HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 11 Apr 92 08:01:00 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

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

> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (henry Spencer) says:
>>> ...seems to be adequate for existing systems that most people consider
>>> acceptable.  If you insist that a missile-defense system *has* to be
>>> still better, please explain why.

>> Considering that BP hasn't had *ANY* tests that bear on its reliability,
>> you are very confident of its performance.
>>       (...some of my post deleted by HS...)

         (...some of HS's stuff deleted...)
> Missile-defense hardware should be called on to meet standards similar
> to those of existing systems with similar potential of harm, e.g. anti-
> aircraft defences and strategic missiles, with testing by similar criteria.
> (That last means, for example, willingness to extrapolate from limited
> testing under less-than-worst-case conditions.)  If you believe those
> standards and criteria are inadequate, you should be campaigning to
> get them tightened up for existing systems too.  Claiming that vastly
> stiffer standards should be applied to missile defence and only missile
> defence indicates either lack of thought or a hidden agenda.

In the part of my post that you conveniently deleted, I explicitly stated
that I do not apply "stiffer standards" to missile defense.  Was your
deletion a thougtless oversight, or are *YOU* pursuing a hidden agenda?  It
shouldn't be necessary to defend your position by attacking your opponents
motives.

For the record, here is the complete paragraph that I posted:

> Considering that BP hasn't had *ANY* tests that bear on its reliability,
> you are very confident of its performance.  No existing systems are similar
> enough for extrapolation to be much more than fantasy.  If this is wrong,
> I invite you to make your case.  To be specific, which ground based command
> and control systems tell us enough to be confident about the reliability of
> space based BP?  I do not insist that BP meet "still better" levels of
> performance.

I repeat my invitation:  Make your case.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: bamse@IASTATE.EDU (Sten M Thernelius)
Subject: ESA
Reply-To: bamse@IASTATE.EDU (Sten M Thernelius)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:22:20 GMT



       Hi,

          Could someone please post something about what ESA in Europe
       is working with at the moment and what their plans for the next 
       4-5 years are.  Could someone also post their address.
     
          Thanks,

              Magnus Thernelius         


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: U.S. black programs
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:29:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr8.235144.23009@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>Of course teh A-12 which was black threw away a few billion
>dollars and never produced.  The A-11/SR-71 like the U-2
>were successes because of the people involved not the classification.

Uh, A-12?  The original Blackbird *was* the A-12; "A-11" was another one
of LBJ's verbal typos.  And the people involved have said repeatedly that
keeping the program secret was very important because it reduced the
number of official kibitzers and allowed a streamlined organization that
could get things done quickly.

I've long thought it was pretty obvious that one big reason for the
proliferation of black programs was reduced interference from Congress.
-- 
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: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: medical trouble in space
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:09:55 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr8.034602.19333@cbfsb.cb.att.com> wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes:
>Ah.. to bring some sci.space content to this, what if an astronaut gets
>a serious problem like retina detachnents en route to Mars?  

Actually, such issues have been looked at even for Fred, since it doesn't
have exactly daily access to shuttle flights either (and the lifeboat is
still a big question mark).  The astronauts generally have substantial
emergency medical kits, for coping with at least the more likely problems.
Fred will have a substantial medical facility, in fact, as would any
long-mission ship.

The basic situation is the same as that of people in very isolated areas
on Earth:  if the equipment and expertise on hand, supplemented by whatever
advice can be had by radio, can't deal with the problem or at least
stabilize it until transport is available, the patient dies (goes blind,
whatever).  It's not practical to carry a fully-equipped hospital.

In the case of long space missions, "until transport is available" will
usually mean "until the scheduled return to Earth".
-- 
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: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites... what do *you* know?
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:09:10 GMT
  <1992Apr4.170420.5425@access.digex.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

FYI, this week's Electronic Engineering Times contains a 1.5 page article
on this theme, mentioning in particular power-beaming technology and the
impetus this is receiving from the state of Alaska. Alaska is a model of
a place where, although much power is available as a natural resource,
the cost of distributing said power to remote locations is very high.

The obligatory Japanese-early-interest theme is also reported on here.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | wolfpack, silver, down to the water             |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew palfreyman@cup.portal.com   |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Cost of aerospace systems
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:09:05 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.

In <9379.29DE0741@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes:

>   This indicates that I have possibly screwed up some numbers, or 
>your estimates may be using radically different cost data (???).  I 
>suspect you calculated the shuttle $/lb only using the shuttle 
>orbiter $/lb and didn't include the ET and SRBs which have a much 
>lower $/lb to manufacture.  This would be roughly equivalent to 
>estimating the Titan $/lb by only calculating the engine and 
>avionics $/lb and not including the lower $/lb for the fuel tanks, 
>payload shroud, and SRMs. 

More like calculating the cost of an F-15 by including only the cost of 
the airplane and not its fuel or drop tanks.  Airframe and engines vs 
airframe and engines.  (I suspect you probably used the loaded weight
rather than the empty weight for the SRBs, by the way.)  Anyway, I don't 
have the raw figures -- try contacting Gary Hudson.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth)
Subject: Re: A quick question about distances
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.40    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.163334.25432@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <18183@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>>What units of measure of length are there larger than a parsec?
> 
>The SI units of exceedingly long distance are:
> 
>	petameter	10^15m	about 0.1 lightyear, 0.03 parsec
>	exameter	10^18m	about 100 LY, 30 P
>	zettameter	10^21m	roughly the diameter of the galaxy
>	yoctometer	10^24m	real big :-)
> 
>I don't vouch for the exact spelling of the last two prefixes; they are
>fairly new and I haven't had cause to use them much!
The largest measurable distance is the "Hubble distance", basically, the
size of the universe (about 10-20 Billion ly.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
irwin@iago.caltech.edu                |
ih@deimos.caltech.edu                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.space:7583 news.answers:1086
From: pgf@usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:57:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: srl06.pgf.702669476
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes:

>Use of local anesthesia is standard procedure these days for cataract surgery.
>However, the patient is usually given sedation ahead of time, so they are kind
>of dopey and placid.  The eye is then anesthetized and the surgery done.  The
>most common sedative is Versed, a Valium derivative that is very fast acting,
>has a very short half-life and produces amnesia in 90%+ of patients given it.
>My wife is an anesthesiologist and said Versed is one of the big breakthrus
>in the last 10 years in anesthesia - it sedates the patient, but blocks short
>term memory, so they forget things a few seconds after they happen.

Don't crosspost this to alt.alien.visitors. You'll never hear the
end of it.

>-- 
>| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
>| hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
>| "Space People read our mail.  The Space People think that TV news
>| programs are comedies, and that soap operas are news."- D. Byrne

Come to think of it, don't crosspost that either. 
Especially at the same time.
--
Phil Fraering pgf@nasa12.usl.edu 318/365-5418
"How about a dragon that breathes neutrons instead of fire?  Kills the
elves, leaves the buildings intact..." - Nick Szabo
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: THE FEDERATIONERS HAVEN'T DIED!
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:21:30 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Apr15.133734.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
> For those of you who do not know what i am
> talking about, the group is working on a way to get to space with out the 
> assitance of nasa. The project is trying to create a drive crystal that if
                                                       ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> succesful will go beyond using rocket fuel. 

I think this must be the legendary Hall Effect Thruster...

CAPTAIN BILL'S CHICAGO TOURS             Bill Higgins
 See the Loop by Submarine!              Fermilab  
Shopping?  Take our convenient           higgins@fnal.fnal.gov
Bathyscaphe to Marshall Field's!         higgins@fnal.bitnet
Xref: sparky sci.space:7578 news.answers:1081
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: SSF and New Industries
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 09:26:54 GMT

>It seems that NASA, ESA, and the Japanese all have definite  
>plans on putting up Freedom. 

Plan != implementation.  All are behind schedule and over budget,
with trimmed-back designs.  Truly & Lenoir were the main station
lobbyists, and they've been fired.  The Japanese module project manager 
has been quoted saying he doesn't know of any use for SSF.
ESA has just delayed the Columbus free-flyer and Hermes for several years 
(probably effectively killing them).  It's a house of cards, built on 99% 
hot air and 1% cardboard, and the hot air may not flow smoothly forever.

I'm not betting that SSF will be cancelled outright, mind you.
It would be cancelled if the fates wre kind, so that hundreds of 
other more worthy projects could be conducted, but that it doesn't
have to be cancelled to be rendered irrelevant.  I'm just saying it 
will be passed by, turned into a ghost-shanty in the eyes of history,
by the action going on elsewhere. 

>If nothing else, it'll  
>serve as a dock for space specialized vehicles like OTV's, which  
>should bring down the cost of GEO launches.  Granted it's way  
>overpriced as a dock, but it'll still serve a function once it's up.

If it's overpriced, how does it bring the cost down?  In fact, it
would have brought the cost way up, except that the OTV has been 
_cancelled_.  Prematurely circularizing to a 28-degree, 300 nm 
orbit for trips to GEO and the Moon brings a significant delta-v 
penalty.  Redesigning upper stages, adding mass to allow safe handling and 
repair, is quite expensive.  For these and other reasons Mike Griffin has 
specifically stated SEI won't be using Fred for lunar operations.

>I'm more interested in what sort of opportunities Freedom will open  
>up.  

Practically none, but you go on to say

>with Freedom going up in the next 10 years or so, things might  
>change. 

NASA spends $millions telling the popular press this, so I'm not surprised 
to see this false expectation still alive.  But it is sad, and quite
counterproductive.  You are repeating the same wasted wishes we had for
the Shuttle in the 70's -- and a reusable spaceship had great potential
for cost reduction; a station doesn't.  The hype keeps us barking up the
wrong trees; it keeps us from looking at the many alternatives
which would bring about great positive, instead of further negative,
change in the space program.   The hype makes us have to waste energy 
refuting for the millionth time nonsensical concepts like the OTV.  The 
waste of brainpower may be greater than the mere waste of money.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: microbots for repair?
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:33:48 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <jchapin.702800597@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> jchapin@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (John M. Chapin) writes:
>Researchers such as Rod Brooks at MIT have been making good progress
>on extremely small insect-like robots (10-100 grams) that have enough
>battery power and intelligence on board to move around in complex
>environments.

I'm afraid "good" is somewhat over-optimistic.  Brooks's smaller robots
often have power cords trailing behind them; battery technology is really
pretty poor for such purposes.  The intelligence is a mixed bag, too;
Brooks's robots in particular sometimes work and sometimes don't, and his
much-publicized "subsumption architecture" becomes vague, fuzzy, and largely
useless as a design aid when you look closely.  We're a long way yet from
being able to build a useful microrobot for repair work.

>... if something goes wrong that requires
>physical help (eg. Galileo, or perhaps micrometeorite impacts on
>the really long missions) the robots could crawl to the site and
>apply a small amount of force as directed.

Trouble is, will a small amount of force suffice?  Galileo's antenna ribs
are stuck but good; the deployment motor applied quite a bit of force to
them.  It's not at all clear that a microrobot could do anything useful
about it.  (What it *could* do, mind you, is at least give us a look at
the problem so we can see what's wrong, and see whether tricks like the
cooling turns are making any progress.)  Similarly, to fix TVSat 1, a
repair robot would have to be able to take out several large bolts.  To
fix Compton's antenna, it would have to be able to at least give it a
substantial shove, and perhaps do the disassemble-reassemble trick that
the astronauts did.  Unless it's equipped with tools and can exert quite
substantial forces, the number of problems it can fix may be small.
-- 
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: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: U.S. black programs
Organization: Express Access, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:37:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.002904.7995@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.235144.23009@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>Of course teh A-12 which was black threw away a few billion
>>dollars and never produced.  The A-11/SR-71 like the U-2
>>were successes because of the people involved not the classification.
>
>Uh, A-12?  The original Blackbird *was* the A-12; "A-11" was another one
>of LBJ's verbal typos.  And the people involved have said repeatedly that
>keeping the program secret was very important because it reduced the
>number of official kibitzers and allowed a streamlined organization that
>could get things done quickly.
>

The A-12, I am talking about was the one fopr a new navy attack jet.
i think somewhere around 1-3 billion was spent on design before they
figured out it would never happen.....  I thought the sr-71 carried an a-12
designation also but then somebody used A-11.  

I agree that reducing the kibitzers and chrome polishers helps a program but I dont think a program has to be black to keep out the gold platers.

the Saturn was built by a small gang at MSFC and it was 99% open.

What I think, is Kelly johnson like Von Braun brooked no interference...
also the progrtams had rush prioirity....

who thinks we couldnt build a nuke rocket in 30 months to mars
if millions of lives depended on it.?
>I've long thought it was pretty obvious that one big reason for the
>proliferation of black programs was reduced interference from Congress.
>-- 

Maybe congress interferes, but I see more stupid design conditions
put in by the bureaucrats.  congress mostly screws with people 
by funding on a year to year basis....

Congress funded endeavor and something else on a multi-year basis and
they worked better.  maybe if congress did that for all programs,
then we would see where the other problems are.

Newsgroups: sci.optics
From: MICHAEL.WILLETT@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Michael Willett")
Subject: New optics newsletter
Organization: Mail to News Gateway
Date: 09 Apr 92 14:48:32 EST

-------------------------------- Original Memo --------------------------------
CC:      Michael Willett                From:      Imaging Club
Subject: New optics newsletter          Date Sent: 04/08/92

Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: New optics newsletter from Optikos

For your information, I just got hold of a new optics newsletter
from Optikos which indicates it is the leader in optical engineering
products and services.  It seems to be very well written and has a
lot of information.  You can get on their mailing list by calling their
Suzanne Helgeson at 617-354-7557 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  It's
a free newsletter.

Their headline story this month is about the release of their new ACCOS
optical design software V5.0.  The article indicates the software is

available on Unix workstations from Sun, HP/Apollo, RS/6000,
and DECstations, along with a PC version and a VAX version. They
are also planning to release a version for the Mac in the Spring.

It says their new options include non-sequential raytracing, a completely
new macro language, IGES data output, a new alternate configuration
specification method, user-defined surface profiles and glass catalogues,
decentered clear apertures and obstructions, macro-defined optimization
operands, update glass catalogues, etc.  (The new V5.0 macro is based
on BASIC.)  Does anyone know anything about this software from personal
experience?  Since Wang Labs is now reselling the IBM RS/6000, could this

software perhaps be of use to our RS/6000 customers?

They also have other optical products, such as a Radial Measurement
Instrument where they got a "Photonics Circle of Excellence Award."
Another product they have is an automatic analysis system for accurate
lens evaluation.  The article indicates that a Barbara Trowbridge at
Optikos knows about this, and that she has demo diskettes available.

Recent articles about them in the literature include "The Entrepreneurs in
Optics," "Anamorphic Prism: A New Type," "Analysis and Test Instrumentation,"
and "VideoMTF and MTF Testing."   The next issue of the newsletter is

scheduled to include stories on ACCOS optimization routines (including
global search), MTF testing of intraocular lenses, cosmetic inspection
of optics and afocal lens testing.

If anyone has any advice or recommendations about this technology, we'd
appreciate it.  Thanks!

Michael.Willett.OFFICE.Wang.com
From: hnr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Harvey Rutt)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: HeNe tubes wanted
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:59:25 GMT

In <ccsjd-j@lynx.unm.edu> jmcclean@carina.unm.edu writes:


>It's time for me to upgrade my puny 10 mW HeNe LASER and I am 
>interested in finding a 35- 50 mW HeNe tube at a reasonable
>price, pulled salvage preffered for financial reasons. I am
>also in need of a green HeNe tube, power preferred over polarity.
>Are there any greeny tubes available in sizes over 1.5 mW. I was
>told by Milles Griot that 1.5 mW was their strongest greeny tube,
>does anyone manufacture 5 or 10 mW green HeNes? I would appreciate
>any replies to my e-mail adress: jmcclean@carina.unm.edu or responses
>over the net. Thanks in advance-- James McClean

Does anyone still use the old trick for revitalising HeNe tubes -
indeed does it work on modern tubes?
Old tubes tended to loose He by very slow diffusion thro' the glass.
If you wrapped nichrome wire round some part of the tube away from
seals etc., wrapped some suitable thermal insulation over that, put it
all in a polythene bag & blew in He, then heat up the wire as much as
you dare, you could watch the output slowly rise; stop as it starts to
fall again as the He pressure goes over optimum. Don't over heat or
you collapse the tube or missalign it; don't set fire to the lab! Used
to take hours to a few days.
Tubes were quite often revitalised like this several times, but i've
not heard of anyone doing it for years as tube technology/lifetime
has improved.
I have never seen a 10mW green HeNe; have you considered a doubled
diode pumped YAG? not cheap though!
Harvey Rutt
Newsgroups: sci.optics
From: hbetel@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Betel)
Subject: Fibres and DataGloves
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:04:50 GMT


	I am looking for some info on fibre optics. What kind of info? Hard
to say as I don't know the name, but I can describe it (sort of)...
	Basically, can anyone explain to me how DataGloves work? I
understand that the glove detects bends by looking at the diffraction
patterns created by light emerging from the fibres in the glove. How does
this stuff work? Also, is there commercial hardware that will let me use
this effect in other applications?
	(for those who don't know, a DataGlove is an input device used alot
with virtual realities. It lets the user manipulate objects in a very
natural manner by telling the computer what the user's hand is doing. ie: it
can detect that the user has made a fist, or is pointing, etc...)
	Richard Betel
	(hbetel@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca OR rbetel1@mach1.wlu.ca)