HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:19:49 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan11.154812.235@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>A warhead re-entry vehicle is not a good model for a lander. A warhead
>doesn't attempt to do atmospheric braking. It's shaped like a long narrow
>cone, or hypersonic bullet.... A lander presents a blunt surface to the 
>atmosphere and tries to shed as much velocity as possible by atmospheric 
>braking. 

Ah, which lander are you talking about.  The Delta Clipper *is* shaped
like a bullet.  It does not present its blunt surface (base) on entry.
It makes a nose-first, high-angle-of-attack entry modelled after an
ICBM-warhead trajectory.  This was chosen because of the large amount
of data available from computer modelling of missile warheads.

It seems rather presumptuous to claim you know more than McDonnell
Douglas engineers working on the project about what is and isn't
possible when you are uninformed on such basic facts as this. 


>Shuttle designers originally
>considered a titanium skin for the Orbiter, but even a metal as refractory
>as titanium wasn't up to the job 

Yet Another Historical Error.  Refractory metals were up to the
job until NASA doubled the size of the Shuttle orbiter to meet 
military payload demands.  (And some engineers at Rockwell still
felt that refractory metals were viable, given sufficient ingenuity.
Langley, and possibly other NASA centers have since come up with 
refractory metals which they believe can do the job.  Some of these
were considered for use on the fifth orbiter.)


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt)
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date:  6 Jan 93 04:41:35 GMT

  There is a race being planned by the World Space Foundation (Federation?)
from geosynchronous orbit to the moon.  (At least it was planned as of
November.)  They were hoping to get it off by 1995.  As of November they had
3 entrants, I think the French, the Japanese, and the WSF itself.  The 
Russians were trying to get together a team.
  I expect that there are financial problems, but I don't know for certain.
I have seen pictures of a sail the WSF actually built; it looked like it was
about 50 meters on a side.  It was a square design, which surprised me; the
heliogyro design, developed by R. H. Macneal (at JPL?) has several advantages,
including stability (its spinning), and ease of deployment.  The design looks
something like a helicopter rotor, with long narrow blades that can be pitched
about their lengthwise axis for control.  Heliogyros are also lighter per area
than sails that have to be rigidized by mechanical means.

  It's true that solar sails don't function very efficiently in planetary
orbits, but there are some benefits for having the first real trial with them
close to home.  Most notably, if anything goes wrong there won't be much of
a control delay due to speed of light transmission.

   			Dave Patterson, guest on this account
Xref: sparky sci.space:19066 sci.astro:13801 alt.sci.planetary:487
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Sea floor Planetary Protection really.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:11:00 GMT

In article <C05Cr9.991@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.204838.14165@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>>... After it's mission is finished, MO will be raised to a high
>>enough orbit to prevent it's re-entry for X thousand years.

>This may be a little academic, since as I recall, as of its shutdown in
>1972, Mariner 9's estimated orbital lifetime was only half a century.

Mariner 9's orbit satisfied the Mars quarantine requirements that were in effect
at that time.  Once astronauts land on the surface on Mars, it is
impossible to guarantee that Mars will not be biologically contaminated.
In the early 1970's, people thought for sure that Man would set foot on Mars
within the next 50 years.  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:10:16 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <19254@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>        The most likely thing that we are going to want in large quantities
>in orbit is propellant.  

Well, up until now, people haven't been claiming "TSTO will be cheaper
than SSTO."  They've been saying, if we have a few large payloads that
can't be broken down, TSTO will be cheaper than a larger SSTO because 
it's cheaper to develop [an unproven assumption].  However, liquid
propellents certainly don't constitute a large payload that's hard
to break down into smaller pieces.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:42:37 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan05.172440.14403@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>	A) Raised the level of tension

Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
a bit anyway, don't you think?

>	B) Invited attack on any space assets you've got

So, how many nations have more space assets to lose (and
less ability to quickly replace them) than the United States?

>	C) Tossed public opinion and the world community off your side;
>	   NOT a good thing. 

That didn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait.  A lot of 
wars might be prevented if Americans came to realize that most 
of the world doesn't care a fig about "public opinion and the 
world community." 


Xref: sparky sci.space:18807 news.answers:4966
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:03:49 GMT

In article <2JAN199317122705@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>From all of the posts that I have seen in the last few months from you, it
>seems that you live in Allen's world. 

I don't have much choice in that respect. I say again, one feature of Allen's
world is that I need to provide my customers a real return on their investment
of they won't hire me. At the same time, I need to bid projects so that all
our costs are covered. Unlike NASA, I can't simply decide to loose money
and expect the taxpayers to make good.

>This world is where you pick and choose your own numbers and play them the
>way you want to make your systems look desirable. 

Dennis, I know this is hard to understand but I don't pick the vehicle I
like and then justify it. I pick the systems which can be justified and
support them. That is why, for example, I was a shuttle supporter until
about 83 when I concluded it simply wasn't working and dropped it.

My devotion is to a goal, not a launcher or an organization.

This is why I use the same numbers for launchers I use in my professional
life. As somebody who must earn his keep I know that our systems must
recoup ALL their costs one way or another. 

>is just your accounting that are unrealistic, as you forget to charge against
>your vehicle, what you so decry me for not doing with the Shuttle.

I refer you to my recent breakout of DC vs Shuttle costs. I thought I
was bending over backwards to make Shuttle look good. In that posting
exactly what cost did I allocate to Shuttle but not to DC?

>The simple point that I was trying to make that you totally missed is that
>the marginal cost as described in the November 28-December 9 issue of 
>space news for adding another mission is 37 million dollars maximum.

Oh no, I fully understand what marginal cost means. You however seem
to feel that is an excuse to ignore costs and charge what you want
to for arbitrary flights. That isn't acceptable in the real world.

I did agree to let you do it when you convince GM to sell you a
Corvet for the marginal cost of a Corvet. let me know when you do;
until then, I'll stick to assigning all costs to the project.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tes@gothamcity.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Subject: Re: Universities fly ozone research balloon from Texas to Florida [Release 93-8] (Forwarded).
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:39:28 GMT


Going to launch a balloon in League City Texas? Ha! Don't you need clear calm
weather for that ;)


-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
| It's not my damn planet Monkey Boy!  | Tom E. Smith                      |
|                       Dr. Lizardo    | tes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov       |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1992Dec27.164247.20711@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec27.203327.21241@iti.org>
	<1992Dec31.004513.12224@ke4zv.uucp>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:51:13 GMT

The latest Pegasus news I have is that the NB-52B and the two-seat
F-18 safety chase depart for KSC on Tuesday, 5 Jan, and return on
about 11 Jan.  Why KSC?  Equitorial orbit, of course.

I got this info from Fast Eddie, who was supposed to fly chase but
will be staying at Dryden to fly the F-18 HARV, as it has priority.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Space Questions and more..
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:23:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.042912.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>
>When DCX flys, why not use it as a way to lift a small payload such as the
>"solar Sail Race" contestants into space? That is if the contestants are
>unmanned..

Because DCX can't achieve orbit, it's not designed to do that. It's a
small test vehicle intended to prove out certain SSTO concepts in a
suborbital vehicle and isn't planned to be flown above 30,000 feet.

The entrants in the solar sail race will be unmanned. The flight time
to Lunar orbit will be weeks if not months. No planned sail can carry
enough life support for such a long flight.

Large solar sails may someday be useful for carrying non-perishable cargo
about the solar system, and the race is a way of proving out the concept.
It should really be viewed as a race between snails, however. 

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: sch@mitre.org (Stu Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Railgun in Southwest US
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: MITRE Corp.
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:12:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.202452.16251@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov wrote:
> 
> 
> You also has to survive the launch.  With accellerations up to 5
> million G, temperatures in the 1000's C range, and some of the most
> serious electrical and magnetic fields you can find anywhere, you
> wouldn't want to be fired out of a rail gun.  Nor would you want to
> try to design a payload which could be fired out of a rail gun.
> 
> ...
> We now return you to discussions about the PEACEFUL use of space.
> 

You're probably right, but perhaps we just aren't being imaginative enough.
First, couldn't an aluminum or steel ingot survive this g-load without
deforming too badly? I can think of a few peaceful uses for a whole bunch
of these in orbit...  Second, is there no alternative to a rocket burn for
orbit stabilization?  How about giving the ingot a lifting body shape with
a very simple control, like a radio-controlled explosive charge that
deforms a control surface when detonated?  A satellite could precisely
determine the ingot's orbit, then deform the control surface at just the
right time during a skip off the atmosphere.

I highly doubt that what I described would be economical, or even work at
all.  Still, it makes me wonder if we should write mass drivers off just
yet.

Stu Schaffner, not speaking for
The MITRE Corp.
(And not involved professionally in this kind of stuff at all)
sch@mitre.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 20:35:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <ewright.726433353@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
>>>a bit anyway, don't you think?
>
>>Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the
>>attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them.
>
>Oh?  Suppose you see two headlines in the New York Times.
>
>One says, "6000 sailors perish in sinking of US carrier group."
>
>The other says, "Nuclear weapon used to disable unmanned satellite."
>
>Which would set your blood to boiling more?

"Well, if they're crazy enough to use them in orbit, when will the get around
to using them on us?"

You're being silly. If you're going to treat the nuke as "just another
weapon" you don't need the Clancyesque plot. Just nuke the friggin' carrier
and be done with it. It's only full-scale war, after all, right Ed? 

>>It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through 
>>air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic 
>>missile capability, on land and at sea. 
>
>The US Navy considered coverting one Poseidon missile on each
>submarine to a satellite launcher, however this was never carried
>out.  (Unless it was done in secret.)  However, no US SLBM or ICBM
>has the payload capacity to replace a large communications or
>reconnaissance satelite.

Of course not, but attacking com-sats is a different problem than attacking a
low-orbit KH-11. 

It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them
quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine. 

>>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
>>force and thereby did so accordingly. 
>
>No, the US voted to remove Iraqi troops and the United States did so
>accordingly.  (With help from some of our allies, yes, but no serious
>observer suggests that we would have failed without that help.)

Of course. So why did we get the UN to rubber stamp it first? C'mon Ed, stop
helping me out here. We really didn't NEED to get the UN's blessing, did we? So
why did George Bush spend all that time on the phone calling up his world
leader buddies soliciting support ? 

>Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would
>*prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts.

Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical weapons
against allied forces in Desert Storm? 

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: is the Lunar Society real?
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:30:58 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 <C0I044.3n0.1@cs.cmu.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:

>Randall Tyers <tyersome@toxic> writes
>>   Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
>    In response to this question, a group called the Lunar Society appears
>    to be interested funding space colonization.  I would like to know
>    whether they are for real.  Does anyone know if this group is
>    legitimate and whether they have any chance of reaching their stated
>    goals?

Yes, the Lunar Society is real.  It was founded a few years ago
by Dr. Jerry Pournelle and others.  Its purpose is to establish
a colony on the Moon, financed by its members in much the same way 
the National Geographic Society used to finance various expeditions
on Earth.  They've been operating in a low-profile mode lately,
because the things they're doing right now don't require much
visibility.

As to whether they have a chance of reaching their goals, yes --
a chance.  Beyond that, it's impossible to say.  However, they
have had some successes already.  For example, they were one of
the groups that persuaded Dan Quayle to launch the SSTO project.


>I sent them a $25 check in August (enough to get the newsletter), and
>haven't heard a peep from them.  They haven't cashed the check though.
>Perhaps they're just slow.

Perhaps.  They are deliberately operating on a very low (practically
nonexistant) overhead.  The opposite of the NASA/Gary Coffman approach.
Of course, it's also possible that your check was eaten by the US Snail.
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:43 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1ig234INNs78@agate.berkeley.edu> tyersome@toxic (Randall Tyers) writes:
>In response to this question, a group called the Lunar Society appears
>to be interested funding space colonization.  I would like to know
>whether they are for real.  Does anyone know if this group is
>legitimate and whether they have any chance of reaching their stated
>goals?

The Lunar Society is for real, although I suppose you might call them
the radical fringe of space colonization.  (A characterization that
would probably give Jerry Pournelle apoplexy. :-))  It's an ambitious
program and their chances of success are hard to assess, but they are
neither joking nor crazy.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Space Questions and more..
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:30:40 GMT

On 6 Jan 93 12:29:12 GMT, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu said:

MA> When DCX flys, why not use it as a way to lift a small payload such as the
MA> "solar Sail Race" contestants into space? That is if the contestants are
MA> unmanned..

Probably because DC-X is only going to 30,000 ft.  This is not
space.  737s go higher (cheaper, too).
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: 2001 and all that....
Organization: Morituri Te Salutent, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:44:46 GMT

Someone posted requesting the "Instructions for Zero Gravity Toilet" from
the movie 2001.  Well, I have 'em, from Jerome Agel's book.  Its a lotta
typing and scanning it in wouldn't be that great an idea either.
If the curious character would give me a snail-mail address I'd be happy to 
forward a photocopy.  I'll even throw in the stamp.

Of course, buying the book is another alternative: The Making of Kubrick's 
2001, Jerome Agel, Signet paperback 1970.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: SNC-Meteorite source (was Re^2: Cheap Mars Rocks)
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 16:43:32 GMT

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?

Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu   
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
(904) 644-4014		FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space