody around to
*fix* it if it doesn't work.  The antenna on Compton stuck too -- although
in a somewhat different way -- and the shuttle crew went out and fixed it.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 3 booster questions
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:59:12 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep10.052322.27424@u.washington.edu> brettvs@u.washington.edu writes:
>[1].What makes Titan so expensive?  I would think that this would be a
>mature launch system where no one needs to masturbate the machinery before
>launch.  Is there something inherent in its properties (such as long storage
>fuel tanks?) or is it in the way the system is managed?

It has the same problem as most current boosters:  it carries very expensive
payloads that are difficult to replace, so there is great incentive to spend
lots of money on anything that might improve reliability even slightly.
There is *no limit* to how much you can spend making things a little bit
more reliable.  For example, the Titan SRB segments get elaborate attention
to ensure that even the smallest gaps between fuel and casing are found and
dealt with, even though nobody has any idea whether they really matter.
(Big ones do, and there is some speculation that the last Titan launch
failure was caused by one, but the small ones could well be harmless.)

Its cost per kilogram of payload is not grossly out of line with that of
the smaller medium boosters, especially if you discount somewhat to allow
for the fact that it's basically still a government program, burdened
by unnecessary paperwork and inefficient management.  (Commercial Titan
sales have been essentially zero.)

>[2].Atlas still goes *boom* a lot?  Is this inherent to the design of having
>two of the engines fall off and the difficulty in shutting off the fuel flow
>to these engines?

Neither.  The recent failures have been Centaur problems.  They're a bit
surprising, since the RL10 has been a very reliable engine.

>... Perhaps developing an LRB for the Shuttle will not be justified
>on its own.  Perhaps developing an HLV will not be justified on its own.
>However, if you have an HLV whose first stage will also serve as an LRB
>you could amortise development costs pretty fast.  Is there something wrong
>with this idea?

Nothing, and indeed it's not new.  The problem with developing a heavylift
booster is *there is no market*.  The problem with developing an improved
shuttle booster is *there is no market*.  People have offered to do it if
NASA would promise to buy a (successfully tested) production version; NASA
is not interested.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:29:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.173654.4246@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>Wouldn't we find out more if we tried to dip the probe INTO the atmosphere?
>After all, we'd get much better close-up pictures :-). As well some better feel
>for the composition of the atmosphere upon entry. 
>I suppose for imaging purposes, a flyby makes more sense, but if the
>seat-of-the pants aerobrake worked, you get more imaging time, plus some data
>on atmosphere density, etc. 

You're skimming the atmosphere at 20 km/s!  In an aerobrake, your speed roughly
halves each time you sweep up atmospheric mass equal to your own (drops 
somewhat faster if you radiate heat).  Use even the *surface* pressure of the 
Pluto atmosphere (I don't have that # at hand) and you're sure to require more 
than the few 10's of kms that are available.  So, Lithobreak it is!
-- 
Gerald Cecil  cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169   NC 27599-3255 USA
   If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. -- Chairman of US Space
	Council.    ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Subject: TSTO vs SSTO
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:21:42 GMT

In article SECRET AIRCRAFT ENCOMPASSES QUALITIES OF HIGH-SPEED LAUNCHER
FOR SPACECRAFT (Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 24, 1992)
William B. Scott writes:
"............
   Observers descriptions, discussions with industry experts, and
 AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY analyses suggest that the large
 aircraft could be the first of a two-stage system designed to launch
 small payloads into orbit. Released at Mach 6-8 from a raised section
 on the aircraft aft deck, an unmanned vehicle would accelerate to
 orbital velocities, then release a small satellite in space. It could
 remain in the atmosphere or fly a suborbital flight path, carrying
 its own suite of reconnaissance sensors.
   This concept, at present, has not been confirmed by any U.S.
 government agency or military service. However, aeronautics and space
 experts agreed the concept has considerable merit, particularly for
 orbiting payloads essential to national security.
   Such a two-stage-to-orbit concept is hardly a new one, having
 surfaced as a candidate U.S. launching system in the 1950s. It
 also is the basis for Germany's Saenger design. Advancements in
 strong, lightweight and heat-tolerant materials - as well as
 breakthrough in hybrid propulsion systems - may have made the
 two-stage concept attractive for limited-weight, critical payloads.
   According to William R. Laidlaw, a former vice president of
 advanced systems for North American Rockwell and current founder/
 CEO of Aerotest, early studies defined the characteristics of such
 an aircraft. He said a high-speed, air-breathing vehicle would
 tend to be long, with a high fineness ratio; have a broad, delta
 planform; probably would have wingtip-mounted vertical fins; use
 a multi-cycle propulsion system capable of reaching the Mach 6-8
 regime, and be large enough to carry hydrogene, methane or other
 advanced, high-energy cryogenic fuel.
 ...................."
._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.

If this is not fiction, but reality, could this (or an improved
version) be a rival of the SSTO ? This project was probably
initiated some ten years ago, and now there is no longer cold war:
a civilian version may appear. Have the U.S. enough money to make
both the TSTO and the SSTO ?

