HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:30:32 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
-Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
-Date: 11 Aug 92 18:41:07 GMT

-In article <63811@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
-> Would it be possible to put something in near orbit over Nevada and 
-> attach tethers to it so that people could reach the object via 
-> elevators?  I know it wouldn't be easy, but is there a way to pull 
-> this off?

-Hmm. Interesting question.  To first order:  No, it's impossible, for two
-reasons.   

-When you say "orbit," you usually mean "Keplerian orbit," a free body
-that stays on its path without applying any thrust.  Nothing in a
-Keplerian orbit can hover over Nevada, since the plane of its orbit
-*must* pass through the center of the Earth.  

-It *is* possible for an object in orbit to hover over a spot on the
-Equator, if it takes exactly 24 hours to make one revolution AND its
-orbital plane is the plane of the Equator AND its orbit is a circle. 
-Then the Earth rotates underneath it as it cirlces and it stays over
-one spot.  "Geostaionary" communication satellites do this all the
-time.  It's called "Clarke orbit."

A possible workaround is to build an anchor in Nevada, and another one
at a corresponding point in the southern hemisphere (same longitude, and
same latitude, except S instead of N), then run *two* tethers to a point
in equatorial orbit, one from each anchor. This was discussed several
months ago, with the anchor points being the poles. Lower latitude ought
to work better.

I don't see much point in it, though. And why Nevada? Is it some intricate 
scheme to get around the state and county laws regarding gambling and such? :-)

-The second impossibility is that there is no material strong enough to
-make the "elevator cable" out of.  Crudely speaking, it has to hold up
-its own weight as well as the weight of an elevator, or other payload,
-and nothing we have now is strong enough.  Such a device is often
-called a "beanstalk," by the way. 

Is that still true even of tapered tethers?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Xref: sparky sci.space:11719 sci.physics:12753
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:55:41 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <ZOWIE.92Aug12004854@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>
>This talk of parsecs and so forth reminds me of my favorite volumetric unit:
>the barn megaparsec.
>
>A barn is a unit of atomic cross-section, 10^-20 cm^2.  A barn megaparsec is
>about 1.6 teaspoons!

Cute, but I have always preferred the Hubble-barn.  Granted, the exact 
value of the Hubble constant is not exactly agreed upon, but I like 
the fact that if you multiply the size of the universe (one uses the 
Hubble length, obviously) by 1 barn you get something like 16 liters. 

(I used to have a gallon milk jug that I used for watering plants that 
had a mark at the 0.1 Hubble-barn level.  Very convenient.) 

My notes are scribbled in the back of "Gravitation", which is at work, 
but memory says that a Hubble-barn is the volume of a straw that has an 
opening the size of the nucleus of silver and reaches to the edge of 
the universe.  BTW, a barn is 10^{-24} cm^2 -- 1 fm^2 = 10 mb.

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Balloon Launches
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:09:14 GMT

I don't know if this is a wacko idea or what:

Has there ever been any proposal or even thought of using lighter-than-air
platforms for launching small payloads?  It seems to me that with a
dirigible designed to fly relativly fast, you could get pretty good cost
savings with it, as you could get both velocity and altitude advantages.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Star Trek (anti-)realism
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:39:28 GMT
Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ

In article <713917714snx@pands.demon.co.uk:, paul@pands.demon.co.uk (Paul Wilson) writes:
: > My favorite in science fiction space travel like Star Trek and Star Wars is
: > the asteroid field.  Never mind that even crowded fields they are still (in
: > reality) mostly space.
: True,  but reality can make for some pretty lousy TV!

True, and conversely, I must commend Star Trek for being *IN* *GENERAL* the
most accurate of the various popular Science Fiction television shows.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now.
Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO!
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:24:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug20.112421.8946
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <19AUG199220200286@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>It is simple. Look at the growth in size of geosync communications satellites.
>Ariannispace has and that is the basline for the growth into the Arianne 5.

Ariane 5 was sized for Hermes, with the capability of launching multiple
comsats tacked on to the requirments.  With the delays in Hermes that is
now the 5's primary task.  Despite silly Arianespace "studies" trying to
justify a Hermes-sized rocket, the next generation communications
satellites will be the same size (eg Intelsat-K).  They are looking for 
standardization, not to force a redesigned launcher for every new generation
of satellite.  Heavy-lift vehicles from Saturn to Energiya to NLS have 
not and do not have any sort of commercial market, despite $dozens of 
billions spent in them. Even the Titan IV has only a dwindling military market.

If rocket designers want to contribute to expanding space industry, they
need to change the nasty habits they have developed over the last two
decades of slow progress rocketry.  They must stop dictating to 
their customers and start giving them the services they need -- 
standardized, lower cost, more reliable launch.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cornutt@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt)
Subject: Seeking SSF payload user requirements
Keywords: SSF payload USOC UOF
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:32:50 GMT

I am seeking requirements and inputs from SSF payload users whose
payloads are sponsored by one of the three NASA payload offices (Office
of Space Science and Applications (OSSA), Office of Aeronautics and
Space Technology (OAST), and Office of Commercial Programs (OCP)).  My
group, working for the Marshall Space Flight Center Mission Operations
Lab, is gathering information about user requirements for the U.S. 
Operations Center (USOC).  We would like to get information about
people's operations concepts: how would you like to control your
payload, where and how do you want to run things, and what kind of
interfaces and services (telemetry, command, voice, video, ancillary
data, etc.) do you need to do science?  Some general background info on
your payload would be nice too.  (I'm not asking anyone to reveal
private or proprietary information.)  Also, if you have flown previously
on Shuttle or Spacelab, a summary of your experiences, and suggestions
for how SSF could improve on these things, would be appreciated.  I can
be of help in providing information about ground systems concepts, and
dispelling rumors.

If you are seriously persuing flying a payload on SSF anytime during
the man-tended phase (or even later), I would like to hear from you. 
Please contact my by:

1. reply to this message
2. E-mail:  Internet:  cornutt@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov
            SPAN:      8849::CORNUTT
            NASAmail:  DCORNUTT
            GSFC Telemail:  (UN:DCORNUTT, SITE:NASA)
3. Phone: (205) 461-4517 (commercial and FTS)

Note that I am interested in hearing from potential payload users only;
flames about SSF from casual onlookers will be cheerfully ignored. 
Also, I work ground systems.  I have no direct influence over the
onboard system.  (If you want to send me comments about the onboard
system, I will pass them on, but I make no promises in that area.) 
-- 
David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL  (205) 461-6457
(cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies)
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."
From: marina@tk.mainet.msk.su (Naumenko M.V.)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: To anyone who is interested in science
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:13:16 GMT
Reply-To: marina@tk.mainet.msk.su
Organization: Moscow Aviation Institute, PDTK


We apply   to everybody  who  is   interested in future  Russian
science; who would like to assist it to integrate  in  the World
science society.
We  need  information  about Foundations and other organizations
those   are   interested   in    attraction    russian   science
organizations into a science research but also about  conditions
of participation russian  scientists  in  this projects. Besides
we would like to know about questions of finance.
We  hope on   establishment of  interaction  and  development of
international cooperation.

        Best regards.
                    M. Naumenko
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
From: todd@numep2.phys.nwu.edu (Todd Pedlar)
Subject: Re: Tethered Satellite
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:29:00 GMT

In article <tking.920813132256@eng.auburn.edu>, tking@eng.auburn.edu (Thomas L. King) writes...
>Everything I've read about the tethered satellite's electric generation
>capacity has been that it will be able to generate up to 4000 volts.  This
>in itself doesn't tell me very much.  Has anyone heard how much POWER it
>will generate (or how much current will be generated)?  In addition, does
>anyone know the current carrying capacity of the tether?  I can't imagine
>any significant amount of current flowing through a wire as thin as a
>"bootlace".

I'm not sure if anyone has yet estimated the current expected, and I don't
have the time to attempt an estimate here, but I do know there are those
kind of details in a quite recent issue of the EOS newsletter.

>And one last wonder of mine:  how will the heat generated
>by the current be dissipated in space without an atmosphere?
> 

How does the heat generated by the sun get to us???

ans:  "...Radiation, man!"

>Any answers (or attempted explinations) will be appreciated.
> 
> 
>Lee King
>tking@eng.auburn.edu

tkp

______________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                !
Graduate Student              !   ...said one termite to the other at Smokey's
Department of Physics         !   Bar & Grill, " Is the bartender here? "    
Northwestern University       ! 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: evert@CPSnet2.cps.edu (Mike Evert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: What is DCX
Date: 16 Aug 92 23:49:48 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

This question is for Allen Scherzer:

What is DCX?  A previous acronyms posting tells me that is the Delta Clipper.
What is it designed to do and how far along is it to being operational?

I'm new to this news group so if DCX has been discussed before, please forgive
me.

Thanks,

Mike

-- 
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
|  Mike Evert                      | "You are helplessly hypnotized.  You  |
|  Internet: evert@CPSnet2.cps.edu |  will believe everything I tell you.  |
|    Delphi: LordMike@delphi.com   |  This quoted message does not exist." |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What about Saturn?/Future not Past
Date: 20 Aug 92 07:42:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1549@hsvaic.boeing.com>, eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
> Dr. Robert Bussard is working under contract to DARPA to develop an
> 'electric fusion' machine.  The way it would work is to set up
> a chamber bounded by current-carrying wires, 
[...description of trapping mechanism and energy conversion deleted]
> Electrons are much lighter than ions, and
> thus are easier to control with magnetic fields - rather than
> trying to contain a plasma directly with magnetic fields as the
> Tokamak tries to do.

Sounds neat, but my physics intuition tells me that there may be lots
of subtle effects to make this harder than it looks.  Where can we
read up on the details of Bussard's scheme?

> You dump megavolt electron beams into a chamber (this is a souped
> up TV tube, which uses 20 kilovolt electron beam to illuminate the
> phosphors).  The beam energy is absorbed in a few tens of cm by
> your propellant, getting it very hot, then it goes out a nozzle.

Great!  A rocket exhaust that also shows NASA Select during launch!

> This system is close to the 'Mr Fusion' we saw in 'Back to the
> Future', and allows building real spacecraft, ones that don't
> fall apart (stage) in flight.

But can it run on banana peels and stale beer?

> This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than cryogenic
> rocket engines would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
> actually built for the first time in the 50's.

This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than magnetic
confinment fusion devices would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
actually built for the first time in the 50's.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Xref: sparky sci.space:11890 sci.physics:12912
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
From: traal@clmqt.marquette.MI.US (Brian Phillips)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 09:36:39 EDT

In <1992Aug13.090057.13805@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:

>rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:

>>In article keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>...at the distance of one parsec, one astronomical unit subtends an
>>>angle of one arc second.

>>Coincidence.  Remember, one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun...

>No, THAT, my friend, is the DEFINITION of a parsec...


   If you're differing on the definition of a word, why not just look the
thing up?

     "A unit of astronomical length based on the distance from earth at which
      stellar parallax is one second of arc and equal to 3.258 light years or 
      1.918x10^13 miles.  [PAR(ALLAX) + SEC(OND)]."

      SOURCE:  The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
               New College Edition.

  --Traal the BRAVE 
--
   EMAIL (the good, the bad, or the flame) to:  traal@clmqt.marquette.MI.US
             "Realism is often misconstrued as pessimism." -- BPP 
           "My mailer hates everybody, be sneaky." -- Mary Margaret 
    "Take a walk through the looking glass and see the other side." -- BPP
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:38:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.160633.20164@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>No. Launch costs are dominated by support personel costs. Since we
>only require one Shuttle launch to serve the function that you 
>want to service with four separate launches, we save support costs.

The numbers simply don't bear that out. Shuttle fixed costs are enoumous
and for the past 11 years have been pretty independant of the number
of flights.  Therefore the reduced suuttle utilization required by
using Shuttle for ACRV WILL increase costs.

As to my needing more launches, So what? All launches are not equal and
mine cost a fraction of what yours cost. The bottom line is that shuttle
based approaches for station crew rotation and resuply costs about $5 billion
per year and expendable approaches costs about $1 billion per year. The
expendable approaches also offer greater flexability and fallbacks should
one component because grounded.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------250 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: HUNTRESS@npt.nusc.navy.mil (HUNTRESS GARY B)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: PAVE PAWS
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:24:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BtAAn3.5z1.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

>>PAVE PAWS radar in Georgia for warning of SLBM attack, which I
>>think had a good chance of seeing a meteoroid off Daytona Beach.

>The system at Warner Robbins AFB has only been activated at full power
>*one* time.  The effects at the (then) SAC flight line were such that 
>the system hasn't been turned on since. Can you say boondoggle? I
>knew you could.

I worked at PAVE PAWS "East" on Cape Cod when the system at Warner Robbins
was brought online.  Their system was an upgraded version of ours, with the
primary addition being more active array elements, hence more transmit power. 
I understood the problem to be associated with emi levels on the flight line
especially regarding the ejection seat explosive initiators.  I know that WR
was online when I left the Cape in '87, but at the lower power level.   

(second msg):
: I don't even know if they run PAVE PAWS 24 hours/day x 7 days/week anymore.
: Budget cuts and our friends the Russians' ya know...
:SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU 

Although the primary mission of PAVE PAWS is detection of SLBM, it's not the
ONLY mission.  A satellite "breaking the fence" looks pretty much like a SLBM
until the Cybers figure out range-deltas-RCS etc...  So, the 24 hour/day x 7
day/week mission is to detect, catalog, and track something like 5000 
different space objects.  

And, as far as being a boondoggle or subject to budget cuts, the system was
relatively cheap to build and very cheap to run.  

Gary Huntress
huntress@npt.nusc.navy.mil
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: naylor@research.canon.oz.au (William Naylor)
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:49:51 GMT

A private company called "Astrotech" has been trying to get
into the space business (Astrotech is a public company; its stock
trades on the American stock exchange in the USA).

2 years ago they tried to convince NASA to sell them a space shuttle,
which they would finance by a public share offering.  NASA refused for
various reasons.


-- 
William Naylor                               | naylor@research.canon.oz.au
Canon Information Systems Research Australia | Phone +61 2 805 2000
PO Box 313 NORTH RYDE NSW 2113               | Fax   +61 2 805 2929
From: rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar System Journal
Keywords: planets,humor,NASA
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:28:44 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

ADDENDUM

GIOCOBBI-ZINNER

memorable pictures: none, only particles and fields experiments

This was one of the few examples of piracy by one member of the
space community by another that I can recall.  The spacecraft 
was launched as a solar wind monitoring craft and was never 
designed for comet encounters.  When NASA decided to reassign it
to comet encounter duty, it was over protests by some team members
who lost their experiments.  It really appears that number one)

   1) NASA had realized they were going to lose international
prestige by not joining the international flotilla of Halley 
encounter spacecraft (Europe, Soviets, and Japanese).  

What to DO?

    2) send one of their own craft to make a first encounter
with a comet, albeit, a one very poorly designed for such an
encounter, and claim a PR victory by making their encounter 
before the Halley flotilla arrived at Halley. hence the
Giocobbi-Zinner encounter.

The other example of space piracy?  A perfectly healthy 
working earth orbiting satellite that was shot down to
test and probably also give PR boosts to SDIO, 4-5 years 
ago.  You can bet the scientific investigators were mad 
about that one as well.
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 19:01:23 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Aug12.152900.19426@pixel.kodak.com>
  <1992Aug12.174454.2675@access.digex.com>
  <1992Aug13.210449.29829@pixel.kodak.com>
  <16eqs1INNb5k@early-bird.think.com>

"I don't see much point in it, though. And why Nevada? Is it some
intricate scheme to get around the state and county laws regarding
gambling and such? :-)"
 
Yes, air space over a state is controlled by the laws in that state.
I assume this will eventually happen with the space near the Earth
over the state as well.  Therefore I want to build a casino over
Nevada, with no tethers passing over the airspace over any other
states and/or countries.  My question is how much thrust would I
need to do this?
 
"I don't remember diamond featuring as tether material.  However, since
it is (theoretically) a single-molecule solid, the answer is
(theoretically) yes."
 
How strong could a perfectly made diamond tether be?  Could it support
an elevator?  Anything heavier?  How long could it get?
 
                                                             Eric Klien.