HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: anybody got an analysis of the perot space position?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:07:42
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: caisr1.caisr.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: games@max.u.washington.edu's message of Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:09:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.110929.1@max.u.washington.edu> games@max.u.washington.edu writes:

>Now that Perot is back in the race, and looks like he might be a contender,
>does anybody out there have any scoop on what might happen to the space
>program under him?  (anybody actually KNOW what he is planning to do? or
>even what he has SAID that he is planning to do?)

Well, I skimmed the copy of _United_We_Stand_ recently posted to
alt.politics.perot (including a search for "space"), and the only
thing I could find was that he plans to kill Freedom.

From _United_We_Stand_, Chapter 3:

RP> Let me give you two examples of programs that we don't need:

RP> First, we are spending money on programs that are nice but not
RP> necessary. One example is the space station. I'm a supporter of
RP> scientific research. However, this is a huge undertaking for a
RP> nation with an operating deficit of over $330 billion. We should
RP> defer the space station until we have the money to pay for it.

	[ plan to eliminate the Rural Electrification Administration... ]

RP> There are many other candidates for elimination. Every program
RP> must be evaluated objectively. We should save only those programs
RP> we need for our future.

In my opinion, Perot has a valid complaint against the cost of SSF,
but deferring its construction is the worst possible way to deal with
this.  We don't want to have the space program on hold until 2010 or
2020 waiting for Freedom to be completed.

It would be better to either build it, replace it with a cheaper
design (i.e.  LLNL's inflatable station), or cancel it outright and
shift the focus to other avenues of exploration than to postpone or
stretch out this program any further.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:44:36 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Remember a week or so ago, when somebody on this newsgroup reminded us
>that the first flight of a V-2 (A-4, if you prefer) into "space" had
>taken place fifty years ago, in October 1942?

>Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this
>event have become a matter of controversy.  A local FM station carries
>the BBC World Service, and they reported that the German government
>had withdrawn its support, or approval, or something, from a
>commemoration sponsored by private aerospace groups.  Ceremonies were
>supposed to take place at Peenemuende, the military base on the Baltic
>where the A-4 was developed.  

>Has anybody heard more detail?  Has the story appeared in print?

There are threads re: this topic in soc.culture.german.  I believe the last
word was the ceremonies have in fact been canceled.

CWR
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer orbit
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:29:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct02.002723.21094@news.mentorg.com> drickel@sjc.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel) writes:
>I was wondering about that.  Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars is about nine
>months (the CRC says between 230 and 280 days).  Mars Observer is taking
>11 months...

Don't forget that transit time to Mars varies somewhat because its orbit
is very noticeably elliptical.  You cannot, repeat *cannot*, get useful
results for Earth-Mars trajectories based on assuming circular orbits.
(I speak as the author of the first-look trajectory simulations for
the Canadian Solar Sail Project...)

A further note is that Mars Observer mission planning wants to minimize,
not energy to reach Mars's *orbit* (which is what a Hohmann trajectory
would give you, ignoring the noncircularities), but energy to reach an
orbit around Mars itself.  They care about arrival velocity, in other
words, and might well choose a superficially-suboptimal orbit because
they gain more from lower arrival velocity than they lose from greater
energy requirements for the interplanetary trajectory.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.020630.21787@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson) writes...
> 
>In article <1OCT199219492037@judy.uh.edu>, Dennis writes: 
> 
>[stuff about path loss and EME]
> 
>> So the answer is that no one was really interested in
>> doing that at the time and there were no space advocacy groups with any
>> power around at that time to publicize the fact and scream about it on this
>> net (which did not exist at that time either).
> 
>> Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
> 
> 
>Thanks, Dennis, but that's not what I was asking.  
> 
>I wanted the gritty detail (EIRP, frequency, modulation type, and data
>rate).  Path loss alone does not a link budget make!   If anyone has
>access to one of the Apollo Science Reports from A14--A17, perhaps they
>could take a look for us...
> 
>I suspect that the main problem back in 1977 would have been finding
>a way to store the data as it was received.  PC's were rather primitive
>back then and even small mini's were rather expensive.  The other 
>problems, such as automatically pointing the antennas, providing sufficiently
>sensitive receivers, etc., could have been solved with relative ease.
> 
>--
> 
>Dave Michelson
>davem@ee.ubc.ca 
> 
Dave the main point was that there were many many stations in that era that
had the ability to recieve signals with a total of a -566 db path loss (EME
stations)  An EIRP of one watt from the moon begins with a 278 db gain over
an EME setup.  This path loss overcomes by many times any other system design
elements such as transmitter power, antenna gain, or data rate.

