HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.184518.25122@medtron.medtronic.com> rn11195@sage (Robert Nehls) writes:

>Like it or not, the two main technology drivers for the
>last 5 decades have been first the military and then the space program.

Whether we like it or not, it's probably not true.  Most of the patents,
and most of the important inventions like transistors and genetic
engineering, have come outside the sphere of these programs.

>Billions of dollars have been cut from the defense budget.  Where has this
>money gone?  No one talks about that.  

Most of it has gone into medical care subsidies.  Unfortuneately most
of that is for paperwork, not advancing medical technology.  There
have also been big increases at HUD, EPA, and Education.  These easily
dwarf the savings from defense, which is only a small fraction of
the budget these days.  Bush and the current Congress are the most
profligate spenders since World War II, and they're not doing anything
as important as fighting Nazis.

>[Japan's success came at end of Cold War].

Not true.  Japan has been growing faster than U.S. economically
since World War II, because the U.S. was taking more money out of 
the private sector and spending it on the Cold War.  Japan spends 
much more of its R&D funds in the private sector than the U.S., and 
most of its public-sector projects have failed just like ours
have here (shuttle, Clinch River breeder reactor, fusion program,
synfuels, etc. all failed to produce as promised -- public R&D
has an incredibly dismal record!)   Since the end of the Cold War, 
Japan's stock market has crashed, in anticipation of a flux of talent 
and money into the U.S. private sector giving us a trade advantage.  
If we put that money into commercially useless projects like space 
stations and Apollo reruns, we will lose that advantage.  If we
put it into commercially important areas like comsats and the airline
industry, as well as judicious amounts into long-term exploration
and research, we are much more likely to gain competitiveness.



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
Subject: Re: what use is Freedom?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 16:14:01 GMT
Organization: MDSSC-Space Station
Followup-To: sci.space

In article <BvGqKu.F1L@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) wrote:
>........let us not get carried away with
> how tremendous it is.
> -- 
True, the immediate habitable space is smaller than skylab.....How much use
was that space in Skylab?  Also, when I "get carried away with how
tremendous it is" I am referring to the overall size of the structure of
Space Station Freedom. (by the way, the only place where I've heard SSF
referred to as "Fred" was here. Nobody at NASA who is working on the
program refers to it that way, nor do the contractors.)

However, lets look at the habitable sapce....A complete SSF will have four
modules. The US lab and hab modules, the ESA module and the NASDA module. 
SSF will also have at least two resource nodes between the modules which
will contain the primary workstation, the cupola and it's workstation AND
the centrifuge among other things.  The complete SSF will also have a
Hyperbaric Airlock almost as big as the resource nodes, a pressurized
docking tunnel, and a the resource module.  Take these spaces into account
before you compare with Skylab..

I've been in both the Skylab mockup at JSC as well as Skylab II at the
Smithsonean in DC....I've also talked a great deal with Pete Conrad on how
they used the Skylab (I work in Flight Crew Integration)..  Yeah...Skylab
was huge.... especially when you compare it to....Mir.  But it did not
provide nearly the same volume or usable area the SSF will.  Standing
(instead of floating unfortunately) in the full scale mockup of resource
node 2 with the cupola provides a very large area which is very similar to
the area in skylab where the crew exercise equipment was.....  With all the
hatches open, within the US areas alone, the crew will be able to have
great frisbee games or races....if they had the time.....

More importantly, as I alluded to in my prior post, a complete SSF provides
a HUGE structure.  This structure is almost 300 feet long.....Thats a
football field..... It also has power panels and radiators which stick
out....  All this structure is essential to provide living spaces, power
and all the other services needed for direct human activities in Earth
orbit.....  If we can't do this, we can't do much else as far as people in
Space..... 

I welcome ANYBODY to come to our facility in Huntington Beach, CA to see
our full scale mockups.  We have a complete mockup of half the truss.  It
takes up the whole building.  We also have the basic "Race Track" mockup of
the modules and nodes........

Again, I ask all not to judge by the newspapers..... Ask those who are
directly involved.... I have no doubt there are others on the program who
read here besides me.....


Again....these are my opinions...not MDSSC....
Xref: sparky sci.space:13935 sci.astro:10370 talk.politics.space:1342 alt.politics.bush:7568 alt.politics.clinton:8267
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Summary: Mass spectrometers do not need gravity
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:43:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Oct2.225003.24302@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:

			.........................

>Will a mass spectrometer work in the absence of a strong gravitational field?

It has been a LONG time since I learned about mass spectrometers, but I do not
see how a gravitational field would have any substantial effect.  In fact, the
equivalence between gravity and acceleration would mean that it would have to
be a highly non-constant field to even hope to make a difference.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Population
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:16:21 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: sandy

> -I suppose we should next try to restore the dinosaurs to the prominance they
> -had a couple million years ago? 
> 
> That's a *little* beyond our current capability. I believe the current
> (and recent) record for DNA extraction is ~25 million years, for a termite
> trapped in amber. Reconstructing the entire genetic code from DNA fragments
> and using that code to produce a living organism are additional challenges.
> 
> I'd like to see the restoration of the wooly mammoth. With frozen tissue
> available, there's a pretty good chance that they could be cloned.
> 

  There are quite a few concepts about this issue discussed in the book version
of Jurassic Park (now in production at Amblin Entertainment). One of the
techniques they describe is using only the sections of DNA that "define"
the dinosuar and splicing them into strands that are "common" to many
different species. In the case of the book, they use frog DNA which
becmes part of the storyline (no spoilers).

  But well worth reading if you're interested in the subject.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Revised FAQ on Launchers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:46:20 GMT

Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>Josh 'K' Hopkins writes:
>>I've been working on a revisions of the FAQ on launch services.
>>I'm including it here to get some feedback on the format - you're
>>welcome to point out anything that looks like a typo too.  ...
>> ...
>>The following data comes from _International Reference Guide to
>>Space Launch Systems_  by Steven J. Isakowitz, 1991 edition.
>  
>Josh, two comments:
>   First, don't use the cost data from IRGSLS.  It is typically
>wrong.
> If you are going to quote a cost number, I would
>recommend using the single flight, commercial customer price for a
>payload to 150 (or 100) nmi.  Just be consistent and current.

I will happily use those if you can provide me with them or an accurate place
to find them.

>   Secondly, same comments apply to reliability.  If you do quote a
>reliability number, quote the time period, number of launches and
>vehicle type the reliability is shown for.

I thought I made this fairly clear.  The reliability number is a fraction with
the total number of launches on the bottom.  All known launches/failures are
included for each vehicle family at the top of the section and individual types
farther down.  The time period is from Sputnik through December 1990.  Did I 
fail make this clear in the introduction, or am I making a mistake somewhere?

>   Thirdly, I would recommend modifying your format to a max of 72
>characters in width.  This is the way it showed up on my display...
>[Note: 72 characters is not a hardware limitation, but I've found it
>seems to be about the best width for upload and download of tabular
>information through this type of media.]

Okay, I wasn't aware of this.  It may be difficult, but I'll work on it.
>  
>   As for launch vehicles listed, I would also recommend you not
>list launch vehicles which have not yet flown or are not in current
>inventory.  
> Ditto for NLS, Saturn, some of the older ELV models
>and some of the foreign launchers (H-2, MS-J, PSLV, GSLV, etc.)

I didn't include ones I knew no longer launch (with the possible
exception of the ASLV, that one slipped my mind).  If I missed one, please let
me know.  I included data on H-2 and Ariane V because I didn't think they were
likely to change much between now and first flight.  I probably shouldn't have
included the PSLV and GSLV though.  

Thanks for the input.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
	 The views expresed above do not necessarily reflect those of
ISDS, UIUC, NSS, IBM FSC, NCSA, NMSU, AIAA or the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Acronymphomaniacs
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Laser Space Mirror
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:58:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <a9774633@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
>2) What would be the best way to convert the infra-red light back to
>electricity?

There is no terribly good way.  If you're willing to go for slightly shorter
wavelengths, solar cells are surprisingly efficient for laser reception,
because you can tune them for the exact wavelength involved.  I've heard
numbers circa 50%.  This is still pitiful compared to microwave rectennas,
mind you.

>3) How efficiant would the total system be? Especially compared to current
>ground based power transmission?

For distances where ground transmission is currently practical, this just
wouldn't be competitive.  The big problem is one you missed:  the *laser*
is terribly inefficient.  20% is an impressively efficient laser at present,
although I understand that free-electron lasers have the potential to be
rather better.

>4) Is anyone working on such a scheme? 

People have looked at doing this sort of thing using microwaves, where the
losses are much lower.  There has been some study of using lasers to beam
power down from powersats.  I don't think anyone has looked seriously at
lasers for Earth-to-Earth transmission.
-- 
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: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: 30 Sep 1992 19:24:53 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>Why on earth did they turn them off?  Maybe stop listening for a while, but
>why turn them off?  What if they had wanted to listen again sometime in the
>future?

It's possible that the Plutonium power supplies are now delivering 
less than adequate power for nominal operation.

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: frisbee@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (frisbee)
Subject: Seeking Correlation of Solar Activity to S/C Events
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:31:52 GMT

To Whom it May Concern,

	I am trying to correlate certain effects observed on an 
active spacecraft with possible solar proton emissons. The events
occured at UTC 1992/274-02:54:31 and UTC 1992/275-03:33:22. Was there
a high degree of solar activity at these times?

		frisbee@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: campo@sunthpi3.difi.unipi.it (Massimo Campostrini)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Reply-To: campo@sunthpi3.difi.unipi.it
Organization: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Pisa, Italy
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:21:52 GMT

In article <urf.717789437@sw2001>, urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
|> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
|> 
|> >Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this
|> >event have become a matter of controversy. 
|> 
|> Yes, and so much that the German aerospace industry has cancelled
|> its plans on any celebrations on Oct 3:rd.
|> 
|> >In this country, the Confederate Air Force is allowed to tell us what
|> >a great plane the B-17 was without visible interference...
|> 
|> Well, you aren't currently trying to enter a union with those who
|> got bombed by it, are you? And didn't the CAF get some interference
|> when they wanted to celebrate by dropping a simulated A-bomb from
|> a B-29?
|> --
|>  Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
|>  "In order to make someone a nervous wreck, apologize while they still 
|>   haven't used their best arguments." -- Runer Jonsson

Well, one of the main purposes of the Rome Treaty was to make European
countries economies so inter-related to make war in Europe impossible.
A union will be even better (remember that Virginia and Mariland were
very close to war in the colonial period...)

-- 
        Massimo Campostrini,
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pisa,
Piazza Torricelli 2, I-56126 Pisa, Italy  ||  Phone: (+39)(50)42093
Internet: campo@sunthpi3.difi.unipi.it    ||  Fax:   (+39)(50)48277
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:16:55 GMT

In article <1097@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes:
>
>from our mistakes?  100,000 plus lives disapearing in a heartbeat

Ryan,

Many more people in Japan died in the fire-bombing raids
then were killed by the Hiroshoma/Nagasaki raids. If memory
serves me right 90,000+ were killed in the first fire-bombing
raid on Tokyo.

The overall total number escapes my memory right now.

-- 
Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo. 
Confessions of St. Augustine, Book VIII, Chapter 7
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: What is this ?
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:56:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvCEtC.4F4.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Have the U.S. some kind of RPV with such performances ?

 Seconds after    Heading                    Speed    Altitude
   lock-on       (degrees)                  (knots)    (feet)

      00            200                       150       7000
      01            200                       150       7000
      02            200                       150       7000
      03            200                       150       7000
      04      sharp 200          acceleration 150       6000
      05       turn 270             = 22 g    560       6000
      06            270                       560       6000
      07            270                       570       6000
      08            270                       560       7000
      09            270                       550       7000
      10            210                       560       9000
      11            210                       570      10000
      12            210                       560      11000
      13            210                       570      10000
      14            270                       770       7000
      15            270                       770       6000
      16            270                       780       6000
      17            270                       790       5000
      18            290                      1010       4000
      19            290                      1000       3000
      20            290                       990       2000
      21            290                       990       1000
      22            300                       990       0000
      22.5          300                       980       0000  Break lock

Don't ask me how I got this one. There are others, but I have not those.

J. Pharabod
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Henry's hypersonic summary (was Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:46:17 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep28.175826.1@fnalc.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In the "others?" category, I would name Hermes, HOTOL, Saenger, Buran,
>and HOPE.  I can't summarize them in this message, but maybe soon...

With such bait, how can I resist? :-)

Hermes is an ESA project, rapidly dying due to funding problems, to build
a small manned winged reentry craft for launch on Ariane 5.  The project's
objectives have been progressively scaled back since its early days, when
it was essentially a mini-shuttle.

HOTOL is a defunct British Aerospace project to build a reusable spaceplane,
powered by an innovative jet/rocket combination engine, that would be
launched by rocket sled, reach orbit, and return to a runway landing.
It died because the British government, following a long tradition of
ignoring or actively destroying good ideas from the British aerospace
industry, displayed no interest.  An attempt to revive it as a pure-rocket
design, using Russian engines and launched from atop the Mriya heavy
cargo aircraft, looked promising but hasn't been heard from lately.

Saenger is a German proposal to launch a winged rocket-powered spaceplane
from the back of a large ramjet-powered Mach 6-8 aircraft.  Looks fine if
they can ever build that aircraft.  Low-level work underway in Germany,
but don't expect a commitment to development any time soon.

Buran is the Soviet (now Russian) shuttle, vaguely similar to the US
one but differing in some important ways, notably in that it rides up
on an Energia rather than having its own main engines.  One flight so
far, by an unmanned prototype.  Fate unclear, because it's expensive
and it never has had a clear mission.  (The speculation I like is that
it was basically a military program, which the civil-space people once
hoped to exploit and now don't know what to do with.)

HOPE is a Japanese project to build a small unmanned winged reentry
craft for launch on an H-2, mostly as a research and technology project.
I don't believe there is yet a firm commitment to fly 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
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: SETI
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:34:04 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3



	Are there any SETI projects due to come on line within the 
next year? 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !)
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:55:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.160708.26767@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors) writes:

>[Earth's diameter is]
>000044 AU so even if Toutatis was coming in randomly within a circle of  
>radius 0.011 AU the geometrical chances of impact would be about ten in a  
>million. Maybe double that for gravitational focussing. 

This translates to (2e1/1e6)*(5e9) or 10,000 dead people, actuarily 
speaking, or 0.2 per 100,000 population.  The death rate from
airline crashes is 0.04 per 100,000 people.  Translated into
more meaningful terms, in the year 2000 each of us has five
times as much chance of being killed by Toutatis as dying in an
airline crash.  Presumeabely a more accurate orbit has or soon will 
be predicted, so that we can do a better analysis than
the quoted, which uses the expected miss distance as the measurement
error.

BTW, how much does this year's close approach to the earth perturb
Toutatis' orbit, and what is the worst-case magnification between 
errors in this year's expected flyby distance and that in 2000?


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer info?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:32:14 GMT

In article <niininen.718157139@messi.uku.fi> niininen@messi.uku.fi (Kristian Niininen) writes: (in *only* sci.space...shrug) 

>How big is the Mars Observer? (weight, length etc.)
>What kinds of instruments it has?   
>I haven't been reading this group for long, so that info might have been 
>here before, but slipped away from me :)


Mars Observer:
"Shaped like a box"
1.1m (3.25') high x 2.2m (7.0') wide 1.6 m (5.0')deep.

Built under contract from NASA and JPL by GE aerospace.

2,573 kg (5,672 lbs)

Three year design life time. (if this winds up being like Pioneer Venus,it'll 
be going until 2010!)

6'x7.2'x.3' solar panel array

Instruments:

Gamma Ray Spectrometer; studies surface chemicals/composition
Mars Observer Camera; photographs surface
Thermal Emission Spectrometer; measures IR (I'm guessing primarily surface)
Pressure Modulator Infrared Radiometer; measures the atmospheric emission
Mars Observer Laser Altimeter; gives higher resolution topographical info
Magnetometer/Electron Reflectometer; investigates Martian magnetic fields.

(note:Mars' magnetic field is *very* small;a fraction of a percent of Earth's)

Also carries French radio system to support robotic missions by the Russians.
Two Russian craft to lauch, one in '94, one in '96. MO supports these missions.
MO will also serve as data relay from the Russian surface instruments.

The MOC (camera) has <*2* meter resolution! (loud gasp of amazement.) This will
allow for detailed study of mass transport over the surface with seasonal 
variations. (and some very impressive photos indeed.)

All info above from "Mapping the red planet; The Mars Observer Global Mapping 
Mission" document put out by the fine folks at NASA.



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky sci.space:13722 talk.politics.space:1316