HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:02:56 GMT

A lot of people obviously feel that Skylab was worth saving.  Was it?
 
Although items such as food and clothing could have been replenished
rather easily, I'm under the impression that oxygen and nitrogen could
not.  Skylab was essentially designed as a "throw-away" workshop not
a real space station.  I assume that there was a comfortable safety margin
built into Skylab, but how much life support capability was left after
the last crew departed? 
 
I suppose that one could have docked an "environmental module" with
replenishable O2 and N2 tanks at the docking port and, with suitable
ventilation, kept the workshop habitable.  Were plans for such a
"life extension" module ever considered?  

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:41:14 GMT
Organization: Fermilab Grossforschungenseinrichtungen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnala.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec20.191355.2914@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
> 
> I think that any nation that can put an object in a precision orbit has
> the capability to knock down satellites in LEO. 

Reasonable.

> Only the US and the former
> USSR have demonstrated that capability, but in principle it's not an extremely
> difficult job, and there's really no defense against a cloud of debris in
> your spysat's path.

Only the US and the former USSR?  I think ESA, ISAS, NASDA, and Great
Wall, Inc. might disagree with you.  They might also point out that
Israel and India have launched satellites on multiple occasions, and
ask you how you define "precision orbit."  France, Britain, and Italy
are kind of retired from the launch business, but they are ESA
partners.  Brazil is coming up fast as a contender here.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | if properly placed."
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: gcoleman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George Coleman)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:37:54 GMT


>why waste your time setting up a straw man?  If the space station freedom was 
>able to keep a 7:1 return then it would have no problem recieving funding.

Ok, maybe they wouldn't be able to keep a 7:1 ratio.  I still feel thing that 
even a small portion of that would make it profitable for *private* investment.
Do some quick math.  Even SSF making 15% of the net benifit it still amounts to
an more than an 85% return on investment for R&D on top of actual work done 
there.  Even if there is a need for goverment sponsered R&D I would think the 
money could be better spent on a special program for R&D.

>We can't keep all humanity on earth.  What about an astroid....

For that matter what about the Fermi paradox?  If we go poking around in space 
it makes us very visable to (agressive) aliens.  Maybe we should turn off
radio broadcasts and hide on the earth as long as possible.  There are
calculated risks for astroid strikes.  From these calculations you can apply
logic rules for operating under uncertanty.  If you disregard logic than the
Fermi paradox could be just as valid as astroid stikes.

All goverment programs take money out of society.  I personally feel the free
market is much better at figuring out cost/benifits than goverment dispersment.
 There is value in exploring and using space.  The government should just get
out of the way.  They should ignore the leage of nations B.S. about space being
all man's property and every country should have equal developement.  The
should get rid of the artificial obsticels and let free enterprise explore
space. There is one big exception I can think of, defense.  If there is an
effective defense program that involves space, great.  For example, armouring
satilites with astroids would be good.  Current weapon arsinals are deployed
with the idea that most of the satilites will be knocked out.  If we armour
satilites we can reduce weapon arsonals- that easy.

 Ed Coleman
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Lunar Resource Mapper Status (Was Re: funding for Lunar Prospector)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 14:28 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <BzMx43.Kvy@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <BzM3BE.GvJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>>So what happens if the government breaks what you consider to be a promise
>>and decides a lunar resource mapper is a good idea? Given this "approval",
>>is it possible that they would be willing to involve these guys?
> 
>Hard to call -- much depends on just how you assume the change would
>happen -- but it seems possible.
> 
>There is no promise that the government won't pursue a lunar resource
>mapper, but it seems unlikely at the moment.  Congress wouldn't give Goldin
>a measly $30M to get one started.
>-- 

Lunar Resource Mapper is not dead as of this time. Work is still progressing
at the two contractors selected for the Phase A study. (Martin & Boeing)
This at present is unfunded by NASA but indications are that money will be
available for the studies in the spring. So don't count LRM dead yet. 

Also the 32 million requested was not to "get started". It was for the entire
satellite. This did not of course cover the other costs such as the launch
or operations.

Also there are other Lunar missions that are NASA supported and under 
consideration. One is the Lunar Geophysical Explorer sponsored by JPL.  There is
also another private effort waiting in the wings if these NASA supported 
mission do not come off. No I won't give any information on the private effort
yet. It will not go forward unless the NASA efforts clearly are not going to
be funded. This effort is not in any way connected to Lunar Prospector however
and is guaranteed to cost less and already has significant aerospace support.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for?
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:53:42 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <725748565snz@chrism.demon.co.uk> chris@chrism.demon.co.uk writes:
>What is the design lifetime of a shuttle orbiter?  ie, how many times is
>it designed to be reused?

If memory serves, they are supposed to be good for 100 flights each.
Doubts have been expressed about whether they are actually good for
that lifetime.
-- 
"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: GEO satellites as electrical vehicles
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:10:31 GMT

Regarding Geosynchronous satellites launched from a DC-1


> Allen W. Sherzer writes:
>
>  Maybe you use lower costs to fly redundant satellites, each less relaible.
> When one breaks, it uses a high efficiency electric engine to come back to
> LEO where it is repaired, refueled, and returned. Maybe we abandon comsats
> in GEO and place them in LEO. I can think of lots of alternatives.


        An interesting idea.  Modern comsats have several kilowatts of power,
enough to run an ion or arcjet engine.  An electric engine running off a few
kilowatts has a mass of only a few kg, so could easily be carried on the
vehicle.  The same ion engine could be used for station keeping - all that
would be required is a larger propellant supply to allow for return to LEO.
A major problem would probably be radiation damage due to having to spend
some months in the Van Allen belts as the satellite spirals down to LEO.
This damages solar cells, but if the array is replacable, this might not be
too bad.  Other electronics might have to be replaced because of radiation
damage, but during servicing it might be desirable to replace them anyway for
updating and extension of service life.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
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: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:07:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.021648.20737@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch vehicle ever
>>operated.

>At $37,500 a pound Pegasus is over three times the cost of Shuttle. 

A pegasus flight is more like $12,000 a pound. However, if you used
the same accounting methods, Peagasus would be far far cheaper. Remember
that OSC paid the cost of development for Pegasus and charges it to
customers. Shuttle costomers however aren't required to pay for the
billions spent on Shuttle.

    Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------113 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: pteich@cayman.amd.com (Paul Teich)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Looking for sci.space archives
Summary: Just the last couple of months
Keywords: archive space
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:56:47 GMT
Reply-To: pteich@cayman.amd.com (Paul Teich)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Austin, TX

I'm looking for sci.space archives which cover the last couple of months;
my news feed only holds a day or two.
Any info appreciated, thanks,
--
Paul R. Teich                          pteich@cayman.AMD.COM
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.           Direct 1-512-462-4268
5900 E. Ben White Blvd., MS 561        WATS   1-800-538-8450 x54268
Austin, Texas  78741                   FAX    1-512-462-4756
===============================================================================
Religion loses its meaning as soon as it's explained.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:10:21 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

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,
which by simple lack of money was _forced_ into a schedule that
allowed for little unit testing.  You then use its almost inevitable
failure as a bludgen to beat up the well-funded DC-1 program.

For shame.
-- 
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,talk.politics.space
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: The Real Justification for Space Exploration
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:02:40 GMT

In article <1h9p9fINN6l3@transfer.stratus.com> det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland) writes:
>It seems to me that all of these spinoff arguments, Malthusian
>arguments, and "dinosaur killer" arguments miss the point.
>Asking "why explore space?" is like asking "why feed the starving?",
>"why create art?", or "why do basic science?"  It all comes down to
>basic human drives, and I would argue that the drive to explore is
>just as basic as the drive to help, to create, or to learn.

I would argue that there are a lot of other things that are basic human drives,
some a lot less benign.  (You can name your own examples.)

We humans have the capability to decide to override our instincts when we can
figure out that following them is not good for us.  To claim that exploration
is a basic drive is not a justification--if anything, it reduces space
exploration to the human equivalent of lemmings running over a cliff.  (No
posts about staged lemming marches, please.)

>When Sir Edmund Hillary was asked why he climbed Everest, he answered,
>"Because it's there."  The same answer is just as appropriate for why
>we explore space -- because the entire universe is out there...

If you must succumb to your animal instincts, go ahead.  I suggest not using
public money, taxed from me whether I want to support your instincts or not.
If you're getting the money from me, you had better argue that the program is
actually beneficial, not just that your personal instinct commands it.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:02:12 GMT

In article <BzMz4K.Lz5.1@cs.cmu.edu> ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com writes:
> One part of your discussion disturbs me.  Money can be accumulated, and
> horded, and stolen.  However, money must be MADE first.  I'm not a 
...
> As to what this has to do with the justification of space, I would say that
> opportunities to MAKE money are abundant in space if the technology and
> resources are put to good use.  This, in turn, increases the cumulative
> wealth of the planet.  


Yes, that's right.  The problem is that when space is actually
compared with more mundane ways of creating wealth on earth, it
doesn't look all that good.  Sure, there are some niches, like
communications (soon to face strong competition from fiber optics) and
position location.  But schemes for energy or material mined in space
are just too expensive, speculative, poorly justified and long term
for an investor to take seriously.

More generally, raw materials costs are a rather small and shrinking
fraction of GNP.  Focusing on them is to ignore the real driver of
competitive advantage, productivity.  We don't make better and cheaper
cars or computers by cramming more steel and coal into the factory; we
do it by being smarter in how we design and manufacture them.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Depleted uranium
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: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:46:54 GMT


-From: vulch@kernow.demon.co.uk (Anthony Frost)
-Subject: Re: Breeder reactors
-Date: 23 Dec 92 00:14:34 GMT
-Organization: VCS Kernow
 
-  >> cost? (For that matter, how much does U235-depleted uranium
-  >> cost?) 
 
-  > I'd think it should be free to anyone wanting to haul it
-  > away (though the governement probably doesn't treat it that
-  > way). 
 
-I believe a fair quantity of it gets used in munitions. A depleted uranium
-slug coming out of some form of gun goes through armour plating quite
-nicely. Apparently, along with the bits that go bang, kids in Kuwait are
-encouraged not to pick up any they see round the desert due to slight
-residual radioactivity!

The antimissile Phalanx guns on warships use uranium slugs. I don't know
about other weapons.

I believe depleted uranium is also used as ballast in commercial aircraft.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 22 Dec 92  09:55:36

Again, the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act will provide a solid funding base 
for a resumption of lunar science flights. Congress didn't fund NASA's lunar
orbiters, because of the fear that a new start for SEI hardware would be an
implicit new start for a manned return to the Moon (remember, that was George 
Bush's proposal). This new approach alleviates that concern, but does get us
lunar science data soon.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: aerospikes
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:36:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <ewright.724962671@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <BzHGox.9Lx@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>
>>Substantial cross-range is indeed primarily a military requirement,
>>driven by the one-orbit mission, whose basic rationale is deploying a
>>spy satellite -- or doing any of a number of other things -- in wartime
>>conditions where coming around again in a predictable orbit is likely
>>to result in being shot at.
>
>Of course, if the enemy has the capability to shoot at you, he also
>has the capability to shoot down that nice, new spy satellite, which
>is also in a predictable orbit.  It is not clear to me that this
>requirement was well thought-out.

Now now...

We more-or-less know where all the KH-whatevers and Lacrosse SAR sats are; I'm
sure the proper information can be pulled off of Compu$erve or Internet within
a matter of minutes without a lot of sweat work. Or a couple quick phone calls
to snotty schoolboys in England :). 

This process is helped along by DoD announcing they are launching a classified
mission and everyone with half an interest, including (but not limited to)
curious U.S. citizens and the KGB watches the Shuttle/Titan IV go up from the
Cape/Vandenburg, and works the math, all the while having their telescopes
turned upward to watch what's happened within a 90 minute interval. 

Contrast this with one (or more) flights out of Nevada or White Sands which may
or may not be significant (helps if you've been running up and back to LEO for
a while as a regular habit) and kicking out the sat on one of those runs. 

The cheap-sat may be in a predictable orbit, but you are now faced with
detecting it without the benefit of CNN coverage. To make life more difficult,
you transmit UPward to a relay station in geosync (TDRS, take your pick), which
then routes the information automagically to wherever you want/need it.

Now, unless you have information from umm.. SPACETRACK? in NORAD, you have to
pick cheap-sat out of all the other man-made objects in orbit via some optical
means (hope it's not a cloudy night, but that cuts both ways) or with radar.

I don't think it's all THAT easy to find something in orbit if you don't
already have a clue as to what it is and if it isn't emitting so a ground-based
receiver can "hear" it. I'll punt to the North, and let Henry tackle THAT
particular issue...

Add to the equasion a couple of Iridium-ish constellations and life gets real
interesting.

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 03:42:07 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

No one has mentioned using a cylinder of aluminum with perhaps a star
shaped core and spraying LOX down it.  The aluminum is both the fuel
and structure.  Running it until much before burn through is probably a
bad idea, but it may be cheaper than importing steel shells from earth.

Doing casting in an unknown enviroment with bulky molds could be a
problem.  Instead it might be possible to build up a cylinder from
a lightweight aluminum frame on the moon in layers by either aluminum
liquid or vapor.  Oxygen tanks might be made this way as well.

I guess this would be a solid/liquid hybrid motor of which I have heard
little about.  Are there serious problems with hybrid motors or with
what I've outlined above?
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:10:24 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <ewright.725648366@convex.convex.com>

>All of which is irrelevent.  The Shuttle's design goal was to reduce
>the cost of space transportation.  Its size, reuseability, etc. were
>features decided on to meet that goal.  But instead of reducing costs,
>the Shuttle increased them.
>
>It is a failure.

  Size was increased to accomodate the military, not meet the reduced
  cost goal (and you call me a revisionist!) Reusability was and still
  is considered critical to meeting the low-cost objective. That payload
  return is a capability seldom used is beside the point. That the
  Shuttle is a failure is certainly true, as long as you believe Shuttle's
  only purpose was to haul cargo into LEO cheaply. I do not agree, and
  the presense of astronauts aboard certainly points to something else
  being a very highly-regarded design goal. 

>>  Shuttle is also as much a technology demonstrator as it is a launch
>>  system.

>I see you've graduated from the Gary Coffman School of Historical
>Revisionism. :-)  The Shuttle was not designed as a technological
>demonstrator, but an operational vehicle.  If there was a technology
>demonstrator for the Shuttle program, it would be the X-15 or X-24.

    See above reply regarding revisionism. X-15 is a program very
    distantly related to the Shuttle, and it's goals were to expand
    the high speed, high altitude flight regime. That in doing so it
    gave NASA alot of information to use when designing Shuttle was
    just good luck, but the USSR flew their Shuttle without ever
    building an X-15 clone. HL-10/M2-F2/X-24 are certainly related
    to Shuttle, but they only demonstarted the landing portion of the
    technology, and the wingless lifting body was not used, anyway.
    
>Yes, to "failure-oriented" managers, the fact that a project failed
>is always beside the point.  (After all, don't we expect every
>project to fail?)

    Only when dealing with technology that has never been done before,
    such as the reusable spaceship. Twelve years after maiden flight
    and still nobody else has done that.
    
    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space