J. Pharabod
From: Shawn.McCarthy@p902.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Shawn McCarthy)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Laser distance record?
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 01:12:00 -0500

 >>I seem to recall reading something about natural lasers in the atmoshere of
 >
 >>Venus??????

 > Hmmm, I think that's Mars.  I had read it was CO2 transitions
 > which would be
 > thermally crowed transitions in the Venutian atmosphere.

 > Can anyone confirm?

Confirmed.. a martian sunrise is a sight to see.. :>

Shawn McCarthy
<no particular credentials.. :>   >

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:56:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.150440.5023@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.194702.23291@usl.edu>
>pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>
>> 	but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>> 	hostile to technology and research spending
>> 	and especially to projects involving
>> 	space exploration and astronomy.
>
>Would you or someone else please explain this, particularly this last
>item?

	Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests
that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment.
Both Clinton and Gore have suggested increased suppport for national
computer networks ("internet", maybe you've heard of it), and a major
part of Clintons economic policy is government funding of technical R&D.
Thats not what I usually think of when I think "hostile".

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
 nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: New lunar spacecraft
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:23:00 GMT

In article <2AB11BA8.AE2@deneva.sdd.trw.com>, hangfore@spf.trw.com (John Stevenson) writes...
>In article <1992Sep6.013607.8183@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
>Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
> 
>[stuff deleted]
> 
>> While old data sets often contain overlooked gems, for some questions,
>> they will not help at all. The Lunar Orbiters did optical imaging from
>> roughly equatorial orbits about the Moon; if you wanted to look for
>> lunar water, you'd need a polar-orbiting spacecraft with infrared
>> imaging and better, also spectroscopic instrumentation - not unlike
>> what's going on the Mars Observer.
>> 
>Lunar Orbiters 5 and 6 were in polar orbits. The radio navigation data  
>collected (which would be used to develop models of the lunar  
>gravitational field) are either lost or stored on punch cards and so far  
>unretrievable. JPL was attempting to recover this data in support of the  
>Lunar Observer mission, which has since been cancelled. The loss of such  
>pricey and important data is representative of the post Apollo era. :-(

Correction:  That is Lunar Orbiters IV and V that were in polar orbits.  Also
there is a vast quantity of gravity map information about the moon.  The problem
with it is that the data is of fairly low resolution, hence the gravity maps
are not all that accurate. 


>The lunar resource mapping mission by SEI out of JSC selected two  
>contractors for the next phase (not TRW :-(  ) but, of course,the  
>congresscritters have decimated the SEI budget. Don't hold your breath.
> 
The contractors selected were Boeing and Martin Marietta.
LRM is in hibernation till after the election and slick Willie and Blood and
Gore have both said specifically that lunar missions would not be funded by
their administration.  Also, it was the senator from Arkansas that led the
fight to cut all funds from SSF and divert the money to Vetrans and HUD. Tell
me now, who is blowing smoke about supporting space with nothing behind it?

Dennis, UNiversity of Alabama in Huntsville.

"My friends take the advice of the candidate of the other party, do not inhale!"
Ronny Raygun at the Republican convention.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Technology development
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:49:55 GMT

In article <78LqqB3w165w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>Clearly, this is feasible.  I suggest people try defining some prizes.

Here are a couple that could get us quite a ways:

* $2 billion for 5,000 tons of propellant-ready ice delivered to
GTO (that's $400/kg, to be accomplished either by launch from Earth
or native ice, whichever is more competitive).  This could be
used in deep-space upper stages, lunar base supply, space manufacturing, 
Mars missions, on-orbit strategic propellant reserve, etc.

* $2 billion for 5,000 tons of propellant-ready ice delivered to
Mars orbit, for Mars mission landing and return propellant and shielding.
This would cut Earth-launched mass for Mars missions up to an order of 
magnitude, saving $10's of billions.

Given $4 billion in garunteed revenue, over twenty other markets which
I've identified, a high-Isp upper stage, and a better state of
space exploration, the ice extraction project I outlined earlier
could be quite attractive commercially, with Ariane 5 proposed launch
costs ($8,000/kg to GTO).  I've also identified over 20 follow-on 
markets that could be served, so that the project would be facilitating
commerce, not going in its own dead-end direction.  This project would
open up the solar system.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: new name for NASA?
Keywords: NASA
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:16:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.014825.10331@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.002051.8574@cc.uow.edu.au> gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore) writes:
>
>> In the Sun Herald  (Sydney) on 13th September NASA's name was stated as 
>> meaning North American Space Agency.
>> Since this appeared in an article by Peter Pockley on a two page 'Science 
>> and Education ' column and appeared very authoritative perhaps NASA has 
>> changed its name? But then again perhaps it is just newspaper carelessness.
>
>'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea.  Since we have a 
>North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine
>our efforts in space as well.

	The  problem with having a co-operative  program with another nation
is that should the other nation  change its priorities, the co-operative 
program can get derailed as vital parts of  the program fail to be supplied
by the nation  changing its mind. Why place Canadian programs  at the mercy of
Congress (Or USAmerican ones at the mercy of Parliment)?

	Anyone care  to comment on  the USA's  track record  in international
space operations? I seem to recall it isn't good...

								James Nicoll
Newsgroups: sci.space