HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters) 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:31:10 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 <1993Jan5.211129.20772@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Interesting street rumor reported on the business report of NBC Sunrise
>program this morning. Apparently, Boeing is negotiating a partnership
>with a Japanese and a German firm to underwrite the development of the
>next generation widebody airliner, reportedly seats 600. The report
>indicated that even Boeing isn't healthy enough to risk going it alone
>on that one, and the US airlines are too strapped to place speculative
>orders. 

This is "news" only to NBC.  Boeing has been negotiating the 777
project for several years now.  If you want to build a successful
airliner in today's market, you set nationalism aside and find the
best possible partners for the job, wherever they are.  Of course,
saying "Boeing isn't healthy enough to go it alone" puts nice,
protectionist slant on it, which the networks like.  


>If Boeing can't fund a new widebody, MacDD is in deep doo 
>with DC without a deep pocketed partner to back them. 

McDonnell Douglas is in deep doo with or without DC.  They
desperately need a new, profitable product line or six. The 
problem is finding the money to get them off the ground. (No
pun intended.)




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Data release delay?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:37:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.091929.26972@eskimo.com> delisle@eskimo.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
>
>	In a newspaper article I read a couple days ago, I saw that
>NASA will delay the release of data and pictuers from the Mars Observer
>when it arrives at Mars and begins it's job. Aparently the delay will
>be of a year or more and live feeds that have been offered with previous
>deep space probes will be restricted.  
>	Is there any truth to this, if so why has this policy been set 
>into force and by whom? This is unconscienceable and must be changed. 
>It is all out wrong. There is no reason.
>

Partly right, partly wrong.  The general release of digital data
from MO will be release approximately a year after they are returned.
Why?  To give the researchers first shot at analyzing the data.  This
has always been the case.  But, images of particular interest and
other scientific data will be released at the press conferences.  

But, the researchers directly involved with the MO program will
have unprecedented access and control to their experiments.  Each
research group will have at least one workstation installed which
will provide access to the JPL database.  They can get data and
provide commands all from their local office instead of having to
go directly through JPL.  See the collection of articles on the 
MO program in "The Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets" vol 28, no 5.


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: The K-Zoo Crew
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:28:12 GMT

In article <9JAN199300533179@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
] Teams are preparing Flight Software Build 7.1.1 for uplink on January 13

Sounds like they're using Apple Macintosh System Software! Is this the
next update? Can we get a copy? :-)

  _____    "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks
 /  ___\  ___  __ ___   ___      _____________   gene@cs.wustl.edu
 | / __  / _ \ | /   \ / _ \     |  physics  |   gene@lechter.wustl.edu
 | \_\ \ | __/ |  /\ | | __/     |racquetball|   gev1@cec2.wustl.edu
 \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/     | volleyball|   gene@camps.phy.vanderbilt.edu
 Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 17:27:43 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

Sorry, couldn't quote all of this one.  

Firstly.  I see what you are talking about _now_.  Sounds not too bad.  
However, it still seems to me that carbon-catalyzed may be a great way to 
go.  1) your carbon keeps coming back and 2) you won't have to carry 
around what I see as becoming GIGANTIC amounts of antimatter.  So what 
YOU are talking about is using antimatter as a partial source of the 
energy to get the hydrogen to FUSE?  Sounds good thus far...

Scramjet...  You know, that may be a SUPERB idea!  Though you can't use 
it initially, I'm looking at seperating the magnetic coils into groups 
that are individually controlled.  Such things as a bussard scramjet 
could be used at high velocities (near the theoretical limit of 
non-scramjet engines), which would give us 4 stages...

Conventional drive (perhaps an injected nuclear pulse engine?)
Carbon (or antimatter) catalyzed fusion drive
Proton-Proton fusion drive
Scramjet p-p fusion drive

Sound good on that end?  Any more help on the carbon-antimatter selection 
would be MUCH MUCH MUCH appreciated!

                                                Jason Cooper
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: killing the shuttle
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:54:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ewright.726434023@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>Unlike Allen, I am completely convinced that killing Shuttle now will
>>not cause any money to be reprogrammed to his pet schemes. 
>
>So am I.  I am also completely convinced it would wipe out
>a major political base opposed to alternative launchers. 

You don't get rid of civil servants and politically-powerful contractors
that easily.  If you wipe out the Imperial Deathstar, they'll only start
building another one.
-- 
"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: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Delta Clipper
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:59:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.170808.18376@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>the DC-Y goals are 20,000 pounds to LEO (10K to polar) with an operational..

>I think we need to be a bit more specific about *which* LEO we are
>talking about. 

I disagree. The point is that it decreases cost by one to two orders
of magnitude. If it takes two flights, so what? It's still a hell
of a lot cheaper than anything on the market.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------103 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:29:24 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan6.190716.5077@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>I didn't get the impression that that was what he meant.  After all,
>if you have antimatter to use in heating the bulk of your exhaust
>products, why do you need fusion? ...

There have been serious proposals, actually, to use antiprotons to do
the heat-and-compress trick for fusion.  The machinery needed for this
is (probably) a whole lot lighter than for laser-ignited fusion, making
it much more practical for rocketry.

However, (a) proton-proton fusion is well beyond what this technique can
easily achieve, and (b) Fred is correct, that wasn't what I was talking
about.

>yuou couldn't cruise forever, but I wouldn't think it would require
>amounts of anti-matter that would seem ridiculously large, given the
>scale of such a vehicle.

Kilogram quantities of antimatter are quite adequate for early interstellar
probes, given modest vehicles.  I don't have numbers for the antimatter-
fuelled ramjet on hand, but it *has* been studied and it looks plausible.
-- 
"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,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Keywords: U.S. Government funding
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:04:25 GMT


In article <1993Jan6.183139.3779@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1993Jan5.211231.5031@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> tes@gothamcity.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:
>>I'm just guessing on my figures, but wasn't 500 lbs of moon rock and dust 
>>brought back from the moon? And didn't the entire Moon program cost around
>>$67 billion? I think that puts the moon dust/rocks at about $134,000,000 a 
>>pound! But as Ken says, it ain't fer sale by Nasa.
>
>Of course, the preceding reasoning assumes that the sole function of
>the entire Moon program was to produce those rocks as a product.  I
>think there was just a BIT more to it than that.  Using the same
>logic, one could say that we paid $67 billion to develop Tang.
>
For $67 billion, I would have thought they could have also freeze dried the
vodka :-).  (Has anyone tried the freeze dried beer from Japan.  It tastes like
hell until you are about four days out on the trail.)
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |"Pacts with the devil are not legally
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |binding!"
PADI DM-54909                     |-Friar Tuck   _Robin Hood:The Hooded Man_

Newsgroups: sci.space
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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:35:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.232311.26674@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>> It should also be
>>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.

>They didn't study the latter possibility. 

No they didn't. But they did find that operating a Soyuz using US
standards for docking, power, and life support was possible. This
strongly indicates that interfacing with Atlas or Titan is practical.
Especailly when you realize that US launch providers routinely re-
design their payload interface to suit the payload.

If I'm wrong, then it won't be the first time. If I'm correct then
we can free up billions to do important space research (including manned
space). Why does that bother you so much?

>And if you're going to be a tightwad, why don't we just contract out launch
>services to the Russians, for that matter? 

Well I don't have your pesamistic view. I think US launchers can compete.

But why the black and white view? I think we can make intelligent use of
SOME Russian hardware to save us a lot of money. That doesn't mean we
must use ALL Russian hardware.

     Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:14:49 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman):
>In article <2B40B0AD.5877@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>According to gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman):
>>>                        Tzu-Pei Chen
>>>"The design of AUSROC II was in many ways too "positive". [...]
>>>Obviously, greater testing of each component may have shown up some
>>>of these problems earlier.  This simply highlights the very limited
>>>resources with which the group currently works.
>>
>>What an obvious straw man, Gary!  You picked an underfunded project
>>[...] to beat up the well-funded DC-1 program.
>
>DC-1 is well funded? Last I heard MacDD hadn't found *any* sugardaddy
>to fund it *at all*.

Um, okay... that's true.

>They've latched onto some SDIO money to fund DC-X, but that's just an
>atmospheric test article, not a SSTO vehicle.

And they have enough money for it so far.  No guarantees of future
funding, of course.  (But then, even if they had promises from the
government, Congress changes its priorities every year anyway.)

>Their strawman paper budgets for an eventual DC-Y prototype and follow
>on DC-1 production vehicle are underfunded by historic standards of new
>spacecraft development programs.

No doubt.  But "historic standards" are the live-by-the-paperwork NASA
mindset of today -- which I think everyone agrees is a more expensive
model than, say, Kelly Johnson's skunk works.  And which organization
would _you_ choose as the core of your new enterprise?

>For shame indeed.

Quite.  I shouldn't have claimed that DC's funding puts it out of
danger of too little testing.  Instead, I'll try asserting that DC-X
and DC-Y are themselves the tests.  After all, DC could be like NASA
and spend all that money on CAD and simulations, and have the first
bent metal become DC-1 (or, more likely, DC-0.5 :-)).
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,sci.chem,sci.engr.chem
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Making Antimatter (was: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:45:55 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <C0JAt3.D4B.1@cs.cmu.edu> flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554") writes:
>> Kilogram quantities are probably going to have to be made in space, 
>> not so much for handling reasons (although those aren't trivial)
>> as because of the sheer amounts of *energy* needed.
>
>I hope this means DEEP space, as opposed to Earth orbit.

