HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Subject: Re: Feynmann's legacy...
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 03:25:56 GMT

In article <Bxn4F1.LBz.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>-From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
>
>-Bad luck. Al Gore's campaign speeches on the topic indicated that 
>-NASA is going to continue to invest in the Shuttle well into the
>-21st century; 
>
>But Goldin, the Congress, Bush, Quayle, and the Augustine Commission also
>support that policy. It makes sense to keep the existing manned launcher
>until a better one is "on line".

 According to my latest "Space News", NASA is planning on flying the
shuttle until at least 2005, with the current fleet of orbiters.  They
think that the orbiters look good for more than the designed 100 mission
lifetime, and at a reasonably low launch rate (<8/year), should have
the fleet in good shape.  Some discussion of follow-ons, including the
HL-20 and consideration of a "skunk-works" style program for developing
a successor to the shuttle.



-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Robotic surgery
Date: 10 Nov 92 05:20:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxHIu7.C9F.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


Some weeks ago, Allen challenged somebody (Nick, I think) to undergo
surgery by robot. Well, now's his chance. In the news today, a robot has
just been used to perform a significant part of a hip operation.

The function of the robot was to act as a precision milling machine - it
cut away the interior of the bone in a shape to exactly fit an implant,
with much greater precision than a human surgeon could have done it.
The bone was clamped rigidly in place, and the dimensions of the cut were
specified ahead of time, so it wasn't a situation calling for extreme
robotic intelligence, but still it's an important first step. (There was
also no lightspeed delay to worry about. :-)

There was speculation that the technique could eventually be extended to
soft tissues - perhaps even the brain. The robot would never do the whole
job itself - there will continue to be human attendants and a supervising
surgeon present.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Feynmann's legacy...
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:53:52 GMT


-From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
-Subject: Re: Feynmann's legacy...
-Date: 12 Nov 92 01:01:57 GMT

->In article 20255@access.usask.ca, choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.) writes:
->...Hopefully, those in NASA with a less vested
->interest in piloting spacecraft are seriously considering heavy lift vehicles,
->if only to prevent another Challenger from catching the American public unaware.

-Bad luck. Al Gore's campaign speeches on the topic indicated that 
-NASA is going to continue to invest in the Shuttle well into the
-21st century; 

But Goldin, the Congress, Bush, Quayle, and the Augustine Commission also
support that policy. It makes sense to keep the existing manned launcher
until a better one is "on line".

-Gore also talked about the need to scale back the
-efforts to develop new launchers.

The impression I got from reading the speeches is that they reflect his
opinions going into the job - it's not a matter of "read my lips" and a
promise not to change. I thought most of the criticisms are valid - NLS
requires a big customer like SDI to be really practical, NASP isn't intended
to lead to a "working" spacecraft anytime soon (anyway, there's increasing
interest in pursuing airbreathing craft in a less ambitious step in the
traditional style of the "X" aircraft), and the question of whether Delta
Clipper will be practical is still somewhat speculative. What needs to be
added is a set of well-written technical presentations on the positive
aspects of these approaches, and on the importance of pursuing multiple
designs. (At the least, I feel that construction of DC-X should continue,
and NASP and NLS should be continued at least as technology development
programs.)

I would assume that at least some of the people who strongly favor these
programs are writing letters to Clinton/Gore '92, rather than just sitting
around moaning. :-) While I would not presume to tell people what they
can write, I expect that well thought-out technical arguments would be
likely to carry the greatest weight, and proposing cuts in other programs to
pay for it in the same letter would most likely be counterproductive.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:36:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.202909.10062@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.044348.827@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Military COBOL and Intel processors, FRED IS DOOMED. :-) :-)
>
>Oh I don't know about that. After all, the Terminator used COBOL and
>8080 assembly language and it worked pretty good.
>
>  Allen
>

It looked like Apple ][ (6502) assembly language to me! 
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: lunar "colony" reality check
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:15:18 GMT


-From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
-Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
-Date: 11 Nov 92 15:36:08 GMT
-Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

-In article <629@alden.UUCP> sgr@alden.UUCP (Stan Ryckman) writes:
->If you don't plan to spend tax dollars, though, I'm sure neither
->Nick nor I will stand in your way (though he, of course, can
->speak for himself).

-But the government WILL stand in the way.  This is the real problem;
-money can be raised.

The US government insists that space vehicles launched by Americans meet
reasonable safety requirements, requires (I think) a certain amount of
liability insurance coverage, and is admittedly a little sticky on protecting
US organizations and technology transfer (the net result of the latter being
that launching a US vehicle abroad or launching a foreign payload from the
US requires more paper work and sometimes is not approved).

Obviously, these policies are a financial burden to some private space
ventures. But do you really believe that they make a definitive difference
in the practicality of all such ventures, such that without them everything
would be "sure - piece of cake", but with the current situation everything
is "nope - sorry, can't afford it"?

I pretty much agree with what I know of the policies on range safety -
a rocket that can get into orbit could crash just about anywhere on the
Earth (the heavily populated areas, anyway). As for the liability insurance
issue, it's possible that legislation to limit liability would help.

(Remember, the US didn't sign the Moon Treaty."

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Obscure Help  Needed
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 00:41:31 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

> 
> 
> 
> 	An embarrassing request: my  HP died and I discover I cannot
> remember how to  do logs with a slide-rule,  nor  can I find my sr-related
> texts. Clearly, I am  senile. Anyone out  there recall how  the damn  things
> work?
> 
> 							James Nicoll
> 
> 


James,

        Do you have a log chart from the back of a college math 
text?  I could fax one to you if you need it..........sq

Xref: sparky sci.space:15616 alt.sci.planetary:260
From: joev@sioux.eel.ufl.edu (Joseph Versagg)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:21:54 GMT
Organization: University of Florida

Sorry for rehashing what was posted earlier, or , even worse, what may now
be common knowladge, but what is this about ice at the poles of Mercury?
Since Mercury rotates, although slowly, ice would be baked off the surface,
then would leak into space due to the low gravity.

Also, to answer Nicks anti-lunar base stance: if you buy the theory, any of 
them, that the moon was part of the earth, or was formed with it in the early solar system, then there is no reason that both bodies are composed of the same elements in similar quantities. Read: it has signifigant amounts of Si, Fe, C,
O etc. Is it mineable? Well we won't know until we get there(personally or through probes).

C'Ya
Joe
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Nasa Coverup
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:12:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxBvpz.86F.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


Dale Amon and Paul Dietz:


da> I mentioned Paul Dietz: he is part of our community here, and is a
da> very respected part of it at that. If he is not busy with life outside
da> of cyberspace, I'm sure he could address what you have said, and far
da> better than most of us. If he is listening in now, it is up to him.

pd>Oh, good grief.  This snarfy person is either a leg-puller or a
pd>clueless, paranoid buffoon.  I am surprised Henry made even one reply.
pd>The suggestion that Apollo was faked is just too much for any sane,
pd>moderately informed person to believe.

pd>	Paul

Sorry, Dr. Dietz. We were tricked by the fact that he didn't
overuse ALL of those UPPER CASE letters, and therefore we simply
WEREN'T SURE that he WAS or WASN'T CRAZY.

Then again, maybe he as emacs set up to automatically convert the
all UPPER CASE letters to all LOWER CASE. I've FORGOTTEN the command
myself.

-- 
Phil Fraering

We'll not fade out too soon
Not in this finest hour
Whistle your favorite tune
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Obscure Help Needed
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:12:03 GMT


[Posting this because the email address bounced - JR]

-From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Subject: Obscure Help  Needed
-Date: 11 Nov 92 01:36:58 GMT
-Organization: University of Western Ontario, London

-	An embarrassing request: my  HP died and I discover I cannot
-remember how to  do logs with a slide-rule,  nor  can I find my sr-related
-texts. Clearly, I am  senile. Anyone out  there recall how  the damn  things
-work?

-							James Nicoll

Common (base 10) logs and antilogs are easy - just look at the C and L scales -
for instance, log(2) = ~.3. (I expect you know how to take it from there -
if not, reply.)

For natural logs, I would use the formula logn(x) = log(x) / log(e), where
e = 2.7182818... (thus avoiding those nasty e^x scales :-) .

Scientific calculators are so cheap (often available for less than $20 US),
that I like to keep several on-hand as backups. Unix systems also have
a pretty good calculator function (with an arbitrary number of memories,
which is convenient).

If you don't have a calculator with a graphical display, you should rush out
and buy one - they're great for single-point solutions of complex equations.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: Re: Feynmann's legacy...
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:01:57 GMT


>In article 20255@access.usask.ca, choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.) writes:
>>I was reading Feynman's account of his work investigating the Challenger
>>and he was complaining about how NASA is so backward. Now the shuttles
>>are flying again, what is NASA's situation?

...
>until SSF is assembled) to get a 45% probability of losing an orbiter.  Feynman
>must be spinning in his grave.  Hopefully, those in NASA with a less vested
>interest in piloting spacecraft are seriously considering heavy lift vehicles,
>if only to prevent another Challenger from catching the American public unaware.

>I'll give a more complete report on the meeting in a few days.

Bad luck. Al Gore's campaign speeches on the topic indicated that 
NASA is going to continue to invest in the Shuttle well into the
21st century; Gore also talked about the need to scale back the
efforts to develop new launchers.

He's supposed to be smarter than Quayle, so I can only conclude that
he's trying to wreck the space program _on purpose_.

>Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169 
>Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

-- 
Phil Fraering
In the country of the blind....
60 minutes doesn't run stories about people trying to ban hearing
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:17:01 GMT


|> I expect that improvements in routing statellite communications could
|> get the average control lag down to under 1.5 seconds. That would help
|> a lot. However, the lag is constantly changing due to the low Earth
|> orbit so I'd expect it to be a nightmare for the operator to compensate.

If we really wanted to we could get the lag down to almost zero, using large
numbers of ground stations connected by optical fibre (there are already
commercial  optical fibre cables under the Atlantic and Pacific). We could come
pretty close using relay satellites in a low-ish orbit and a smart rerouting
program (Iridium, in essence) or we could get down to 1/2 s using three ground
stations, three geostationary  relays and optical cables (cable to the right
ground station, satellite to target). 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:52:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Nov10.135703.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>I think this one can't wait for Henry's summaries...
>
>The new 9 November issue of *Aviation Week* just hit my mailbox.  On
>page 65 is a nice photograph of the Soviet N-1 rocket on its pad with
>service tower.   The N-1 was the "Soviet Saturn V," the BIG rocket
>whose failure doomed their manned lunar landing program.
>
>The photo, taken in 1968 or 1969, was given to American educator Edwin
>N. Cameraon by an official of NPO Energiya.  Other photos Cameron took
>at Baikonur-- I mean Tyuratam-- show the N-1 service tower as it
>appeared today, and an old N-1 shroud that's been converted into a
>toolshed.
>
>The N-1 has always been cloaked in secrecy, and this is only the
>second photo of it that's been published in the West.

Maybe NPO Energiya would create a full-color picture book called "Secrets of
the Soviet Space Program 1957-1992." 

So, Bill, how much would you pay for such a book? :-)

			looking to accepting orders from the U.S.
			and Canada if Henry's check clears.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: v071pzp4@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L. Cole)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:19:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1drh9aINN91n@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes...
>In article <1992Nov11.143433.18514@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs) writes:
>=From article <1992Nov11.005151.15358@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins):
>=> 
>=> Oxygen, like many gases, has narcotic effects at very high pressures,
>=> such as in deep-sea diving.  It can cause blindness in newborns
>=> 
>=
>=Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic
>=effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really
>=deep dives.
> 
>If oxygen at high pressures DIDN'T cause the bad effects, why bother mixing it
>with helium?  Yes, nitrogen has narcotic effects at high pressure, but so does
>oxygen.

I'm no expert at deep sea diving or anything, but don't they use the helium
to increase to total atmospheric pressure in their submerisibles? So that
the pressure inside and outside the craft are more equal?

This is the opposite of space --  these guys are trying keep there craft
from imploding due to pressure. Increasing the pressure inside the craft
reduces the loads on the craft's strucutre.

On spacecraft, you want to keep pressure as low as possible to reduce
loads on the craft, since you have a vacuum outside.

Just a WAG. No encendiary requireded.

Craig Cole
V071PZP4@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
V071PZP4@UBVMS.BITNET          
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A solution to "NASA Coverup"? (long)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:03:27 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BxDoxB.5u0.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>... After firing to escape low earth orbit, the spacecraft is moving
>in nearly a parabolic or hyperbolic (probably parabolic, but I'm not sure -
>it depends on velocity) trajectory, which gradually changes to a (probably)
>hyperbolic trajectory about the moon...

A lunar trajectory actually starts out as an ellipse with a very high
apogee; reaching parabolic velocity is not (quite) necessary.  It does
look like a hyperbola around the Moon once you get close enough, although
you really have to be pretty close for the Earth's effects to be negligible.

>...Remember that the moon is orbiting about the Earth at a 
>velocity of around 1023 meters per second (avg) - if it takes the spacecraft 
>several days to get from Earth orbit to the moon, the moon will have traveled
>a tremendous distance "sideways" during that time...

Whence my comment about it being better to ignore the Moon entirely than to
assume it is motionless.  There *is* an exact solution for the three-body
problem if you assume two primary bodies motionless with respect to each
other and a negligibly small third body -- it's called Euler's Problem Of
Fixed Centers -- but it's pretty useless in practice.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:33:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.031208.23856@engage.pko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.231645.27341@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes...

 >>A capture theory requires the influence of a third body, or as you state,
 >>artificially generated thrust. Both are extremely unlikely. Currently,
 >>the most popular theory is that the Moon is a result of a collision with
 >>the primordial Earth by a third body similar in mass to the present day
 >>Mars. The result of the collision is the much smaller present day Earth
 >>and the Moon.

Gary is a bit off here: the proto-Earth would have been *smaller* that
our current Earth.

 > Wouldn't a collision with something that size totally destroyed the Earth,
 > blasting it (and the Mars-sized thing) out of existance leaving not
 > much more than an asteroid belt?  If not, wouldn't the system be in a
 > rather elliptical orbit?

Answered in order: (1) no, there is insufficient energy available
(recall that the gravitational binding energy of a sphere at constant
density goes as the 5/3 power of the mass), and (2) the earth *is* in
an elliptical orbit.  Just how elliptical would depend on when the
earth was hit.  A collision near apohelion of the proto-earth's orbit
could decrease, rather than increase, eccentricity.

 >Could the Earth have captured the Moon if the Moon was originally a separate
 >planet in "somewhat the same orbit" as the Vice President would say, and
 >eventually the Earth-moon perturbed each other into a common orbit?
 >
 >Also the process that forms binary stars must be common, why not have the
 >same process form a sort-of binary planet?

Capture without some sort of dissipation (like collision) is very
difficult; this has effectively ruled out this theory.  Also, if the
moon formed in "roughly the same orbit", where are the volatiles?  By
volatiles I mean elements up to *lead*, not just things like hydrogen
and carbon.

Binary stars coaccrete; they don't form then become bound (well,
except in very dense cores of globular star clusters where 3-body
collisions can occur).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: Moon can hold its air (was Re: Mars over the Moon???)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:26:15 GMT

"The Oxygen Barons", a novel by G Feeley, concerns this situation: a
short-term atmosphere on the moon, fought over by several interest
groups. His was of getting the gas mass to the moon seemed very
far-fetched to me: creating a "soliton" in the solar wind, which
consisted of a direct "river" of solar-composition gas to the Moon
(actually, I don't remember whether the composition was to be altered 
at the Sun or the Moon). He gave a reference to some soliton papers
in an Appendix, but methinks he misunderstood the concept. Pressure
expansion in such a jet needs some positive effect to stop it; without
strong magnetic fields (like near compact objects) I can't see how
that would work.

On the subject: it is true that an atmosphere placed at the Moon would
last for "historically relevant times".

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.space