HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hwt@bcarh11a.BNR.CA (Henry Troup)
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: AUSROC II: A Post Mortem
Date: 4 Jan 93 08:47:31 GMT
Reply-To: Henry.Troup@BNR.CA
Distribution: world
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

This was a fascinating article.  Thanks for providing it.  It's
interesting to me for two things: 1) analysis of failures is rarely done
in my field (but should be) and 2) it points out that building rockets is hard!

Henry Troup - H.Troup@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
	       Legislated morality is the enemy of true morality
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Soviet space exhibit
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:33:31 GMT
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


This week's episode of "Inside Space" on the Sci-Fi Channel showed the
Soviet Space Exhibit in St. Louis. The report stated that this is the
last of four cities visited by the exhibit, after which it is to be
returned to Russia and disassembled.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:28:19 GMT

>>>>> On Thursday, 7 Jan 1993 12:03:40 PST, Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> said:
Jon> This is about 13 orders of magnitude larger than the total number of
Jon> antiprotons ever created and stored (about 10**14)

Well, nobody said it would be easy!

Current antiproton production is geared towards physics, not
rocketry.  It is probably possible to create antimatter more
efficiently if that is the primary goal. However the energy cost is
huge because conservation tells you that you only create antimatter
with at least E=mc^2 input energy.  Think of the antiprotons as very
high energy density batteries!

So, even assuming 100% conversion efficiency, 1kg of antimatter =
10^19 Joules, or about 300 years output from a 1GW coal or nuclear
power station, to produce. It will release twice this amount when
mixed with ordinary matter.

Now if we could generate antiprotons with better than 50% efficiency,
we have an inexhaustible energy supply......  

Anyone have estimates on the realistic estimates on achievable
conversion efficiency?  10^4?

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
			Dizzy Gillespie: RIP.
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:13:12 GMT
Distribution: sci
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 <93004.130256SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>>I understood that too.  Perhaps you did not understand what I meant
>>when I said, if there are enough heavy cargoes to justify a new
>>vehicle, it would be more cost-effective to build a larger SSTO
>>than a two-stage kludge?

>Rather depends on how many heavy cargoes there are, doesn't it?

No, I don't think so.  Building and testing a new two-stage vehicle 
would be more expensive than building and testing a new one-stage
vehicle.  So costs would be greater no matter how many, or how few,
payloads you spread them out over.


>As I understand it, the point to an SSTO is to make expendables
>non-cost effective.  So there *won't* be another vehicle fairly
>soon after DC-1's get flying in numbers if they work as advertised.

I don't think Boeing gave up when McDonnell Douglas introduced 
the DC-3.  If one company demonstrates a successful space 
transportation system that makes money, other companies
won't let them have the market all to themselves for long. 


>If there's one or two heavy cargoes a year, Bruce's quick and simple
>second stage might make a great deal more sense than scaling up
>an SSTO design by a factor of five, which I would expect to be quite
>difficult, since it's a complete re-design and probably needs new
>engines.

Bruce's "quick and simple" concept requires *two* new designs.  
You couldn't just put 5x the cargo into an existing DC-1.  Unless
it was unusually dense, it wouldn't fit into the cargo bay.  Even
if you could, the vehicle's balance would be off.  So you're talking
a major redesign, then component testing of both the first and second
stages, then testing both the first and second stages together....

And I can't understand why a larger SSTO would need new engines
while a TSTO with a comparable liftoff weight wouldn't.
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Lyndon LaRouche's "Woman on Mars"
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:23:27 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

Did anyone videotape Lyndon LaRouches's campaign infomercial "Woman
on Mars"?  Maybe NASA could re-edit it slightly and use it to
get support for the Mars Missions!

-rabjab
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 06:05:59 GMT

In article <ewright.726276409@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan5.212935.21012@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Having design engineers apprentice on
>>the shop floor for a few years *before* they get to design a product
>>would do a world of good for our manufacturing sector. It certainly
>>has for the Japanese and old school Germans.
>
>You mean like that horrid know-nothing, Wernher von Braun? ;-)

I have absolutely no idea where you get such absurd ideas. Von Braun
is the perfect example of a wartime technologist. He took enormous
risks and spent cubic money to bring a critical system in on schedule.
That's admirable in wartime, but not in the commercial arena. You'll
notice that after Saturn achieved it's Cold War objective of oneupmanship
against the USSR, it was promptly dropped because no other missions 
could justify it's expense and there was never a hope of recouping it's
development costs. 

Shuttle was the "low cost" system that was touted to replace expensive
expendibles like Saturn. When Shuttle proved not to be so low cost after 
all, it was too late to go back to the already dead Saturn, and Congress 
refused to fund development of a launcher to replace Shuttle. So now we 
have a capable, but expensive, launcher in operation. We should never again 
make the mistake of killing our only operational system in favor of a paper
spacecraft that hasn't established a solid track record of meeting it's
performance and cost goals. Thus I champion continuing to fly Shuttle
until there are proven systems on line to replace it. Neither the paper
DC-1 nor the proposed Soyuz on Titan have that track record yet. They
may never have that track record and some completely different system
may be needed to replace the capabilities of Shuttle. Meanwhile Shuttle
continues to maintain a presence in space for the USA that does worthwhile
missions.

Unlike Allen, I am completely convinced that killing Shuttle now will
not cause any money to be reprogrammed to his pet schemes. The only
results of killing Shuttle would be 7,000 Florida aerospace workers on
the unemployment line, workers in Houston, California, Nevada, Mississippi,
Alabama, and other places on the unemployment line, all hope of recouping 
Shuttle development and infrastructure costs gone forever, a long hiatus in 
US manned spaceflight if not it's permanent termination, and more money for 
the VA and Clinton's national health care program. I find that scenario
personally unacceptable.

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: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Subject: Re: Toutatis Images Available
Reply-To: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:21:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.160744.7305@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM  
(Richard Ottolini) writes:
> What is the cell resolution of the radar images in meters and
> what are the factors limiting this resolution?
Please see the Ostro abstract which is the second mentioned in this  
excerpt>>>>
Images of minor planet 951 Gaspra returned by the Galileo spacecraft have  
shown a heavily cratered surface whose crater density approaches  
equilibrium or saturation (the state in which new impacts remove old  
craters at the rate new ones are produced) for the smallest resolvable  
craters (1)  which are 100m in diameter. .... Apollo-class 4179 Toutatis  
.. makes a close approach to Earth on 8 December 1992. ... Radar  
investigations (2) should provide similar information about crater density  
as is now known for Gaspra.
1. Chapman, C. R. & the Galileo Imaging Team Bull. Am. astr. Soc., 24,  
931-932 (1992).
2. Ostro, S. J. Bull. Am. astr. Soc., 24, 934 (1992).
<<<<<<<
So basically Ostro hopes to get 100m craters. I have asked around and been  
told that the data inversion is both difficult and iterative, thus will  
get better results 'later'. I imagine most of the small stuff being seen  
right now is not real....
--
Martin Connors         |
Space Research         | martin@space.ualberta.ca  (403) 492-2526
University of Alberta  |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 01/12/93
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:44:35 GMT


At this time, MO is far enough from both Earth and Mars, that they don't
exert signifigant gravitional influence. The big player is the Sun. I am
not sure what the reference frames are for Ron's velocity, but I know that
in sun centered frame, MO is slowing down. The Earth is passing MO on the
inside so the increase in velocity may be an artifact of the relative motion
of the earth and spacecraft.
The NAV team worries about the effects of all the planets on the trajectory
and
even includes forces from solar radiation pressure. I am told that on
voyager, they can see the effects of the force generated by the
infrared radiation emitted by the spacecraft's Plutonium RTG power source.

                             Steve Collins, MO Spacecraft Team (AACS)
~rkO
w3t(.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: DCX Testing
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:56:07 GMT

As promised, here is some data on the DC-X test program. About nine 
test flights are planned.

1. Flight series 1 will test:
  * Blended control (automatic flight with ground override)
  * Vertical landing and ground effects
  * Systems performance
  * Qmax: ~10 PSF
  * Altitude: ~600 feet AGL

2. Series 2:
  * Aero performance verification
    - Power-On drag
  * Expand performance envelope
  * RTLS demonstration
  * Qmax: ~60 PSF
  * Altitude: ~5,000 feet AGL

3. Series 3:
  * Rotation maneuver to validate aero model
  * Increasing Q at rotation
  * Reacquisition of GPS
  * Propelland management
  * Qrot: ~20-95 PSF
  * Altitude: 20,000 feet AGL

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------103 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: MILLS@ASTRO.dnet.ge.com (Bob Mills 609-490-3211)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Logo on Delta rocket
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:53:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0ILM5.L2o.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

soc1070@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU (Tim Harincar) writes
>
>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'm not 100% sure, but I think it worked something like this:
1.  Customer (RCA Americom) contracts with satellite vendor 
    (RCA Astro Electronics) to build satellite, and with rocket vendor
    (McDonnell-Douglas) to build a rocket.  NASA may have been an
    intermediary in the second transaction.
2)  In keeping with tradition, rocket builder paints logos of major
    participants (RCA & McD-D) on rocket.  Since customer and satellite
    builder have same parent company, several quarts of paint are saved,
    lowering launch weight and increasing performance.
3)  Since rocket builder doesn't own a launch site, someone (customer or
    rocket builder) contracts with launch site owner for pad & services.
    Launch site owner is either NASA or the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.
    I don't know which, but somehow both are involved.
4)  Everyone involved cooperates in launching rocket & payload from 
    launch site.  
5)  Customer pays for everything.

When Mars Observer was launched, the following logos were on the payload
fairing: NASA (top billing goes to the customer), JPL, GE, and OSC.  
On the rocket body, Martin-Marietta takes top billing (word TITAN is at least
20 feet high), while names of 8 subcontractors (can't read them from AW&ST
picture) were painted near the bottom.

-- Bob Mills     Mills@Astro.Dnet.GE.com
-- Not speaking for Astro or its previous, current, or future owners.
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: UN Space Agency
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:08:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan4.150827.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

I wonder if there is anything in the works for a United Nations Space Agency
and if there is, what all does it do?? 

Russian/American co-working is about time for it.. 

I wonder if the North American Free-Trade Agreement will lead to
US/Canadian/Mexican Space co-working?? 

==
==
Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:15:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.180947.20495@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.154842.13841@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>
>>	If men are part of the payload, the Shuttle is (currently) the
>>only way to fly! 
>
>I think if you consult the Russians they can show you the error in
>this statement.
>
>BTW, the team evaluating Soyuz has finished its work. They concluded that
>there is no reason Soyuz couldn't be used as ACRV. It should also be
>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.
>
	Come on, Allen, don't get even more retentive on us!  The
realistic chance of significant U.S. manned presence in orbit in
Russian hardware in the next few years is miniscule.  Political as
well as practical considerations dictate that.  (e.g.: national
security concerns, power systems, space for people & gear, interface
problems, scheduling, etc....  As a practical matter, I'd be willing
to bet that even moderate effort on a reusable SSTO (DC or otherwise)
could be available within a year or so of the time frame it would take
to convert our manned space program from Shuttle to Soyuz.  It's not
just Spam-in-a-can, as you've pointed out before...they've got to be
able to do useful work once they get there.  Would everything go to
Russia for launch, and depend on an uncertain foreign infrastructure,
or convert part of Canaveral to launch Russian rockets?  Convert our
command, control, and communications on the ground, or refit the
Soyuz?  Can you get enough power and life support from Soyuz/Mir for
5-6 people + our experiments?  Etc., etc.,... I don't have time for an
exhaustive search of necessary systems.
	Flawed as it is, Shuttle is the only American (non-russian for
that matter) manned system.  There's little point in being
anti-Shuttle...rather, be pro-DC (or whatever).  Trying to dictate the
demise of the competition, rather than proving by doing, is what you
excoriate NASA for doing.
	BTW, I use the term "bet" above in the figurative sense.  I
don't want the usual set of juvenile responses that I should put $X on
my supposition.  If you (plural...not necessarily Allen) can't deal
with idiomatic American English (esp. if it is your native tongue),
too bad.  Go crawl back into your workstation.
(FLOoomp....flame off.  Sorry about that but the last time the "bet"
word came up, the silliness went ad inifitum.)
-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Supporting private space
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 10 Jan 93  11:18:02

DP>The federal government paid the early airlines to carry mail. In some 
DP>cases, these mail subsidies were the only thing that made 
DP>the airlines profitable.
DP>So ... it seems reasonable to wonder if a similar program 
DP>could be done for the
DP>private launcher market. What I'm proposing is that the 
DP>government agree to pay
DP>$1000/lbs to deliver 1 million pounds to LEO each year from 1995 to 20
DP>$1 billion/year, this would be a fairly small program (by 
DP>government standards).

This was run up the proverbial flagpole in the mid-1980's, and no one 
saluted. Congress was unwilling to pay real $ for this sort of thing back 
then, and less willing to do so now.

However, a variant of this idea, the Launch Services Purchase Act was 
proposed, passed, and became law through the efforts of a small group of 
activists who are now working on follow-on legislation. Care to help?


___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: launcher costs by type of economy
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:41:43 GMT

In article <C0CJu8.6sr@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>I agree that, other things being equal (an important precondition!), free
>societies are more efficient than command economies.  Nobody has yet tried
>building a space program on free enterprise.

That's because nobody can show a high enough return on investment to
interest private capital markets. Meanwhile, banks fall all over themselves
trying to loan you $1 million to buy a MacDonalds franchise. Space programs
haven't turned a decent profit for anyone but government contractors. Even
the comsat industry wouldn't exist if it had to pay the development costs
to get the first GEO bird in place and operational. NASA and DOD paid those
development bills.

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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: SNC-Meteorite source (was Re^2: Cheap Mars Rocks)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:36:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.164332.9648@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain) writes:
>In article <93011.111344K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET> <K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET> writes:
>>Nobody knows for sure how the SNC came from Mars to Earth,
>...
>>Sure enough, SNC's don't fall on Antarctica more often than on other
>>continents. But unless you see it fall, Luna- and Mars-Meteorites are hard
>>to distingush from terrest.rocks.
>
>Why has no one looked in Greenland?

Over 100 feet of ice pack has formed since 1944 in Greenland. The P-38s
recently recovered there were buried under 100 feet of ice. Anything
that falls there quickly becomes buried deeply in the ice. In Antarctica, 
there are large areas where the annual snowfall is measured in fractional
inches. So meteorites that fall there are easier to find without extensive
drilling.

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: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Organization: The University of Iowa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:11:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.202421.11388@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
>Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
>Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:24:21 GMT
>In article <1993Jan4.171213.11272@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)  
>writes:
>> In article <ewright.725666125@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.
>
>I can't let this go by.  This is a common attitude in America.  It
>leads to low pay for production engineers and inefficient production
>methods etc. etc.  Result is the current economic morass with most 
>production going overseas.  
>
>I think engineering must consider how something is to be made.  The
>most elegant design is useless if it can't be manufactured.  
>Knowledge of what can be made is obtained by bending metal, or
>at least by interacting with those who do.
>
>This probably has nothing to do with space.  But then maybe it
>has a lot to do with why no really new space rocket designs have 
>come out in the last 30 years except for the star-crossed shuttle.
>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
It has a lot to do with the manufacture and launching of ELVs.
The FSU have a highly automated system for the checkout and launching
of ELVs that has been used, for example, to launch payloads for growing 
crystals in a microgravity environment. This is probably the most cost 
effective system for such research presently available.

Because the FSU planners knew they were going to launch a large number of 
these vehicles it was worthwile for them to spend the time and money on
automation and reducing the cost of manufacture. When you have just a
few vehicles they can be built like Rolls Royces. Our problem is that
we do not have a consistent space policy with respect to the number
and types of launch vehicles. 

During the Reagan administration space policy was formulated by an
Inter Agency Group which had almost the same membership as the 
National Security Council. Under the Bush administration VP Quayle 
was in charge of space policy, and under the Clinton administration 
Gore may be in charge. There is no reason to believe that the Clinton
administration will follow the same policy as the Bush administration.



Newsgroups: sci.space