Relax; we're talking giant powersats in Mercury's orbit, or something
of that scale.  Earth orbit is too cramped and doesn't get enough sun.
-- 
"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: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:07:21 GMT

> Edward V. Wright writes:
>
> Bruce's "quick and simple" concept requires *two* new designs.
> You couldn't just put 5x the cargo into an existing DC-1.  Unless
> it was unusually dense, it wouldn't fit into the cargo bay.  Even
> if you could, the vehicle's balance would be off.  So you're talking
> a major redesign, then component testing of both the first and second
> stages, then testing both the first and second stages together....
>



        The most likely thing that we are going to want in large quantities
in orbit is propellant.  For example, a Mars expedition using conventional
chemical propulsion might require something like 5000 tons initial mass in
orbit, most of which is LOX and LH2.  To transfer 50 tons of LOX and LH2 to
orbit in a DC-1 using a lower stage, the DC-1 upper stage simply flys with an
empty cargo bay.  The DC-1 will then have 50 tons of available propellant
remaining in its tanks when it reaches orbit. The tanks will need the
addition of some internal baffles and propellant acquisition devices to allow
transfer of propellant in 0-G, but this technology must be developed anyway
for any scheme in which propellant is brought to orbit in small amounts and
used to tank up a larger vehicle.



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Keywords: Flame retardants are needed.
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:18:13 GMT

In a talk at Caltech earlier this month Carl Sagan that spin-off technology arguments
are bogus.  "If you want have better cooking pans, then do R&D on kitchen products."
(probably in reference to low friction materials coming out of the space program.)

Then too, any useful new technologies from NASA should be transfered to the commercial
sector.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:57:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.150800.14058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> I wrote:
>
>>The shuttle system itself may not be considered R&D anymore, but it's
>>the manifest that tells you whether it's doing research  or mere
>>"operations."
>
>No, the Shuttle is always doing operations unless it is Shuttle
>itself which is being experimented on. When Shuttle carries spacelab,
>it is engaged in operations *IN SUPPORT OF RESEARCH* but not research.

which neatly underscores my point.  When NASA flies a shuttle to
support research, I don't think it is operating outside of its
charter.

>When somebody flies a roll during re-entry to see what happens, that
>is research.

Indeed!


-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lunar bill press kit
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:40:55 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

In article <131210bbe@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>-
>The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act, to be introduced in the 103rd
>Congress, will jump start the U.S. lunar exploration program by 
>authorizing the government to purchase lunar science data from the 
>private sector.

Can I sell some of my hand-drawn pictures of the man-in-the-moon to
the GOVERNMENT! WOW!  Think I'll get 23 million $$$?!!

-rabjab
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:26:38 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 <2m6RwB2w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca> victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) writes:

>Actually, using a solar sail to just go to the moon would be pointless as 
>they are only practical over a distance.  

Using an airplane to go from one one sandhill at Kitty Hawk to another
was rather pointless, too, wasn't it?  The proposal was more a proof of 
concept than a scientific mission.


>Remember, they use the solar winds to carry them.  

Most solar-sail designs use light pressure rather than the solar
wind.
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: question on privately funded space colonization
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:17:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0GxFn.9x.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
-Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
-Date: 6 Jan 93 14:48:41 GMT
-Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

->In <3954@key.COM> rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
->>What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how long it 
->>will be until the world starts to see privately funded space colonization?

-Can one
-reasonably expect people to do things when the government can step
-in at any time and say no, or say that what you have done belongs
-to it?  

If it's the principle of eminent domain that you're worried about, then
yes, that could theoretically happen. But the same applies to activities
on the Earth. Does it make sense to refuse to buy a house or a car because
in principle the government could take it away? In practice, most people
don't have their houses or cars taken by the government - the political
cost of doing so is high, serving to act at least as a partial check on
the use of eminent domain. In fact, government seizure of a privately built
lunar base could well be harder than (for instance) taking property on
the Earth for a road or a landfill - not only is it much more "visible",
but the US government hasn't claimed that the moon is part of its territory.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:17:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.165353.17917@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>This idea is based on the assumption that _large_ cost reductions could
>be achieved by the private sector, which I'm not ready to buy.  The
>shuttle is intrinsically expensive, with its maintenance-intensive...

So then maybe it isn't Shuttle. By opening up a market you encourage
competition. Let's say your correct and Shuttle can't be cost reduced.
But with a commercial market we would have a private contractor
collecting $6+ billion for eight flights. Presto chango we suddenly
have a commercial manned space market which is several times the size of
the existing launch market.

This would be more than enough to get several companies working on SSTO
and numerous other alternatives. Soon, Shuttle could no longer survive
the new cheap competition and it would be replaced.

But this can't happen now since NASA will use Shuttle no matter what.

>Note that I'm not denying that savings are possible, but I'm still not
>convinced that they would materialize, were NASA to try.

NASA's budget for luanch services is more than enough to justify
development of lots of cheap alternatives *IF* NASA used the market
instead of fighting it.

>Besides, who would need Delta Clipper if the shuttle could be made
>cheap?

Hey, if Shuttle becomes cheap I won't care about DC. I want to see low
cost reliable access to space. At this time, I think DC is our best
shot. 

My goal is a spacefaring civilization, not a vehicle.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------106 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+