If I remember right the ALSEP transmitter was about 10 watts into a 12-15 db 
gain antenna.  The data rate was under 1000 bits per second.  There were many
computers available at the time that could have processed the data inexpensively
such as the Altair, the Vector Graphic Vector I, and even a TRS 80 mod 1.  If
that was not powerful enough Heatkit was selling a kit version of the DEC 
PDP 8 at the time for under $2000 (H8 it was called). The problem was pure
and simple lack of interest. I do not recall even one mention of the ALSEP
turn off on the news back then.  The NSS did not exist, Von Braun had just died
and the Shuttle program was three and a half years away from first flight.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 18:12:21 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <Bv9sz4.Lq1@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>The Pershings would probably make okay sounding rockets, if the treaty
>language was suitable.  (There are problems here, which is why the treaty
>called for destruction and set time limits.  A sounding rocket sitting in
>a warehouse awaiting launch needs only a warhead and a launch truck to
>become a weapon again.) 

It's all moot, cuz all the Pershing IIs and SS-20s HAD to be scrapped, and (I
believe) already have, with the exception of the training hardware sitting at
the Air and Space Museum ... there might be a counterpart Pershing sitting
in the Russian equal of the A&S, but I'm not too sure. 

I do know getting the Pershing and SS-22 into A&S requires some special
handling consideration under treaty, don't remember the details.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Xref: sparky sci.space:13625 sci.astro:10166 talk.politics.space:1293 alt.politics.bush:6806 alt.politics.clinton:7347
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:17:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bv8ypJ.CDG
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

: >Spanish colonies were founded in the second and subsequent voyages, 
: >which were underwritten by Isabel under the mistaken belief that Columbus 
: >had found a new route to India.  The colonies were made possible in no
: >small part because air, water, food and energy were native, not
: >imported.  There were hundreds of thousands of people of primarily 
: >Spanish descent living in the New World by 1629, along the the world's 
: >largest gold & silver operations and some rather spectacular cathedrals.
: 
: Spanish "colonies" were fundamentally different from the Plymouth colony
: which is why I didn't include them. They were Missions, funded by the
: Church, and they were Conquistidors funded by the Spanish "military
: industrial complex." They were mainly *men* who acquired "native" women as
: companions, something highly unlikely in outer space since "Mars Needs
: Women", or so I've heard. :-)

What I'd like to know is why you chose to forget about the settling of
the Virginia colony in 1607, or the founding of Quebec in 1608.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: another sad anniversary
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:55:31 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

Fifteen years ago today, for the first time, NASA deliberately switched off
instruments on another planet that were still returning good data and gave
every prospect of continuing to do so for years.  It was done to save money.

On 30 Sept 1977, the surviving Apollo lunar surface instruments -- left by
Apollos 12, 15, 16, and 17 -- were turned off by ground command, because
money could no longer be found to receive and record their data.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: govn't R&D
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.181713.18060@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>
>With the government,
>you can bet that every part of the program will be recorded.

This is a good point.  The big reason NASA can make their
"spinoff" argument is not because they do better R&D, but because
they publish it and make sure it gets in the engineering libraries.


>Unfortunately, by convincing [a corporation] of it's efficacy and removing
>legal restrictions to it's creation, we give up our right to
>access their information, data, and even the facilities themselves.

>	It all becomes this question: What are we looking for
>when we go into space?  How much are we willing to sacrifice for
>it?  And what will we do when we get there?

