HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: REIFF@spacvax.rice.edu ("Patricia Reiff (713"))
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: another sad anniversary
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:37:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvI764.D06.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Regarding the turning off of the apollo instrumentation, Henry Spencer 
stated:

>On 30 Sept 1977, the surviving Apollo lunar surface instruments -- left by
>Apollos 12, 15, 16, and 17 -- were turned off by ground command, because
>money could no longer be found to receive and record their data.

That of course is mostly correct - MO&DA (Mission Operations and Data
Analysis) money was drying up - standard "two years after last major 
function" procedure.  But, another problem was that the RTG's were
losing power.  That was not so much a problem in receiving the data here
(as Voyager has shown us), but also the RTG's kept the heaters going during
the cold long lunar night, and they were no longer up to the task. 

Incidentally, I was there that day, with a number of scientists and 
engineers on the project, and since "my" instrument was still one of the 
working ones, I got the opporunity to flip the switch to turn off the last 
instrument on the moon.  There was a sign in the ALSEP room that said "LIVE 
DATA FROM THE MOON".  The sign had been made for a live exhibit of data 
before congress, and had been the in ALSEP room ever since.  After the 
instruments were turned off, I had everyone present sign it and brought it
home, where it sits in pride in the Rice Department of Space Physics and
Astronomy.  Rice had three working instruments at that time, from Apollos 12
and *14* - two SIDES (suprathermal ion detector experiment) and one CPLEE
(Charged particle lunar environment experiment).  I call that one "mine"
because my PhD thesis involved analyzing its data, and by then the two PI's
who had built and flown the instrument had left Rice for other places. 

Of course, I was saddened by having to turn off functioning instruments, 
not only our own but the seismometers and other instruments which were also 
still working quite well.  I told an NBC reporter that I felt like I had
"pulled the plug on my grandmother".  That quote made it into the NBC
nightly news that night!  

Incidentally, my notes (made several months after the event) said that it 
was Friday Oct 28, not Sept 30, but my recollection could have been faulty.
------
From the First Space Science Department in the World:
                                                    :      _^ ^_    ____
     Patricia H. Reiff                              :     / O O \   |GO \
     Department of Space Physics and Astronomy      :     \  V  /   |OWLS\
     Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892        :    / ""R"" \__/
     internet:  reiff@spacvax.rice.edu  (128.42.10.3)    \ ""U"" /
     SPAN:      RICE::REIFF                         :    _/|\ /|\_

"Why does man want to go to the Moon? ...  Why does Rice play Texas?"
   ....JFK, Rice Stadium, 1962
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:17:31 GMT

In article <3OCT199222334167@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

Deletions fore and aft...

>                                                              In past wars
>the spoils were the wealth of a nation.  The spoils that we took in WWII were
>the most valuable of all, technology. The Ampex tape recorders and our entire
>television industry was taken from the Germans and developed by us after the
>war.

Whereas BASF and Telefunken were indeed the inventors of tape recording
(as opposed to wire recording) technology, Germany actually trailed
the US and Great Britain slightly in television technology.  Germany
never broadcast television for home reception, but into small theaters
called a Fernsehhof or something like that.  Although Hitler gave it
great lip-service, he allowed TV research to languish and it was the
BBC which had the first regularly scheduled television service in
1937, followed by NBC in 1939.  The first televised Olypmics, in
1936, were covered by two cameras which never left the Olympic stadium.
Many of the great advances in television were made by Philo Farnsworth
and Vladimir Zworykin, both working in the US.  Germany's poineering
efforts in rocketry are undisputable, however, and it's a shame that
in many people's minds the technological accomplishments can't be
divorced from the political agenda of the government which sponsored
them.  Interestingly enough, the first US satellite (Explorer?) was
launched by the rocket Hitler hoped would rain death and destruction
on New York - the Redstone, which Von Braun's team completed in the
US after the war.

-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:43:23 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <SHAFER.92Sep26190110@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov>, shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>And to tie this to another thread, I've just been made HL-20 Chief
>Engineer at Dryden.  Langley Research Center is the Lead Center for
>HL-20, of course.

Goodie. When ya going to bend metal? :-) Got any rough estimates for first 
flight?

For that matter, is there a price tag on HL-20 yet? I know it's all been R&D
money so far...


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both? 
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:23:25 GMT

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

>This sounds like a melodramatic exaggeration of something that actually
>did happen...  Von Braun was arrested by the Gestapo, the charge being
>basically that he was more interested in spaceflight than in helping the
>war effort.  Dornberger (Von Braun's boss) got him turned loose by pointing
>out that the V-2 project was blessed by Hitler himself and claiming that
>von Braun was vital to it.  It appears that he didn't bother denying the
>Gestapo's accusations... which were undoubtedly true.  Hitler was not
>himself involved in either the arrest or the release.  I've heard of no
>evidence that von Braun was interested in defecting or attempted to do so.

That is a most important fact on Wernher von Braun. 

It may also be of interest that apparently he was never happy with his A-4 
experimental missile to be converted to the V-2 weapon. The direct cause for 
his arrestby Gestapo was that he and his team added some 65.000 (!) 
modification propositions in order to delay V-2 mass production (source: 
a 1960s book).
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Monetary Magic
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:43:42 GMT

In article <BvAz6q.E64@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)  
writes:
> The way to handle this is to think capitalist, not socialist.  Sell the
> Pershings at a competitive market price for sounding rockets of that size.
> Use the revenues to fund a one-time-only launch-grant program for the
> experimenters:  show your payload ready for launch, get a voucher good
> for $XXX toward one launch, first come first served, until the money from
> the Pershings runs out.  Same net result, but without the destructive
> side effects on the industry.

Run that by a little slower. 
A sells to B.  A gives money to C.  C buys from B.
B has net near zero (buys and sells).
C has net near zero (receives and buys).
A has net near zero (gives and sells).
Amazing.  Of course the taxpayer paid for the item in
the first place.  But then the taxpayer received good value
in the form of military security :-?
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Organization: European Space Research Institute (ESRIN)
Date: Monday, 5 Oct 1992 16:52:33 SET
From: Mike M. Skala <MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?

In article <1992Oct5.122905.6385@cs.ucf.edu>, clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas
Clarke) says:
>
>I recall reading that there was a plot to spirit von Braun out of
>Germany into England.  The plot was busted and von Braun was set
>for execution when someone whispered in the fuhrer's ear that if
                    
                    Goering, I think


>he wanted his Vengance-2 weapon, he had better commute the sentence
>of Herr von Braun.
>
>Somewhat less reverently, I also recall the words to Tom Lehrer's
>60's ditty:
>"'The rockets go up. I don't know where they come down.
>That's not my department,' says Werner von Braun."
>

Good first to second hand accounts about Wernher von Braun
can be found in Arthur C. Clarkes "Astounding Years"
his new Pulpobiography. (Actually it's about 'Astounding'
magazine, but he like to talk about himself. Strongly recommended)

citing from my memory ACCs memory of a WvB comment:
"No, I didn't know what went on in the concentration camps.
 But I suspected and I could have used my position to find out.
 I didn't do this, and I'm deeply ashamed."

mike

PS: Count me as one of the 'younger generation', who strongly
    suspects there is no black & white and there never was.

--
Mike M. Skala
mskala@esrin.bitnet
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Disney's Man in Space
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:48:42 GMT
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.

...article deleted for brevity....

I went down to Johnson a few weeks ago.  In one of the exhibit
rooms, several monitors were showing the Disney film.  Surrounding
it was an exhibit of sketches and artwork done for the film.
Wonderful stuff.


--
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,|McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com
     In the midst of his laughter and glee,   |Me, speak for Compaq?  
He had softly and suddenly vanished away---   |Yeah, right.
     For the Snark *was* a Boojum, you see.   |#include <stddisclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gilgan@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tommy Gilgan)
Subject: ephemeris data for NOAA  sats
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:23:00 GMT

I am looking for a source for ephemeris data for the NOAA polar orbiting
satelittes. Any leads  as to the availability, or information on
this data would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks for ANY information on this topic,

Tom Gilgan
gilgan@ug.cs.dal.ca
Xref: sparky sci.space:13826 news.answers:3193
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Re: Lunar landing in 2002
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:48:25 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> Venture firms are different. They tend to bet the farm on one high
> risk idea. If it doesn't pan out, they fold. Therefore venture  
capitalists
> tend to only fund companies working in a "hot" area, and place  
demands on
> the company to generate a large return in a short time. Since most
> space exploitation projects don't have short timeframes on their  
returns, 

> venture capitalists tend to avoid them. 

> 


Well, yes and no.

Most venture limited funds have a group of investors who pool their  
money. They then pick a number of ventures on the expectation that  
they can have 10 dry holes and make it up with one high tech  
gusher...

And as to venture capital for space ventures: everyone complains  
about the "lack" of it. And yet... how do you think Amroc (and it's  
predecessor companies), PALS (and its' predecessors), OSC ($50M on  
Wall Street), SpaceHab, and on and on have gotten startup capital?

I think the issue is that the $10^9 range of dollars is not yet  
available for space ventures because the risk does not yet warrant  
it. But space capital is increasing year by year. There is another  
effect that was seen in the electronics, computer and software  
industries. The first generation winners took their winnings and  
created limited venture funds to back 2nd generation winners, etc.  
That set of first generation winners is just barely getting off the  
ground in the launch business. In satellites (communications in  
particular) it is going quite nicely. Look at the amount of risk  
capital going into Iridium.
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:23:31 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Sep30.152152.8749@di.unipi.it> campo@sunthpi3.difi.unipi.it writes:

>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 fallacy, unfortunately.  Intertwined economics have never stopped a war, 
and indeed, economics have *caused* many wars.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca             "We should grant power over our affairs only to
Georgia Tech                those who are reluctant to hold it and then only
Information Technology      under conditions that increase the reluctance."
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu              - Coda of the Bene Gesserit
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Miscellaneous responses to hypersonic questions
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:07:33 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

"Why not use launch HALO from the <Aurora, or your favorite balck program>?"
  
    That's fairly simple.  We can't.  For all intents and purposes, top secret 
stuff might as well not exist.  As long as various hardware stays classified, 
it can't be used for a testbed, and we can't really even konw for sure if it 
would be suited to the task.  I'm all for declassifying much of this stuff, 
since I think it's mainly to keep it out of financial scrutiny, but until
that happens, you can't buy an Aurora.

   NOTE:  The hypersonic release test that someone eluded to does not refer
to secret aircraft.  This was a test of a drone (the M-12?) being released 
from the SR-71.  Now that I think about it, maybe M-12 refers to the SR-71
modified for the drone.  Anyway, it's not secret stuff. While it may be
potentially dangerous, the ones who know way it can be done.


>I saw something on the X-15 on the discovery channel last night.
>they were talking about the last flight of the A-2 which got burned
>up and retired.  they said that budget constraints forced it's retirement
>not damage.  it was damaged, but not totalled.  also they siad that
>the damage was avoidable and that they could fix and work their way
>up to mach 8, maybe higher...  so to test scramjet technology.

My informationa says the A-2 was "damaged to an irreperable degree," but I
guess if you have enough cash, that's a matter of opinion.

>maybe we should look at dusting off some of those.  certainly cheaper
>then a whole new program,.  maybe it's old, but it's paid for
>and with budgets so tight, we cant be picky.

You'd need to do more that "dust off" thirty year old experimental 
hardware to get me into it.  I'd be very skeptical about flying X-15's.
Besides, they aren't really suited to the task.

>does anyone know what the Vmax for the X-15 was?  what were the structural
>limits on the birds and engines?


Top speed was 4,519 mph (7,273 kph) acheived by William Knight.  I don't 
know what the structural limits were, but it sounds like that was more
of a problem on landings than flight :-)

-- 
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
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:00:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Oct5.130036.10505
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <BvG9Ey.63s@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>The Apollo lunar instruments might have been an exception.  They weren't
>complex, they were mostly just sitting there sending data, and they were
>close enough that a *really good* amateur setup might have been able to
>receive from them.  Continued operation just might have been within reach
>of amateur efforts, barely.

It would have been pushing the amateur state of the art at the time.
Perhaps a dozen stations were capable of receiving the signals then.
Today there are thousands that could do the job. Such is progress.

Gary KE4ZV
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Alleged Benefits of Military $
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:16:01
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org's message of 4 Oct 92 20:53:00 GMT

In article <1469100020@igc.apc.org> mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman) writes:


   Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org

   Steinn Sigurdsson writes:

   >In article <1469100017@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:
   >
   >
   >   > Military and aerospace dollars have a particularly
   >   >high multiplier, 7x, because the jobs pay well and allow the workers
   >
   >
   >   I wonder where these numbers come from.  They seem implausible
   >   to me, and would in any case be very hard to measure.  Everything
   >   I have read suggests precisely the opposite, that money spent on
   >   the military and other unproductive high-technology efforts (read
   >   NASA) is particularly unbeneficial to the economy.
   >
   >Try Nature _355_ 107, 1992.
   >
   >So what are your sources?

   I will try to find the article you mention.  But let me explain why
   I think the numbers are implausible. 

I can't speak on military spending, the article I mentioned
specifically discussed NASA, specifically it discussed the multiplier
of _procurement_ spending, the mean NASA multiplier is lower - don't
forget they also employ a number of janitors etc. - there are a number
of NASA reports referenced in the article - NASA is required to carry
out these estimates. You are right, these estimates are hard to make,
they are usually conservative.

   Let me explain my position.  I am a Congressional Science Fellow, paid
   by but not representing the American Institute of Physics to work for
   Congress for one year.  I have just started, and am now interviewing to
   see who might want me.

As an AIP fellow you might want to be very careful about researching
your numbers before making public statements, have fun.

	  (As an aside, AIP opposes the Space Station
   because it's not good -- or cost-effective -- science.  I think that's
   correct, but misses the point.  The space station isn't about science;
   it's about human spaceflight. I just don't think human spaceflight is
   that important.)

That is of course your opinion. What do you think of the Space Station
as an engineering development project and what do you think is the
appropriate ratio of expenditure on basic research, engineering
development and production?

   I hope to help Congress develop better public policies by providing sound
   technical guidance where I can.  I may offer nontechnical judgments as well,
   but I will do my best to distinguish clearly between technical analysis and
   personal opinion.

Please. 

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
From: draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Population here and elsewhere?
Date: 5 Oct 1992 18:52:23 GMT
Organization: U.T.M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A6F5F8FBD503019A@mdarpi1.mda.uth.tmc.edu>
X-XXDate: Mon, 5 Oct 92 13:51:55 GMT

In article <gdavis.718295859@griffin> Gary Davis, gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu
writes:

>     With the relatively low priority and lack of basic understanding
>of our environment shown by most on this board;it is indeed merciful
>that none are actively in this area.

Perhaps you could educate us (the poor misguided fools of this board)
concerning this _dire_ emergency.  Some supportive science data could be
quite useful along the way.  I`ve already heard some of the great
disaster stories of the 20th century like: Global Warming (80s-90s), The
Coming Ice Age (70s), Cow Farts and other horrors.

What`s next?  Is the sky is falling again?  


>What does bringing back dinosaurs have to do with such a critical
>human dilemma as uncontrolled population growth. Persons who ecourage
such
>must either be quite ignorant of the future consequences or so
insensitive
>to the situation that reason eludes them.

Ya, ya, another tiresome 


      |E|J-  ED DRAPER
 rEpar|D|<-  Radiologic/Pathologic Institute
             The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
             draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: PLANETLIKE OBJECT SPOTTED BEYOND PLUTO
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:40:38 GMT

In article <BvC2uA.FGB.1@cs.cmu.edu> PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:

> From "New Scientist", 26 September 1992:
> ICY OBJECT FOUND ORBITING BEYOND PLUTO
>   A long search for objects on the outer fringes of the Solar System
> has finally yielded results. American astronomers have found an object
> about 200 kilometres across beyond the most distant part of Pluto's
> orbit.

The most distant part of Pluto's orbit is about 49 AU.  1992 QB1's orbit
is currently computed to be about 41 AU in radius, with the eccentricity
indeterminate at this time.  I saw it last night, and it was about 1.2 arcsec
northwest of the ephemeris.  Not too bad.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton