HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jjb@beta.lanl.gov (Jeffrey J Bloch)
Subject: New Pegasus News
Keywords: Pegasus
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:14:16 GMT

I have gotten word second-hand that the next Pegasus launch is delayed
once again. As mentioned in this newsgroup already, last tuesday the
B-52 with Pegasus under its wing took off from Edwards to go to the
east coast for the Brazil-sat launch. Shortly after takeoff the
rudder on Pegasus began to flutter +/- 40 degrees. It was supposed
to be locked in a null position for transport. The B-52 returned to
Edwards and the rudder was removed and as far as I know the failure
hasn't been identified. Weather, and the upcomming shuttle launch
may cause further postponements. The Brazil-sat launch, with its
modified first stage nozzle (modified because after they finally
took apart the 1989 ground static test firing article they found
that the first two flights could have been very Challenger-like)
and another nose fairing separation test (The fairing separation
mechanism was modified due to contamination and reliability
concerns) are the two milestones that have to be successful before
the fourth Pegasus flight carrying the ALEXIS satellite can happen.
Possible delays in the fairing test might push the ALEXIS launch
into the mid-March or early April time frame.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of	|	Jeff Bloch
the DOE or LANL.				|	LANL
From: bolin@plafys.plasma.kth.se (Odd Bolin, Royal Inst of Tech, Stockholm, Sweden)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ISU
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:11:17 GMT
Reply-To: bolin@plafys.plasma.kth.se
Organization: Plasma Physics, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <1993Jan12.013919.3524@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
>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

Contact:

International Space University
955 Massachusetts Ave., 7th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02139-3180
USA

Ph. 617 - 354 1987
Fax: 617 - 354 7666

You can also try E-mail: info@isu.isunet.edu

The last date to apply for the '93 session is *very* soon. I would suggest that
you call them today.




Odd Bolin
Department of Plasma Physics, Alfven Laboratory
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Ph: +46 - 8 - 790 7701	Fax: +46 - 8 - 245431
Internet: bolin@plasma.kth.se
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:17:47 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan7.195658.8028@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>>Actually, it is not at all uncommon for airlines to lease planes complete
>>with crews, 
>
>NASA could consider leasing shuttle services if a provider were
>available;  but there's none, and with orbiters at $1.5 billion a pop,
>plus gigadollar infrastructure, none is likely to appear...

Several *have* appeared.  That much money is not all that hard to find;
Boeing spent more than that (its own money, not borrowed) on the 757/767
program, and it's small potatoes compared to the (private) investment
in big electric-power projects.  Privately-funded orbiters have been
proposed repeatedly.

So why hasn't it been done already?  Because NASA hates the idea and has
consistently done its best to obstruct, stall, and kill such proposals.
-- 
"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,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:42:19 GMT

In article <C0o43w.J4L@well.sf.ca.us> collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins) writes:
>
>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)

I'm involved in some 20/30 GHz propagation work through ESA's Olympus
Propagation Experiment and NASA's upcoming ACTS so I'm interested
in MO's KaBLE, to say the least.  This has caught me by surprise - in a
pleasant way, of course.  Where can I get some more information on the
trials?  (i.e., experiment objectives, etc.)
 
Thanks.
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: fiber optic cable
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 16:43:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Distribution: sci
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <C0ozH8.4p4.1@cs.cmu.edu>, roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>. Commercial fiber optic cable is great in stationary applications,
>but it's too easy to stretch it or bend it beyond the radius of curvature
>limits. The people who install our fiber optic links put up warning signs
>with a drawing of a hangman's noose, implying what will happen to anybody
>who tries to move the equipment. :-)
>
>Does anybody (the phone companies or the military, for instance) use 
>fiber optic cable that's stiff enough to reduce the risk of breaking?

There are at least two missiles (Army/FOG-M, and a Navy project) which use 
some sort
of spooling mechanism to pay out "cable" (well, probably not more than a
strand). The Army system is (forgive me pureists) basically a longer range TOW
anti-tank missile, designed to be launched off a trailer dragged behind a 
Hummer, and will go against either tanks or helos. The Navy missile is more 
interesting because they pay out cable between a fast moving attack plane and 
the missile at up to hmm, at least 20 kilometers; Army system is some number
not more than 10K.

However, both Army and Navy don't have to worry about rewinding the cable after
the packages are delivered :-)

Both systems have been demonstrated as feasible/workable/makeable, but I'm not
sure what the current political funding headaches are. It's more a matter of
money & politics rather than technology which is holding up full-scale 
production and deployment of both systems.
                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: future space travel
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:00:45 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that
there will ever be large colonies there.  Maybe small stations devoted
to running astronomical instrumentation.  

Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again,
if there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or
fossils) I can't see large colonies being placed up there.  

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.  

Maybe in the next 100-200 years biology will advance to the point
where Venus could be altered with microbes.  Change the atmosphere
so SOMETHING could live there.  It would be interesting to see what
could live there if the temperature was reduced.

I think science fiction has given people a false sense of the possible.
The space travel fiction of over 100 years ago neglected things like
radio and computer electronics, and required a travelling human.
TEchnology has superseded the human, and the information can be 
returned much more efficiently. 

The urge to colonize the universe seems to come from an urge for 
terretorial conquest that has been with us for a long time.  It is
interesting how old themes are constantly repeated in the present.
It's too bad we can't interest some of our race (Serbians, Saddam, etc.) 
in coveting lunar instead of earthly real estate.  

-rabjab 

Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:14:31 GMT

In article <ewright.726168030@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> I wrote:
>
>>If I build a custom laser in my lab, and then operate it purely 
>>as a tool to support my research program, I think I am still doing 
>>research.  Likewise, when NASA is using the shuttle to fly Spacelab, 
>>TSS, Hubble, etc, it's doing research.  
>
>If you pay Air France to fly your laser to the research site,
>does that mean the Airbus is a research vehicle?

No, it's an aircraft _I_ am using to support my research activities.

>>Even a TDRS launch is part of the research effort, since the
>>constellation is used to support various birds doing research
>>missions.  
>
>If you call someone in New York to discuss your research, the
>call goes via Intelsat or undersea cable.  Does that make the
>Intelsat or the cable a research venture?

Ditto, mutatis mutandis.  Likewise, when NASA flies Spacelab, TSS or a
TDRS on the shuttle, the latter is used to support NASA's research
activities, pursuant to its charter.  It is my understanding that this
thread originated when someone claimed that NASA was not respecting its
charter by operating the shuttle, which is admittedly not an
experimental craft anymore.  I disagree, as long as the shuttle
manifest contains only genuine R&D.



-- 
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    |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:24:40 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <ewright.726191472@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan04.205508.23361@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>Not to mention the EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and (possibly)
>>electronics on the ground.... It would be bad. 

>Not necessarily.  At least, not if you plan for it.
>
>Consider this scenario.

[Cold War scenario of two fleets closing together to do battle on the high seas] 

>Shortly before the satellite gets within detection range of
>your fleet, you launch an SLBM, taking out your enemy's nice,
>new, expensive satellite.

>  Both fleets get hit by EMP, but you
>are prepared because you know it's coming.  Your enemy isn't
>expecting it.  Worse, he has all his planes sitting out, exposed,
>on the flight deck, waiting to launch when the satellite gives
>him targeting information.  If you're lucky, you've taken out
>all his AEW.  This puts you in a very good position....

While it's nice to think of nuclear weapons as just a bigger bomb, it ain't so.

Launch of a SLBM would automatically cause panic buttons to be hit all over the
place and would result in a MUCH higher alert status of strategic nuclear
forces. Which thereby puts the Other Side into a higher alert status and
pretty soon everyone is sweating more profusely than either first imagined...

Secondly, U.S. forces are EMP hardened, so all you've done is:

	A) Raised the level of tension
	B) Invited attack on any space assets you've got
	C) Tossed public opinion and the world community off your side;
	   NOT a good thing. 

Tomorrow's battlegrounds are as much as hearts and minds as they are of men and
machines. 

Thirdly, you don't need a nuke for EMP kills; there are various dark projects
which perform tricks with conventional explosives and electronics which will
fit inside of a Tomahawk or their Russian counterpart.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:09:18 GMT

In article <ewright.726184593@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>Of course, the Rogers Commission, headed by a State Department
>carreer bureaucrat with no knowledge of engineering or technology,
>didn't say that.  Instead, they blamed NASA -- as you blame NASA --
>for being too "success oriented" (!) because somewhere along the
>line, someone, somewhere actually took a chance to get the thing
>to work.

Yeah, a management asshole said fuck the temperature, screw the
engineers who say don't launch when it's this cold, we're listening
to Edward V. Wright and taking a chance. God are you an idiot.

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
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: polar meteorites
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:42:11 GMT


-From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
-Subject: polar meteorites
-Date: 12 Jan 93 15:19:35 GMT
-Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada

-Re. finding meteorites...

-Seems to me I remember a childhood reference which stated that Peary found 
-a rather large meteorite (multiton) that had been mined by the local residents
-for some time (decades/centuries/millenia???).  In any case, I think he took it 
-back to the US.  The picture still in my mind (or maybe imagination) is of 
-a rocky barrens.  In such a place, the same logic as Antarctica would 
-apply, I suppose.

-John Garland

I don't know if it's related, but in the Smithsonian's Natural History 
Museum there's a huge (non-meteoric) copper boulder, which was formerly
revered as a manitou, and which was transported to DC with great difficulty.
I think it came from northwestern North America, but I'm not sure.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:25:41 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 <1993Jan4.165523.11040@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Technically possible, but militarily dangerous. You've just escalated
>a brushfire conventional war into a nuclear exchange.

Oh?  So what are you going to do about it?  MAD -- the aptly named
legacy of Robert McNamara -- is still in effect.  If you retaliate 
by launching a nuclear strike against your enemy's territory, he can 
do the same to you. Are you prepared to sacrifice millions of your
citizens to avenge the loss of one spy satellite?

I didn't think so.

You might retaliate by attacking your enemy's satellites, but if
he started the ASAT battle, it's because he decided he has less 
to lose than you do.  (And if you're the United States, he's almost
certainly right.)




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DCX tech. info?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:08:01 GMT

In article <1icfsjINNlet@rave.larc.nasa.gov> S.D.Derry@LaRC.NASA.Gov writes:

>: >flight 1 is a low altitude hover test. Test two is a high-Q hover test.
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, that should read high-Q accent and hover test.

>How can you have dynamic pressure when you're hovering???

Tornado.

>Also, will these flights be pre-programmed onboard, or will they be 
>controlled from the ground?

I blieve they are pre-programmed with ground override.

I will post some more details of the three test flights on Thursday
(I'll be out of town tomorrow).

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rfc@allegra.att.com (Robert F. Casey)
Subject: Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter, capture by planets?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:51:23 GMT

In article <BzuuwB.9Cq@news.udel.edu> bjacobs@chopin.udel.edu (William J Jacobs) writes:
>>Now, could an asteriod which is perturbed out to the orbit of Neptune, be
>>captured by that planet? If so, what would cause the energy loss that would
>>be needed to put it into orbit? I doubt if atmospheric braking would do
>>the trick.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>There aren't many other options.  To lose energy, you need to knock into
>something.  You have the choice of lots of little things (the atmosphere) or
>one big thing  (Neptune itself).  But I'm really no expert on orbital mechanics,
>so I'll some physics jock give more details (should be plenty of folks who 
>know here in sci.space).
>
Maybe if the planet has a more massive moon that the asteroid can shed
energy to, thus allowing it to slow down enough to get captured?  The 
preexisting moon would get to orbit further out, using that newly acquired
energy?  I don't mean a collision, but just gravitational interactions.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Man rating again (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:57:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.165148.9581@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who
>goes up on it IS going to disagree with you. 

Well after a successful test flight I would go up on it. I think lots of
others would as well. Anybody with brains enough to read a test report
and analyze risk wouldn't have any problem. I think most astronauts would
be included in this list. The ones who don't want to go can quit.

>I realize you'd like to treat people as another type of expendable, but it just
>ain't so in the Western World. 

Wake up guy! The value of a human life simply isn't infinite. Look at the
cost model for any large project. Part of it will include the costs associated
with the people killed on the project. In fact, I'll bet that at least one
person was killed building each of the 5 shuttle orbiters. People aren't
expendable but nither do they have infinite value.

If what you said where actually true then nobody woluld be flying
Shuttles anyway. So if you want perfect safety, then stay home and
leave the next frontier to the rest of us.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------108 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:23:54 GMT

In article <C0Jv2M.74z.1@cs.cmu.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:

> 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.


Or, better yet, why fuse anything at all?  One can do the following:
decelerate the incoming material a bit producing some power.  Now,
accelerate some on-board reaction mass using this power, so that the
two streams are now at the same speed.

Done properly, the thrust from the second part exceeds the drag from
the first part.  The decelerated interstellar material needn't even be
laterally compressed.

This scheme seems counterintuitive, but it violates conservation of
neither energy nor momentum.  The kinetic energy of the vehicle
does not increase with time, it only gets concentrated in less
and less mass.

All these schemes suffer because the local ISM is so damned thin.  The
solar system appears to lie inside a bubble of very thin, hot gas,
perhaps the result of some "recent" supernovae in our neighborhood.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: 5 Jan 1993 22:46:24 -0500
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains
NNTP-Posting-Host: oit.gatech.edu

In article <1993Jan6.025846.15440@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Facilities costs can be paid with the interest on the savings.

It's statements like this that make me wince when I read your posts. 

You can't get interest on money just because you don't spend it; if NASA
magically saves a billion dollars a year because of your schemes, the money 
*doesn't* get stuck in a bank somewhere.  In addition, you've already budgeted
the money elsewhere, so you aren't getting any absolute savings anyway.

Besides, even if we do save all the money you claim, I don't see it being a 
fair trade for scrapping chunks of the U.S. aerospace industry in favor of 
the Russian industry.  The end result will be that we'll be buying from others
forever, because it will be the Russians developing the next generation of 
hardware, and not us.  It's just not worth it.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: What was NASA thinking?
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au
Date: 09 Jan 93 17:10:08 GMT

Original to: Clarke@Next1.Acme.Ucf.Edu
 c> Hence the question in the title of my post:  What was NASA
 c> thinking about?  Apparently the Saturn engines could have
 c> been used to build the shuttle vehicle.  Why weren't they?
 c>  
 c> A shuttle with 5 or 6 J-2s using 2 uprated F-1s in the recoverable
 c> boosters would have taken advantage of a history of literally
 c> dozens of successful flight firings.  Plus there would
 c> have been a much wider range of abort modes.
 c>  

 But how reusable were the Saturn engines? Then again, how reusable are
 the SSME...

 ta

 Ralph Buttigieg

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space