We're looking for stuff that is (a) useful, so people will pay for
it and (b) builds a market for industrial capabilities like launch 
vehicles that help the entire space industry.  The answer to the
dilemna could well be this: NASA should conduct research,
build prototypes, and publish them; commercial industry should implement
and operate. NASA should not presume to predict the industries of the 
future; it should follow the lead of commerce and do research in support 
of it (esp. comsats, launch vehicle technology, and the airline industry 
should be the biggest engineering programs under its charter).  It
should also engange in exploration for it's own sake; we're not so
poor that we can't afford to expand our horizons.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 02:03:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep27.151838.467@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Voodoo economics Nick. Most US military R&D is spent in the private
>sector paying private companies acting as private contractors to
>the military.

Might I suggest a short course in economics? Consider any money spent
on military hardware to be dumped down the drain. Or perhaps you think
that the present recession is caused by companies refusing to use all 
of that 'good' military expertise to capture the world's market?

>Again wrong. The Japanese stock market crashed because of world
>currency fluctuations, the worldwide recession, and the collapse of 
>a massive speculative boom.

The same answer here. American companies will now have the biggest
percentage of their talent released from military work. The U.S.
government has been paying our best companies to _not_ compete with
Japan. The japanese know that and are concerned that it is over.

The government has to _stop_ spending money. The government has no
idea of _how_ to spend money in order to make money. They don't
have the _concept_ of fiscal responsibility.

If Clinton gets in it will all be pretty much done for anyway. His
tax policy coupled with his spend policy will bankrupt the U.S.A.
in 5 years instead of the predicted 10 and space exploration can
be carried out by what is left of Europe and Japan's industries.
>
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Observer orbit
Date: 2 Oct 1992 01:00:00 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>Mars Observer is taking
>11 months, which seems to imply that it is going a bit outside of Mars orbit
>and catching it on the inward leg.  What is the reason for this?  

The orbit is computed to minimize injection energy and Mars orbit 
insertion delta-V.  Given that Mars' orbit is fairly elliptical and inclined 
to the ecliptic as well, gas-guzzling transfer orbit solutions can arise 
when the transfer angle to Mars is set too close to 180 deg.  In some
cases, a "split-plane manuever" is required, where half-way to Mars,
a burn is made to change the transfer orbit's inclination.  MO would
have done a split-plane burn had it launched prior to Sept. 21.
(According to the info I have: "Mars Observer Trajectory and Orbit
Design", Beerer & Roncoli, J. Spacecraft, V.28, No.5, pp 515-521).

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu  
	
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:49:23 GMT

wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

I wrote this first part:

>>The Hypersonic Air Launch Option (HALO) would be a piloted vehicle that would 
>>be launched from an SR-71 at Mach 3 and 70,000 ft.  It would use a LH2/LOX
>>rocket to reach Mach 9, then test variations on a scramjet engine at speeds up
>>to Mach 10-12.  It would be designed to fly 50-100 flights over a period of
>>several years.
>> 

[stuff deleted]

>>   Followers of "Black" programs should also note that the relative ease with 
>>which this could be done says a few things about what may have already been
>>done.

>It has been done Josh. It was called the X-15. Just go pull one out of a 
>museum and add scramjet.  The wing attachments are identical to the ones
>that are used for Pegasus or near enough I hear.

The X-15 didn't make Mach 12.  I think it was closer to Mach 7.  It also used
a plain ol' rocket engine, not a scram jet.  If the point was to drop fireworks
off a B-52 and make them go fast, both X-15 and Pegasus would qualify.  However,
the point is to learn about how various scramjet configurations perform.  
With the possible exception of black programs, this hasn't been done with real 
pilots or vehicles.  (At least, not that I know of).


Note:  I don't want to sound like I'm slamming Pegasus or X-15.  I like both.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?
jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Reply-To: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: sci
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:55:08 GMT

In article <BvGFEw.85q.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>Putting someone who holds strong but different opinions from your own  

From *any* sane individual's, I'd venture to say...  Does this
leave you out?

>in the same catagory as this is rather insulting and I'd suggest it  
>requires an apology. There is certainly nothing wrong with holding  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nut cases require sympathy and medical care - not apologies.

>and defending strong opinions. If you don't like his ideas, then join  
>the debate and pull no intellectual punches. It is ENTIRELY another  
>matter when you blatently insult a member of our community for no  
>purpose other than to be "cute".

A member?  By whose definition?  Sounds like you're pissed you might have
to share the same stuff the original poster was smoking...


kbq

--
Kevin Quinn                         | kevinq@ingres.com
                                    | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com
My opinions are my own.  Should you think otherwise, think again.
Xref: sparky sci.space:13611 sci.astro:10157 talk.politics.space:1287 alt.politics.bush:6776 alt.politics.clinton:7322
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:40:00 GMT
 <1992Sep23.214254.3010@digibd.com> <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Sep26.231446.20605@techbook.com>
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep26.231446.20605@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>In article <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
[stuff deleted]

>The reason commerce isn't colonizing the moon is quite simple really;
>there isn't anything there to make one wealthy.  It's an obstacle, like 
>Death Valley was an obstacle to the 49ers -- the borax came later and
>didn't convince very many people to live in Death Valley.
> 
>Meanwhile, it is useful to put comsats in GEO, and commerce has spent $10's 
>of billions on that; it is useful to keep watchtowers in space and
>the military has spent $10's of billions on that.  Farther out beyond
>Death Valley, the relatively unexplored parts of the solar system, like
>asteroids and comets, could well provide the next big boost for commerce,
>and both the funding and technology for truly self-sufficient space
>colonies.
> 
Nick, Nick, Nick, don't you ever read the reports about recently discovered
near Earth Asteroids?  There is one of the found in 1987 (I forgot the 
designator) that is confirmed by albedo and spectral studies to be nickel 
iron, as are about 10% of all meteorites found on earth.  The size of this
asteroid is about 1.7 miles by .8 miles.  It was estimated in the
article that I read, that based upon similar fractions found in metorites on
the earth of that type, that there was approximately 90 billion dollars worth
of gold and 1 trillion dollars worth of Platinum, give or take a few million.

What does that say about wealth in space?  Currently a new oil field cost
10 billion to develop (Alaska North Slope for example).  This is no more than
a mission to develop the asteriod would cost, with a far greater pay off. Even
if the cost were tripled it would be worth it.  What is lacking is vision, 
a sense of purpose and a feel for what is possible, today, now. Not only does
this maliase effect the general population due to the gloom and doomers in the
media, it has effected the space development community as well. I keep seeing
on here that maybe in fifty years we will have colonies and space development
but till then we just have to muddle along.  Do you not realize that unless we
begin the work today and lay the necessary foundations, that this will not
happen in fifty or even a hundred years.  From the day of the first contract
to the moving out to Pad 39, it was only five years for the first Apollo.
We can do it IF we have the will.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

(No Space=No Future for the Human Race)

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Organization: UDSI
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:00:29 GMT


I think the canadians are about to toss out (Shut down)
an old radio telescope somewhere in cetral canada.
maybe they could toss in a little CNRC money,  equip
it to run magellan and take over magellan after cycle 4.
hey guys,  get ytour own planetary mission for a few tens of
millions, plus have a DSN compatible station.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 09/25/92 (Launch Day)
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL, KSC
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:34:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.012532.5320@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>...neither plane reported receiving any signal from TOS.
>....At +39:51, the TOS was to ignite its solid
>rocket boosters to send Mars Observer from an Earth parking orbit onto a
>trajectory to Mars.  The time came and went, and still no signal from TOS.
>We don't know if the burn occured or not, or if the spacecraft was still in
>Earth orbit.  At +51:03, DSS-46 (26 meter antenna at Canberra) was in position
>to acquire the TOS signal.  Still more silence from TOS...
>...At +53:31,
>the Mars Observer spacecraft was scheduled to separate from the TOS, but we
>could not confirm this without any feedback from TOS.  The TOS was then
>scheduled to perform a small delta burn at +57:31 to move itself away from
>the spacecraft.  Still no signal acquisition from TOS...

>...We've acquired the signal from the spacecraft!
>...Mars Observer was OK and on its way to Mars.

Talk about flying blind!  Kudos to everybody involved, except perhaps 
the TOS comm people.  Bon voyage and godspeed to Mars Observer!


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian