HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's position paper on space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:06:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.231254.25867@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <1992Apr6.130312.25508@cco.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
>>	2) He also says that if Magellan is shut down as proposed in
>>	the FY93 budget request, it would be the first time NASA has
>>	shut down a functioning satellite of its type.  

>The Apollo lunar-surface instruments *were* shut down due to funding
>shortages.  Claiming that Magellan would be the first example of this
>relies on semantic hairsplitting about the meaning of "satellite".
>-- 

Nevertheless, the statement is still true.  NASA has never shut down a
funtioning satellite.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | People will believe
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | anything if you whisper it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's position paper on space
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:13:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.130312.25508@cco.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
>  it costs the U.S. $6,000 per pound to launch satellites into
>  orbit; Soviet boosters accomplish the same thing for $200 per
>  pound.

What do you expect when they only pay their workers $10 per month!

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Buying "Soviet" technology?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:10:31 GMT

In article <53828@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>Besides, they can't make them any more, since the 
>plant making the Zenit boosters (which are part of Energia) got shut down 
>and converted to something like toaster-ovens.

Actually this is not true. The factory is in the Ucraine and they did
at one time consider dropping Zenit production but changed their mind.
They may have been influenced by Bush's recent change of heart.

  Allen
-- 
+          They're just jealous because they don't have three               +
|          wise men and a virgin in the whole organization                  |
|     --Vincent Cianci on the ACLU suit to remove a nativity scene          |
+----------------------396 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Anderman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Another one bites the dust
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 06:55:22 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

for those who followed last year's House floor fight over funding for the Freedom Space Station, you probably remember that Congressman Bill Lowery (R-San Diego) was the point man for the Bush Administration in holding the line on full funding for Freedom. Ironically, Freedom's budget ended up eating CRAF, a space mission that was to have utilized a Centaur upper stage; the Centaur would have been produced in Bill Lowery's district, whereas virtually no major Freedom component was to have been built in his

 district. 
 
Bill Lowery suspended his primary campaign yesterday, due to an excess of overdrawn checks at the former House bank.
 

--  

David Anderman
Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
From: stan@dixie.com (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Buying "Soviet" technology?
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:43:31 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <1992Apr7.143743.1@woods.ulowell.edu> murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>Has anyone come up with a good reason why this country CAN'T / SHOULDN'T buy
>>the Energia Heavy Booster?  I am a college student, very into space
>>and politics, and I am baffled by this concept of not getting what's best for
>>the country, and our space program.

>The basic problem is that our current space "program"'s main objective is
>keeping lots of civil servants employed and lots of contractors profitable.
>Actually getting things done in space is well down the list.

	Well, said Henry.  This is an unfortunate truth.
-- 
Stan Brown					    P. C Design
Home (404) 299-2225				Atalanta Ga. (USA)
Work (404) 363-2303				stan@dixie.com
dixie.com = Public Access UNIX in Georgia
-- 
Stan Brown					    P. C Design
Home (404) 299-2225				Atalanta Ga. (USA)
Work (404) 363-2303				stan@dixie.com
dixie.com = Public Access UNIX in Georgia
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's position paper on space
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:12:54 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr6.130312.25508@cco.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
>	1) He makes the claim that (ex-)Soviet boosters are ~30 times 
>	more efficient than US boosters in terms of price per pound
>	($6,000/lb for the US, $200/lb for the CIS).  Anybody know
>	how accurate these figures are?

It's very hard to establish free-market prices for CIS hardware without
a lot of assumptions.  Even getting them to *quote* a price isn't all
that easy.  These numbers do sound optimistic to me.

>	2) He also says that if Magellan is shut down as proposed in
>	the FY93 budget request, it would be the first time NASA has
>	shut down a functioning satellite of its type.  What was the
>	status of the Viking orbiters/landers when their funding ran
>	out in the the eraly 1980s?

There was danger of the Viking 1 lander -- the last operational piece
of Viking hardware -- being shut down due to funding cuts, but in the
end Viking operations managed to scrape along until the lander died.

The Apollo lunar-surface instruments *were* shut down due to funding
shortages.  Claiming that Magellan would be the first example of this
relies on semantic hairsplitting about the meaning of "satellite".
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party and the space program
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:50:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.44977
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <19533@chopin.udel.edu> mickey@chopin.udel.edu (Mickey McCarter) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.123352.25039@cco.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
>>I came across an FTP site that contained some documents related to the 
>>Libertarian Party ('America's third largest party and the fastest growing',
>>they claim...).  One of these was the 1992 party platform, which included
>>a small plank on the space program.  Here's what it says:


>Interestingly, the Liberterian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Dr.
>Nancy Lord, just gave a speech here (at the University of Delaware)
>two weeks ago.  She mentioned that she and her running mate endorse
>S.D.I., which seems strange for a party that wants to abolish most
>federal agencie (including NASA eventually).

There is nothing strange with this.  I am a libertarian, although 
not a member of the LP, and I have argued that I strongly support
space activities, but NOT run by the gummint.  The SDI issue is 
defense, not space.

I suspect that the LP would, if they ever discussed this, move to
eliminate restrictions on Americans doing space explorations as
individuals without government restrictions, and provide the 
normal governmental protections to such legitimate activities
of individuals.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Buying "Soviet" technology?
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:37:43 GMT

This may be an old question, but...

Has anyone come up with a good reason why this country CAN'T / SHOULDN'T buy
the Energia Heavy Booster?  I am a college student, very into space
and politics, and I am baffled by this concept of not getting what's best for
the country, and our space program.

Along the same lines, why aren't we buying up any technology or manufacturing
hardware that is there that we can use to advance our own national needs.  This
seems to make more sense than simply throwing the Commonwealth of Independent
States a huge bunch of money.  Buy the stuff and we get an immediate return on
our investment.  (And we get the technology...)

Just a thought....

Ed...

-- 
=====  Ed Murphy    (The University disclaims everything!)   --- | /  ---- 
  |    Internet Mail :: Murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu          /|\ |/    \
=====  "Warning, Phi Kap's May Be Habit Forming!!!"          \|/ |\    /
  |    Groundmail (The Slow Way) 1 University Ave. Box 1136  --- | \  ----
===                             Lowell, Ma. 01854 U.S.A.    Phi Kappa Sigma
                                                         Gamma Upsilon Chapter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's position paper on space
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:34:35 GMT

jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:

>	1) He makes the claim that (ex-)Soviet boosters are ~30 times 
>	more efficient than US boosters in terms of price per pound
>	($6,000/lb for the US, $200/lb for the CIS).  Anybody know
>	how accurate these figures are?  They seem perhaps a little
>	inflated to me...

>	2) He also says that if Magellan is shut down as proposed in
>	the FY93 budget request, it would be the first time NASA has
>	shut down a functioning satellite of its type.  What was the
>	status of the Viking orbiters/landers when their funding ran
>	out in the the eraly 1980s?

   From my days at JPL I heard that the Viking staff was whittled 
down to about 6 people (200 about full staffing) in end.  The 
science had peaked out (those fellas could move) and that the
power was ebbing.  I *think* the operators made a mistake that
accidently shut one down and the other just died.  Please correct
me, if I am wrong.

   Tera-dittos to Jerry.  Unmanned gives the most bang for your 
buck.  Besides, the current system is like engineering workfare.
-dmg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: mikew@kpc.com (Mike Wexler)
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party and the space program
Reply-To: mikew@kpc.com
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computers Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:11:19 GMT

mickey@chopin.udel.edu (Mickey McCarter) writes:
>Interestingly, the Liberterian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Dr.
>Nancy Lord, just gave a speech here (at the University of Delaware)
>two weeks ago.  She mentioned that she and her running mate endorse
>S.D.I., which seems strange for a party that wants to abolish most
>federal agencie (including NASA eventually).
First, many (but not all) Liberterians do believe that National Defense
is a valid and necessary domain for the government to operate in.
SDI is part of national defense and therefore there is not contradiction.
I'm sure a libertarian would want the development and launching and
maybe even the operations of the SDI system to be run by private companies.

--
Mike Wexler (mikew@kpc.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party and the space program
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:40:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

mickey@chopin.udel.edu (Mickey McCarter) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.123352.25039@cco.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
>>I came across an FTP site that contained some documents related to the 
>>Libertarian Party ('America's third largest party and the fastest growing',
>>they claim...).  One of these was the 1992 party platform, which included
>>a small plank on the space program.  Here's what it says:
>>

>Interestingly, the Liberterian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Dr.
>Nancy Lord, just gave a speech here (at the University of Delaware)
>two weeks ago.  She mentioned that she and her running mate endorse
>S.D.I., which seems strange for a party that wants to abolish most
>federal agencie (including NASA eventually).

>Mick

	I talked to Andre Marrou (this years presidential candidate) about a
week ago.  The explanation for SDI is fairly simple, I suspect.  It's under
the catagory of Defence (which the Libertarians are big on) and not Wasteful
Government Projects That Should Be Carried out By the Private Sector (eg NASA)
	Interestingly enough, for all the rehtoric I've heard about 
Libertarians supporting space, Mr Marrou didn't really know what I meant when 
I asked him about the Libertarian position on space development.  One of his
'aides' (if you can call him that) helped out though.  Marrou did say that he
wanted to abolish NASA eventually, but in the meantime, he would be satisfied
with making it obey the legislation requiring it to use commercial launches
wherever possible.  I didn't know that there was any question that they were -
does anyone know anything more about this?
	After an hour or two talking to him (there were about 20 people
around, so it was rather 'up close and personal') I kind of got the impression
that libertarianism is the direction I'd like to see our government go, but I
wouldn't want it to get there.

			Josh Hopkins
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Buying "Soviet" technology?
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:13:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr12.231315.19923
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

stan@dixie.com (Stan Brown) writes:

>henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>In article <1992Apr7.143743.1@woods.ulowell.edu> murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>>Has anyone come up with a good reason why this country CAN'T / SHOULDN'T buy
>>>the Energia Heavy Booster?  I am a college student, very into space
>>>and politics, and I am baffled by this concept of not getting what's best for
>>>the country, and our space program.

>>The basic problem is that our current space "program"'s main objective is
>>keeping lots of civil servants employed and lots of contractors profitable.
>>Actually getting things done in space is well down the list.

>	Well, said Henry.  This is an unfortunate truth.

	Indeed.  To be honest however, there are legitimate reasons to 
shy away from buying Energia.  Energia has only flown twice, and the last
flight was almost four years ago.  Because Energia only reaches a suborbital 
trajectory, it needs a third stage in the payload fairing.  Neither the EUS or
RCS (I believe those are the acronyms) has ever flown succesfully.  For that
matter, not even the payload container has flown.  The first flight used a 
different kind than the standard one, and the second flight carried Buran.
There is also the issue of political stablity.  If we modify Freedom for launch
on Energia and reschedule the shuttle flights for something more useful, what
happens if the CIS isn't around to make good on the contract in five years? 
It's a possibility worth worrying about with Russia and Ukraine's behavior.  
	There is begining to be some serious discussion on using soviet 
launchers though, so we may yet see it happen.

				Josh Hopkins
From: mickey@chopin.udel.edu (Mickey McCarter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party and the space program
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:02:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1992Apr6.123352.25039@cco.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
>I came across an FTP site that contained some documents related to the 
>Libertarian Party ('America's third largest party and the fastest growing',
>they claim...).  One of these was the 1992 party platform, which included
>a small plank on the space program.  Here's what it says:
>

Interestingly, the Liberterian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Dr.
Nancy Lord, just gave a speech here (at the University of Delaware)
two weeks ago.  She mentioned that she and her running mate endorse
S.D.I., which seems strange for a party that wants to abolish most
federal agencie (including NASA eventually).

Mick

-- 
This exciting commentary has been brought to you by mickey@brahms.udel.edu...
For further information, stay tuned to this very newsgroup around this time.
"How can you make a world for people to live in unless you first put order
in yourself?" - George Antrobus (Thorton Wilder's _The Skin of Our Teeth_)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Buying "Soviet" technology?
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:38:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr7.143743.1@woods.ulowell.edu> murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Has anyone come up with a good reason why this country CAN'T / SHOULDN'T buy
>the Energia Heavy Booster?  I am a college student, very into space
>and politics, and I am baffled by this concept of not getting what's best for
>the country, and our space program.

The basic problem is that our current space "program"'s main objective is
keeping lots of civil servants employed and lots of contractors profitable.
Actually getting things done in space is well down the list.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (manu)
Subject: Re: 4 Killed/80 Wounded in Rafah Camp
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:35:10 GMT

In article <5APR199215362137@oregon.uoregon.edu> fouadelg@oregon.uoregon.edu (Fouad Elgharabu) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.223118.6628@muddcs.claremont.edu>, gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (manu) writes...
>>In article <4APR199212075730@oregon.uoregon.edu> fouadelg@oregon.uoregon.edu (Fouad Elgharabu) writes:
>> 
>>>
>>>WHO IS RESPONSIBILE OF STARTING AND CONTINUITY OF THE OCCUPATION?
>> 
>> 
>>	Awww, that's easy!  Egypt, Syria,  and Jordan!
>> 
>>								-Manu
>
>
>Are you saying that 
>Egypt is occupying Gaza Strip.
>Or Syria occupys the Golan Hights.
>Or Jordan control West Bank.
>
>Nice joke
>Try again. 

	I wasn't joking.  Egypt owned Gaza but lost it in '67 after starting
the war by blocking off the Strait of Tiran.
	Jordan owned the West Bank but lost it after ATTACKING Israel in '67.
	Syria owned the Golan but lost it to Israel in '67.

So if the Arabs didn't start the war, the "occupation" would never have 
occrured.
							-Manu

-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

Do unto others before they do unto you.
I'd rather be in Paris than here.
From: friedenb@gypsum.egr.msu.edu (Jason Friedenberg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Is Greek Educational System Also In A Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:08:54 GMT
Reply-To: friedenb@gypsum.egr.msu.edu (Jason Friedenberg)
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University




In article  <m0laz1s-0003YPC@ddsw1.mcs.com> han@anadolu.michigan.com (hasan.b.mutlu)
writes:


>So, the Greek educational system is also in a shambles, 'Kotinis.'
>History shows that within the last 170 years, Greeks played that 
>game twice: They used Istanbul Patriarch Grigorios in 1822 to 
>instigate the Morea rebellion that resulted in the massacres of 
>the Muslim people. Again, the Orthodox Patriarch Constantine V 
>invited the Russian Czar Nicholas II to invade the Ottoman Empire 
>'in the name of Jesus,' and save his flock from Ottoman rule. 

(much of the same deleted here)



HEY HASAN:

This is not relevant to talk.politics.mideast, please stick it somewhere else!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
From: arf@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: (The Real) LATEST REPORT ON PATRIOTS
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:27:58 GMT

In article <1992Mar30.155235.5342@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>In article <1992Mar30.130535.208282@cs.cmu.edu# anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
>#In article <1992Mar29.184903.13976@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>#>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>#>Fresh from CNN:
>#>
>#>The London Sunday Telegraph reported that Pentagon sources now accuse
>#>Saudi-Arabia for handing over patriot missile technology to China,
>#>clearing Israel of the blame.
>#>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>#
>#BZZZT, WRONG.  The sources were ISRAELI intelligence officials.  The pentagon,
>#including Dick Cheney, said this is highly unlikely as *all* Patriot batteries
>#in Saudi Arabia are operated by Americans.
>#
>#>
>
>I heard it three times yestedray on CNN headline news. Twice they reported
>it coming from Pentagon officials, once from Israeli sources. Lets wait
>and see.
>
>The question is: does China have patriot technology or not? If it does,
>and (as it seems for now) Israel didn't give it away, who did?
>

ARF says:

Israel you fool!  Do you honestly believe that because the "friends of 
Israel" from the State Department that went there on a "fact finding"
mission, did not find any empty tubes, that Israel is exhonorated?

Did you ever hear of Xerox.  We are supposed to believe that one could
prove that Israel did not sell info because they could not prove it.


The Zionist controlled world does it again.

arf
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:10876 soc.culture.iranian:3467
From: minhaszt@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Re: PROMINENT IRANIAN BAHA'I EXECUTED
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:52:43 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.iranian
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

[stuff delete]
> 
> I would like to thank Hossein for answering some of the questions often
> repeated on the net, ignored at least by Anisa,
> that is:
> 
[stuff deleted]
> 
> ....
> 
> We also know the chances of restoring Judaism to the descendants
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the Jews of Meshed who were forced converted to Islam
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> in the 19th century.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You guys don't know the chances of that.
> 
> 
> 	Seth Rosenthal
> 
> 

zafar
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast