HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:24:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov> higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.191355.2914@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>I think that any nation that can put an object in a precision orbit has
>>the capability to knock down satellites in LEO. 
>
>Reasonable.
>
>>Only the US and the former
>>USSR have demonstrated that capability, but in principle it's not an extremely
>>difficult job, and there's really no defense against a cloud of debris in
>>your spysat's path.
>
>Only the US and the former USSR?  I think ESA, ISAS, NASDA, and Great
>Wall, Inc. might disagree with you.  They might also point out that
>Israel and India have launched satellites on multiple occasions, and
>ask you how you define "precision orbit."  France, Britain, and Italy
>are kind of retired from the launch business, but they are ESA
>partners.  Brazil is coming up fast as a contender here.

Only the US and the former USSR have demonstrated knocking out orbital
satellites. Those other nations have the ability to achieve precision
orbits, so they should be able to do the same, but they haven't attempted
to do so.

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     |                     | ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: CBDZ117E@OSSA.CCF.AUTH.GR (Andreas Stalidis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: message from Space Digest
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:55:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzM6t9.JEJ.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Hello,
I don't know if it is the right address to ask for the following info,but
I would like you to send me ,if possible, a list of spaceship models and
NASA's near-term projects (especially about space colonies).


Andreas Stalidis
CBDZ117E@OSSA.CCF.AUTH.GR   -INTERNET
CBDZ117E@GRTHEUN1.BITNET    -BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:18:56 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec22.160715.28828@iti.org> <9gt204c@rpi.edu>
  <ewright.725128771@convex.convex.com>

>>Right now, if you stopped all flights,
>>you could argue this cost (excluding interest) is about $150 million
>>a flight. (10 flights/orbiter, $1.5 Billion per orbiter).  This
>>number will shrink.
>
>That is by no means certain.  There's a good chance someone else
>will fly an orbiter into the ground in the next few years and the
>whole fleet will be grounded permanently.  And while the increasing
>number of flights tends to bring the average cost down, Shuttle
>improvement programs tend to push it back up again.

  Do you suppose that DC will not belly-up from time to time, too?
  The only space boosters which never failed were Saturn 1 and
  Saturn 5, and neither flew 25 missions. Who's to say that the
  firm which operates DC would not be ruined by an ill-timed DC
  wreck? Grounding Shuttle would be a political decision. Grounding
  DC would be a financial decision. The end result is the same.

  If the development costs are as high as you claim, the costs of
  such Shuttle upgrades as the new turbopumps and the glass cockpit
  are marginal. Even the ASRM is a drop in the bucket next to those
  numbers... Seems you're using two different figures here, a low figure
  which makes the upgrades a major increase in the costs and a high
  figure which makes Shuttle an impossible-to-recoup investment.
  Which is correct?
  
  -Brian
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:51:25 GMT

Marc N. Barrett (barrett@iastate.edu) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec30.223543.23648@news.arc.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> >     Yesterday, December 29, after approximately 20 hours of
> >warming in sunlight, the antenna-deploy motors were turned on to
> >"wind up" the system and then pulsed to "hammer" it in an effort
> >to free the stuck ribs of Galileo's high-gain antenna.  The
> >procedures began at 6:55 a.m. PST and continued until 2:48 a.m.
> >PST this morning, December 30.  A total of 2160 pulses were
> >executed by the motors during this period.  The stuck ribs were
> >apparently not freed.  This morning the spacecraft was returned
> >from the warming attitude to the normal cruise mode.
> 
>    Well, what now?  What else is being planned to free the antenna?  And is
> it expected to work?
> 
According to the calendar released here recently, there are at least two 
more hammering episodes scheduled.  After that it's plan B: use the LG 
antenna, data compression and other techniques to do as much of the mission
as possible.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.folklore.urban
From: bjacobs@chopin.udel.edu (William J Jacobs)
Subject: Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 07:16:59 GMT

>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).

Bill Jacobs
who refuses to pretend he knows what he's talking about one minute longer

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors...
Organization: The University of Iowa
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:45:25 GMT

In article <BzKHM2.8D3.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
>Subject: Re: Breeder reactors...
>Date: 20 Dec 92 16:52:27 GMT
>
>\bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>
>/>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>\>them?
>
>/Because they're too damn dangerous.
>
>\Zack Sessions
>/sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
>\University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
>/"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
>
>Same reason we don't have automobiles, eh?
>
>There isn't anything inherently dangerous about breeders. It's
>just that there are a bunch of lobotomized idiots out there
>who are more concerned with making policy than actually knowing
>anything about nuclear physics.
>
>Of course, these same people have prevailed upon the government
>to ban nuclear fuel recycling. I had a hard time trying to
>convince a friend of my dad's the other day that there was a
>solution to the nuclear waste problem, and the gubbimint, "will
>ofthepeeble" (or the feeble minded) had _banned_ a way to reduce
>the "dangerousawfulearthdestroyingnucularwaste" problem by a
>couple orders of magnitude.
>
>-- 
>Phil Fraering
>"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
><<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
>PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...
The Enrico Fermi power plant near Detroit was the first and only 
commercial breeder reactor in the United States. Because of a design
failure the a cooling pipe broke inside of the reactor. They were able to
shut down the reactor without release of radiation, but evidently it was
a real nail biter. Some idiot was quoted as saying " We nearly lost
Detroit". The net result of this incident was the no commercial power
company has considered building a breeder reactor. 

When Carter was president he opposed breeder reactors because of his
concern about the poliferation of nuclear weapons.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:25:44 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <18639@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> When fighter development from concept to flying prototype cost less than
>> $100,000, normally funded internally by the company, and took less than a
>> year, planes were simpler then, that was an acceptable approach. Now with
>> development costs running into the billions, and usually taxpayer funded,
>> the financial risks of a failed project have become too high to take such a
>> cavalier approach.
>
>I wonder if the development of the hardware might still cost something close
>to the 1992 equivalent of $100,000...with the additional billions required
>for paperwork, politics, and legal nonsense.  :-/

Today's overhead is horrible, but $100,000 1940s dollars is only about
$2 million 1992 dollarettes. I don't think you can develop a high performance
tire for that little money, much less a high performance fighter. That's
about 20 engineers in a Motel 6 for six months, no machine shops, hangers,
mechanics, flight test equipment, nada.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:10:04 GMT
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.

Have they tried the Keck Foundation, the ones who donated $90+
million for the telescope? How about that giant Japanese
construction firm, the one that's done some work on lunar
construction methods?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
From: hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:28:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand

>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:02:29 GMT, tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) said:

Tom> The very first MOL flight (and only one, if I recall correctly) 
Tom> was basically a test of the Titan III, on its way to being man-rated.
Tom> (Does anyone remember if the strap-ons were solids?)  The MOL was a
Tom> mock-up, just a cylinder the right size and shape.  The Gemini capsule
Tom> was a donation to the Air Force from NASA, the former "Gemini 2"
Tom> capsule that had flown unmanned.

It was an MOL sized tube (a fuel tank from something I think) and a
modified Gemini capsule with a hatch cut into the heatshield.  

Tom> I think it all orbited for a few days before burning on reentry.  Yes,
Tom> it was certainly unmanned.

It was on a sub-orbital trajectory.  The test was to see how the Titan
would handle such a long payload and to see if the heatshield on the
Gemini would work.


Merry Xmas






--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Earthquake Filmed from Space
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:50:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.000927.13874@netcom.com> alden@netcom.com (Andrew L. Alden) writes:
>baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>:      After precisely lining up enlarged portions of the images on
>: a computer display, Crippen flickered between the two and
>: observed the differing ground motions across each of the faults.
>: He repeated this process with other parts of the images taken of
>: several different sites along the faults, and in some cases, he
>: observed newly formed cracks in the fault zones.
>
>I watched his display both at the press conference and later downstairs,
>and it was quite striking.  The SPOT images are 10 m per pixel, the best
>unclassified images you can get, yet even so, movements that were
>measured on the ground at a meter or so were clearly visible.  This is
>yet another argument for declassifying space photos made by military
>satellites, which are of as good quality looking down as the Hubble
>Space Telescope's are looking up.
>
>The flicker technique is used by astronomers to detect moving objects
>against the backdrop of the fixed stars.  The beauty of Crippen's work
>is that he could get nearly the same precision using images with less
>precise controls--a satellite in orbits a year apart over the same place
>on the ground.
>
>His work will pay off in similar situations where there is poor ground
>control, like central Asia.

How often is there going to be a quake with multi-meter offsets in the
desert?

Perhaps this techniques may help measure slower, aseismic deformation.
Many miles from the fault the tectonic plates are moving a couple inches
a year while the fault itself is locked in some places.  Perhaps the photo
technique will show the deformation pattern of a decade or so.

Radar inferometry has been used to measure ground motions for a few years.
Radar is not as sensitive to weather as light.  It has seen the spring time
swelling of agricultural fields in central California and the changes in
the size of Mt. Etna.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:54:12 GMT

In article <19077@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:

> It could be mixed with oxygen,
> since molten aluminum forms an oxide slag cover.

Does it?  Aluminum oxide is more dense than aluminum metal (spec. gravity
of 4 vs. 2.7 g/cc.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Argum
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:13:33 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>(Note: shuttle fleet average performance to 150 nmi, 28.5 deg circ
>orbit is actually about 56,000 lbs -- so, again I'm being
>conservative about shuttle cost $/lb)

> Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor

  Please provide data showing Shuttle average payload as 56,000 lbs.
  Please note that your 'average' figure is higher than the official
  NASA 'greatest' payload. According to the NASA "1991 in Review"
  the heaviest Shuttle mission was STS-43 in August, 1991. The payload
  for this mission was approx. 46,500 lbs. (28.5 inc, 160 mile alt.)
    
  -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:21:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec29.175754.24170@samba.oit.unc.edu> cecil@physics.unc.edu writes:
>>...the ASTP payload was *not* a "full up" CSM; indeed, it was
>>the lightest CSM ever flown manned, because it needed almost no main-engine
>>fuel for its mission...
>
>A question: was a fully fueled CSM, flown in the ASTP launch inclination,
>capable of reboosting Skylab?  Was it structurally feasible?

I don't think the ASTP orbit was close enough to Skylab's to make this
practical.  I believe it was structurally possible.

Mind you, most of the science community thought the hardware and money
that went into ASTP would be better spent on another Skylab crew... and
they were probably right.  That might have provided a suitable opportunity.

>If so, when
>was the decision made not to reboost after the AST-part of the mission was
>over?

It's important to bear in mind that, with program plans and air-drag
forecasts as they were in the mid-70s, it was clear that Skylab would
not re-enter until well after the shuttle was flying and something
could be done about it.  There wasn't any feeling of urgency about
reboosting Skylab.  Then the US scrapped its remaining manned-spaceflight
capability, the shuttle schedule slipped repeatedly, and air drag
ran well ahead of schedule...  The Skylab rescue mission progressively
moved up in the shuttle manifest until it was scheduled for only the
second flight, but even that wasn't good enough in the end.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:55:20 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1gt36dINNq3h@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>I believe in point of fact, that is the whole point of the DC-Y.
>DC-X will prove the operations and technology.  DC-Y will push the
>envelope to LEO, and test the new engines.  DC-1 is then production.
>
>Given the low cost of the DC-X,Y test program, we should be advocating
>the completion of the test program.  If it succeeds,  then we should
>all feel good.  if it costs too much,  we should head back to the
>drawing boards.  God knows,  maybe HTHL is the way to go for cheap
>space flight and gary gets to say "I told you so"  1x10(6) times.

I hope the DC program all works and we get cheap and frequent access
to LEO, but I don't think it'll operate at airliner costs or schedules,
or that it will be allowed to land at metropolitian airports as some
have already accepted as fait accompli. Besides, if it doesn't work,
I'll only tell you I told you so 10^3 times. :-)

>My gut feel, is that SSTO will always be cheaper then Stacked rockets.
>Now if there is some way to get useful payload to orbit in an SSTO,
>we will see.

It depends on how much useful payload we need to lift at a shot and
how cheap on orbit assembly gets. We haven't exhausted the things we
can do with small payloads, but there are also things we'd like to
do that require larger payloads. I contend that on orbit assembly
won't get cheap enough soon enough to let DC carry nuts and bolts
to orbit. It'll still be more cost effective to assemble and test
the bulk of space payloads on the ground and boost them to orbit
on larger capacity launchers, especially if some effort is put into
designing a heavy lifter for low labor costs.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Biosphere 2 update
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:58:53 GMT

Nathaniel Polish (polish@cs.columbia.edu) wrote:
> I realize that there has been much debate concerning the seriousness of the
> science of Biosphere 2.  However the problems posed are still fascinating.
> If indeed this is to be viewed as a prototype space colony then I have a 
> problem with the review just posted from a crewmember.
>
The problem seems to be in seeing it as an all-or-nothing proposition.  It 
isn't.  It's a test bed to explore the problems of maintaining a closed
ecosystem.  That's why several ecosystem models are present in B2.  You
wouldn't do that if you were really trying to create a colony model, because
you wouldn't want to include, say, desert and rainforest (unless you had
so much capacity you could afford to do things just for the heck of it).

> There was much made of the wide variation in sunlight causing variation of
> CO2 uptake by plants.  Further we have all seen discussions of the somewhat
> uncomfortable drop in O2 level.  I would presume that any space colony would 
> have a reasonably abundant source of electric power (nuke or solor collectors).
> This renders the issue of variable sunlight level moot as light is one thing
> that we can easily create.  Also, one would not expect the sunlight levels 
> in Tuscon to be available on other planets.

Well, using solar electricity to run lights is a tad inefficient, for a 
start.  Much better to use the light directly.  Nucular power (let's spell 
it the way folks say it!) is something you'd use if you had to.  You need to
trade off the constancy of light against the maintenance of the artificial 
lighting system.  As for sunlight levels, I think you would tend to choose
colony planets with good lighting.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Aurora chase planes (was Re: Aurora)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:02:03 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <SHAFER.92Dec23221311@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>... Remember that flight test, including the chasing, is
>only done by test organizations; operational squadrons (the people who
>routinely fly with weapons) are only rarely involved.  Dryden, for
>example, has absolutely no weapons...

A side issue here is that many people don't understand that weapons are
*dangerous*.  Contrary to what you might think from half-baked war movies,
properly-trained troops treat even hand grenades with great respect and
considerable caution.  Live missiles are dangerous to handle, dangerous
to carry, dangerous to have around.  Even *storing* them safely takes
care and effort.  Aircraft don't fly armed without good reason.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: drg@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu (David Gutierrez)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: January 3, 1993
Date: 31 Dec 1992 22:44:42 GMT
Organization: Univ. Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

In article <141684.2B423118@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
>On  Sunday  evening,  January  3rd,  you  will  be  taken  on  an
>incredible  journey back to July 1947.  To Roswell,  New  Mexico,
>sight of one of the most important events in the history of  man:
>the  crash  of  a disk, alleged to be an  alien  spacecraft,  the
>recovery  of  alien  bodies, the subsequent  coverup  by  the  US

<more UFO stuff deleted>

>Join us on Galaxy Six, Channel 17, Audio 7.5 MHz.

Yeah, these guys must be from Galaxy Six.


David Gutierrez
drg@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu

"Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard