HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: SEI
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:41:19 GMT

roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>...SEI didn't sell, largely because of the projected 
>horrendous cost (~$400 billion, if I recall correctly). [liability
>to any mission related to SEI, "camel's nose under tent" effect]

SEI was the ultimate manifestation of the old NASA/Von Braun style 
of space development, sold honestly.  We're going to tell you today 
just how we're going to develop space, out into the middle of the next 
century.  We've got all the Next Logical Steps planned out, just so.  
Of course there won't be any technological advance before 2030 that 
would make our plans obsolete.  Of course we won't discover anything on
the asteroids that would make them better targets than the Moon
or Mars, or on the comets, or on Jupiter, or anywhere else in
space; obviously the Moon and Mars are the Next Logical Steps
and that's that.  Obviously the commercial and military satellites
are just trivial child's play against our inspiring and ambitious
Plan.  Obviously Man In Space is central, and robot probes will play 
only a peripheral role, and no technoligical advance can change that.
This is a Long Term Plan, so don't expect any sort of applications 
or payback, except of course there will be Spinoffs.

STS and SSF, the first two Logical Steps, were sold dishonestly,
claiming dramatic capabilities that were cut back to trivia and huge 
breakthroughts that became huge liablities.  SEI was the second two 
Logical Steps, sold more honestly: we're going to spend your tax
money, tons of it, with no application or payback at all, except
the sheer Adventure of it.  

When honestly presented, The Plan is most thoroughly rejected.  

It's time to move on to the 21st century instead of trying to
implement the myths of the first half of the 20th, fantasies
political (central planning economics) and technoligical (space
stations, shuttles, Buck Rogers, etc.).  Done is the era
of the dominance of Man in Space, coming is the dominance of 
Space for the wants and needs of Mankind.  Out goes prejudiced
central planning and Next Logical Steps, in comes building 
space infrastructure through emergent competition, and 
adaptation to change.  Begone with technology as religious
sacrament; let's use technology as tool. 

The 21st century will soon be here.  Toto, I don't think we're 
in Kanas any more!


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: Genetically Engineered Microbes in Real Use?
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:59:30 GMT

In article <Jan05.205254.60138@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> wallacen@ColoState.EDU writes:
>I recall hearing on Chicken Noodle News that a bacterium (*Chlostridium*
>I suspect, they'll eat virtually anything, including those buried polystyrene
>bottles which were supposed to last ten thousand years and instead lasted
>five or so...) has been developed to help in some types of oil spills and
>was successfully used in a spill near Galveston a few years ago. Anyone
>know more about this?

Yes, a specially tailored microbe was used to "bioremediate" a small oil
spill in Galveston Bay a year or two ago.  It worked quite well.  In
fact, if the EPA and other groups had allowed it to be used earlier the
entire slick would have been eaten up while still in the bay.  It was
sprayed on a section of the slick that hit some wetlands.

The state of Texas has a stock of the bugs available at all times for
use on spills of reasonable size.  I have heard that if the cleanup of
the Exxon Valdez had not been such a political fiasco, they could have
used the microbes on it and significantly reduced the damage done.
There is substantial opposition to use of such microbes by certain
eco-idiot factions which has slowed their acceptance.  Such antics don't
go over well here in Texas, and they were unable to stop their use.


-- 
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 16:51:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1993Jan6.025846.15440@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>For station logistics, we should use Atlas(Titan)/Soyuz for crew transfer
>and Zenith Star HLV's for material. This will save us $2 to $3 billion
>per year (we can start on the Lunar base with the savings) PLUS produce
>significant reductions in overall US launch costs.

Uh oh, it's "Kill the Shuttle and tons of money become available" again.

>There is no need to man rate. It adds cost but doesn't affect
>safety. If it where your money would buy the $70 million 98% safe
>Atlas or the $90 million 98% safe Atlas?

YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who
goes up on it IS going to disagree with you. 

I realize you'd like to treat people as another type of expendable, but it just
ain't so in the Western World. 

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date:  7 Jan 93 20:36:22 GMT

dg@cam-orl.co.uk (Dave Garnett) writes:

>Peering at a cut-away drawing of the Lunar Module the other day
>I noticed what appears to be a Radioisotope Thermal Generator
>mounted on the outside low down.

>Was this intended to power some experiment - I don't think
>that they generate very much power (order 80 watts ?)

>What are the radiation hazards (to the crew) associated
>with such a thing, as I understand that they comprise an
>unshielded lump of plutonium ?

>Dave

I recall watching a live moonwalk on T.V. (before reruns of I LOVE LUCY
took precedence over live lunar feeds) during one of the later Apollos
(color lunar camera) while the astronauts prepared one of the lunar
surface experiment packages.  A pole several feet long was used to 
lift the RTG and place it into the power generator, before carrying
the generator to the deployment site.

While the astronaut was carrying the RTG-on-a-stick, he commented that
he could feel the heat right through the suit.  Was he joking?  I didn't
think so.  There is a vague recollection of an expert network sidekick
talking about how hot it was to Mr. Conkrite.  The temperature that comes
to mind was 1500 F.  Any comments?  Is this value real or just faulty
recollection?

Curt roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:33:47 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan9.041013.27969@siemens.com> aad@siemens.com (Anthony Datri) writes:
>I must admit some skepticism wrt meteorites that are claimed to have been
>ejected from Luna and Mars.

The evidence for the lunar meteorites is pretty convincing.  The Mars ones
aren't as solidly established, but they're getting there.
-- 
"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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:30:47 GMT

In article <cfHN0fO00WCqA8a2NW@andrew.cmu.edu> dm3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Allen Markley) writes:

>Does anyone have the design goals for the Delta Clipper program?
>Specifically I'd like to know what performance they hope to acheive and
>by when.

the DC-Y goals are 20,000 pounds to LEO (10K to polar) with an operational
cost of $1 to %10 million per flight and one week turnaround of the
vehicle (three days in an emergency). In addition, there is a crossrange
requirement for a single orbit mission and some delta-V on orbit.

  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----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 01/05/93
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Magellan, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:44:00 GMT

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011


                     MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                         January 5, 1993

     The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally,    
orbiting Venus 50 times each week and transmitting a carrier
radio signal which is precisely tracked by the Deep Space Network
stations to extract gravity data.

     By analyzing the subtle changes in the Magellan orbit,
scientists are able to map the variations in the interior of the
planet, and compare those variations with surface features.
Unlike Earth, there is a strong correlation between the internal
concentrations of mass at Venus and its surface topography.

     Magellan arrived at Venus August 10, 1990 and has completed
6,478 orbits; 842 orbits have been completed so far in this
fourth 243-day cycle which ends on May 25, 1993.
                              _____
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.
From: reeder@reed.edu (P. Douglas Reeder)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: talk on meteors and fireballs in the northwest
Keywords: meteors, fireballs, Oregon L-5, OMSI
Date: 5 Jan 93 05:03:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1993Jan5.050301.24549
Distribution: or
Organization: Div, Grad & Curl


Great Balls o' Fire!
Meteors and Fireballs in Northwest Skies
a talk presented by Dick Pugh,
including a slideshow and meteorite display

2 p.m.  Saturday January 9, 1993
at the OMSI Annex ("old OMSI building")
4015 SW Canyon Road, across from the zoo
free admission (donations welcome)

sponsored by the Oregon L-5 Society, 
a chapter of the National Space Society

for more information contact
Bryce Walden at (503) 655-6189
or Doug Reeder at reeder@reed.edu
or the Oregon L-5 Society at P.O. Box 86 Oregon City, OR 97045

-- 
Doug Reeder                              Internet: reeder@reed.EDU
Div, Grad & Curl                         USENET:   ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
programming & derivative work            BITNET:   reeder@reed.BITNET
I am actively seeking scientific programming contracts.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: testing rockets
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:31:41 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ewright.726532221@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>... a typical aircraft
>might fly 400 times before it's declared operational.  How
>long would it take to build and launch 400 expendable rockets,
>even if you could afford to?

Turn it around:  what does it say about current rocket design, when you
(a) can't afford to test them thoroughly, and (b) couldn't do it in a
timely fashion anyway?

Spaceflight will not become cheap and routine until launchers *can* be
tested as rigorously as aircraft.

This will require changes in design approach, not just streamlining of
procedures and economies of scale.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Making Antimatter
Date: 9 Jan 1993 16:12 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Jan08.193145.59326@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, wallacen@beethoven.cs.ColoState.EDU writes...
> 
>Reality Check:
>We have never actually made antimatter. We have made anti-particles,
>but as yet they have never been cold enough to try to get them to
>link up into matter. Supposedly this experiment is intended in the
>relatively near future; perhaps Bill Higgins could comment on this.

using laser cooling techniques ?

any reference on this experiment ?




Igor
Texas A&M University
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:33:27 GMT
	<1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca>
	<ewright.726345157@convex.convex.com>
	<1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca> <C0Hun4.13t@zoo.toronto.edu>
	<1993Jan8.183031.12692@ke4zv.uucp>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gary@ke4zv.uucp's message of Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:30:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.183031.12692@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

   In article <C0Hun4.13t@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
   >In article <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
   >>But the airlines do not contract out their operations.  They procure
   >>planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them.

   >Actually, it is not at all uncommon for airlines to lease planes complete
   >with crews, or to contract with specialists for support services like
   >maintenance.  Leasing services are among the airliner companies' biggest
   >customers.

   Ok, let's try it another way. NASA sells Shuttle and it's support facilities
   at cost to Rockwell. NASA then buys a *ticket* when it needs a launch on
   Rockwell Spacelines, about 8 times a year. Rockwell Spacelines sells them
   the tickets at about 1.5 times current Shuttle flight costs, got to recoup
   the investment and turn a profit. The poor taxpayer takes it in the neck.

I'm coming in late on this thread, but consider why NASA operates its
own fleet of aircraft rather than lease them for all purposes.
In particular do people contend that say the Kuiper Observatory
should be put on a AA flight rather than a NASA owned Starlifter?

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:16:14 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>But the airlines do not contract out their operations.  They procure
>planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them.

Actually, it is not at all uncommon for airlines to lease planes complete
with crews, or to contract with specialists for support services like
maintenance.  Leasing services are among the airliner companies' biggest
customers.
-- 
"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: DCX tech. info?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:14:25 GMT

In article <10667.409.uupcb@the-matrix.com> george.gassaway@the-matrix.com (George Gassaway)  writes:

>What is the size (height, diameter) and mass of this first test prototype?

the DCX is 39 feet tall and weighs 22,200 pounds empty.

>Thrust?

On the order of 60,000 pounds but don't remember the exact amount.

>Flight profile of the prototype - low altitude hop, suborbital, orbital?

flight 1 is a low altitude hover test. Test two is a high-Q hover test.
test three demonstrates flying longer distances, some maneuvers to be
executed at reentry, and use of GPS.

>Re-entry/landing - heatshield, parachutes, powered descent al-la-LM?

DCX won't fly above 30,000 feet and lands with powered decent. there is
a parachute for emergencies.

  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
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: DC reentry
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:36:40 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ewright.726776389@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>... The Delta Clipper *is* shaped
>like a bullet.  It does not present its blunt surface (base) on entry.
>It makes a nose-first, high-angle-of-attack entry modelled after an
>ICBM-warhead trajectory.  This was chosen because of the large amount
>of data available from computer modelling of missile warheads.

Um, it may have shared a certain amount of design heritage with missile
warhead, but I'm pretty sure it does *not* share the trajectory, since
an ICBM-warhead trajectory involves retaining very high velocity down
almost to the ground.  (A certain amount of deceleration is inevitable
in thick low-altitude air.)  A spacecraft, e.g. DC, does almost all of
its decelerating at very high altitudes where the heat load is modest.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for?
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:56:39 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 <1993Jan4.181413.21254@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>There will be no private financing of a SSTO proof of concept. The current
>and projected market is simply too small and not profitable enough to
>warrent private capital.

With friends like you, who needs Gary Coffman? :-)

The one way to make certain there is no private financing is 
to place all your eggs in the DoD basket and not look for any.
This is very dangerous unless you believe DoD funding is a 
sure thing.  (In which case it's still dangerous, because
you'd be wrong.)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:20:05 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ewright.726514832@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them
>>quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine. 
>
>Microsats are incapable of replacing photorecon satellites.  The
>laws of physics prevent it.  To get adequate resolution, you need
>a large mirror (or large radar)...

Define "adequate".  Microsat levels of resolution should be adequate
for many military requirements.  Tactical commanders don't care about
the license-plate numbers on the tanks...

>>... We really didn't NEED to get the UN's blessing, did we?
>
>Of course we didn't.  The United States has gone to war numerous
>times in the past.  It has never needed permission of the United
>Nations before.  It was George Bush who set that (dangerous) precendent.

Careful here...  I don't know exactly what legal maneuvers took place
when the US formally joined the UN, but if the UN Charter has the status
of a Senate-ratified treaty, that means it has the force of law in the
US... and one of the clauses in there is a renunciation of war as an
instrument of national policy.

Of course, that just means everybody calls it a "police action" instead...
-- 
"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: ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt)
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:53:53 GMT

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

>Unfortunately, in the case of the heliogyro, there is a design constraint:
>having to feather the blades adds awkward complications at the hub, since
>now the hub ends of the blades must remain clear of each other through
>a 90-degree pitch change.  If you limit required pitch changes, the
>packaging problems at the hub are simplified, because you can stack the
>blades in multiple layers.  Since you want a large number of wide blades
>to compensate for the heliogyro's fundamental scaling disadvantage (area
>scales linearly, rather than quadratically, with diameter), packaging
>is a real problem at a modest-sized hub.  With 90-degree pitch changes,
>layers have to be separated by a full blade width.
  
 This must be solvable.  First, there is no reason why all of the blades
have to be attached to the hub at the same level (one could be above another)
This allows you to overlap blades and retain full control over blade angle.
Second, even if they were overlapping in the same plane, if you feather all
the blades at once, and in the same direction, they shouldn't interfere with
each other.  (like a venetian blind.) I admit it sounds risky (what if blades
catch?) but its no worse than any overlapping blades scheme.
 Another advantage of having 90 degree change is that it allows you to precess
the axis of the sail easily.  If you get the blades rotating with twice the
period of the heliogyro, so they are all horizantal on one side of the disk
and vertical on the other, this produce a constant torque with no additional
control inputs.  The only problem I see with this is a possible resonance
in the blades - oscillations could build up with each revolution.
  Are there any other ways to precess the axis?  The problem is that it is
very difficult to tilt the entire blade at once on a useful time scale.  By
the time the blade is doing what you want, it has rotated around to the other
side of the craft. (and is likely oscillating).
			Dave Patterson, guest on this account
Newsgroups: sci.space