HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:55:51 GMT

In article <ewright.726798042@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.183031.12692@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>How about this: NASA seels the Space Shuttle to Rockwell and negotiates
>a long-term contract at the same time.  The contract calls for NASA to
>purchase 8 flights a year, with penalties for nonperformance, at the same
>price NASA pays now.  This would be a no-profit contract if Rockwell
>spent as much to launch the Shuttle as NASA does, but Rockwell turns
>out to be surprisingly innovative, finds ways to bring costs down, 
>and makes a tidy profit.
>
>Since NASA has found it can reduce by contracting out many
>other operations to private companies (the workforce at KSC
>is mainly contractor these days, not NASA), why should the
>Shuttle itself be an exception?

This is basically the final scenario that I listed. NASA writes
off development costs and sells the hardware at depreciated
value. *Then* private operation can reduce costs enough to
turn a profit at current pricing, or less. At worst, NASA
breaks even, and the operations nightmare is off their
plate. The scenario you quoted didn't allow write offs and
depreciation because it sold *at cost*. The scenario you
deleted and recreated does allow these write offs which makes
profitable operations possible.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:26:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.165057.3965@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <C0IADo.B1p@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> The radiation hazard from plutonium 238 is insignificant; it's pretty much
>> a pure alpha emitter, and human skin stops alpha particles completely.  (A
>> sheet of paper will do likewise.)  You don't want to eat the stuff, but so
>> long as it stays put, no sweat.
>
>Somewhere in the recesses of my mind lies a memory of a scientist
>who offered to eat some plutonium if the journalist covering the
>event would eat the same amount of caffeine.  No takers, obviously,
>but does this mean that it would be safe to eat plutonium?  If it's
>inert it should be passed in due course with only the mucus coating
>the alimentary canal getting irradiated.
>
Edward Teller offered to eat a spoonful of Plutonium Oxide if the
reporter would eat a spoonful of _cyanide_.  Pu oxide is inert and would
be passed through the digestive system in a few days.  However, metallic
Pu _is_ very toxic, is absorbable into the bloodstream and would proceed
to kill you through several mechanisms at once.

Snorting the Pu Oxide would not be a good thing, as the lungs are
susceptable to developing cancer via alpha irradiation.  Pu (in any
form) is not the "most toxic substance on earth" as pure Botulism toxin
in more dangerous if ingested, as are a number of neurotoxins if
administered into the body.

-- 
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,sci.astro
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: British Isles:  MIR visible now!
Organization: Trinity College Dublin
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:50:02 GMT

MIR visible from U.K. (and Ireland) until Saturday Jan. 16 (inclusive)

If you want the time to see the Russian space station Mir (2 men on board
at present) then call 0891-88-1950 from UK (1550-111-442 from Republic
of Ireland). The time is given at the very start of this brand new
astronomy and space hotline so it will only cost a few pence to call it.
The full message (3 to 5 minutes) costs 48p/min peak, 26p/minall other
times and tells you what to see in the sky over the British Isles every
week. It is fully updated on Sunday evenings for the week ahead but will
be specially updated mid-week if news warrants (new comet/nova/aurora...)

Please tell your friends/colleagues, especially if you are a member of
an astronomical club anywhere in UK/Ireland. Please email me if you see
Mir as a result and let me know what you think of the hotline.

P.S. Deirdre Lillis emailed me but I was can't reply. Please email again.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: justin@hp750.ccs.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:47:51 GMT

banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn) writes:


>	I think this is a GREAT idea and that NASA should market MORE space items
>to help finance its budget.  Whats the approx cost per pound of moon rocks
>anyhow?

Well, if NASA lived up to more of its promises, moon rocks would be $1 a 
pound by now. :) Sorry.. Some taxpayers get upset when the most advanced
nation in existence ruins very expensive orbiting instruments and loses
space shuttles and their expensive/irreplaceable cargo(s) .. These things 
aren't supposed to happen! <grrr.. flame off>

Go figure.. A two-inch piece of tape with moondust is expected to sell for
~$100K, so a pound might go for $2 million or so (at that rate).
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NASA flight simulator code
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:57:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0DtEM.A7q.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
-Subject: Re: Nasa flight sim code/Simulator Game
-Date: 4 Jan 93 23:13:02 GMT
-Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

-In article <4989@execu.execu.com>, dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson) writes:
-> 
-> 	Would anyone happen to know where a body could get information
-> on old flight simulation code written by NASA or any of the military
-> branches? I am interested in obtaining any code that might be declassified
-> and publicly availible. In addition, any data related to the flight models
-> of old or new aircraft would be nice.

-Don't know of any old sim data and such, but it would be an interesting public
-affairs ploy or way to make money.. Have NASA design space simulator games
-based on old flight.. Have different levels. Beginner would be just to get the
-feel of the fligth, but higher levels would give you the "pilot" and possible
-crew more free-reign to actually fly the space shuttle simulation or other
-crafts.. Gemini, MErcury, Apollo, X-Crafts. And such..

-Michael Adams

I had the impression that many of the old simulators were based on *analog*
computers. I think perhaps even some of the Apollo simulation was done on
analog machines. 

If so, the "code" would be largely solder joints and patch panel connections
(though digital computers with ADCs and DACs could have been involved too).
Not directly compatible with modern all-digital computers...

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:02:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0qy7z.qI.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

>I was vague because I was in a hurry.  Looking at the reference more
>carefully (H. Poth, "Antiprotonic, Hyperonic, and Antihydrogen Atoms,"
>*Proceedings of the First Workshop on Antimatter Physics at Low
>Energy*, Fermilab, 1986-- it may not be the definitive source of
>information, but had the advantage of being on the shelf in my
>office), I see that Poth says the delay between capture of a p-bar
>into an atomic orbit and its annihilation is less than 1E-10 seconds
>in most solids and liquids. (B. Higgins, 11 Jan 93 16:08:55 GMT)

It seems that antiprotons can live inside matter far longer than was
initially thought. In 1947, Fermi and Teller calculated a 10^-13 seconde
value ( 0.1 picosecond). But from bubble chambers experiments with
negative pions and kaons, it was inferred that the real time could be
100 picoseconds (which is the value quoted by Bill Higgins). Now, first
at the KEK Japanese laboratory, and then at CERN, it has been shown
that, inside liquid helium at 6 atm. pressure, 4% of the antiprotons
live several microseconds. If the helium is "contaminated" with a
small amount of hydrogen (0.04 %) this time is divided by about 10.
Such an effect had been predicted in 1964 by G.T.Condo (Oak Ridge).
According to him, the quantum numbers of some of the exotic helium
atoms built in this way could prevent the immediat release of the
second electron. In this case, according to Pauli's exclusion
principle, deep collisions of the exotic atom with its neighboring
ordinary atoms would be prevented, and the anti-proton would "fall"
slowly towards the nucleus via successive electromagnetic transitions.
However, it is not clear that this explanation is the good one.
Many questions remain, in particular is this a specific property of
helium.

J. Pharabod

Reference:"Antiprotons refractaires a l'annihilation", Courrier CERN,
June 1992.
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:12:53 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <ewright.726254273@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan5.031431.14514@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>>Ditto, mutatis mutandis.  Likewise, when NASA flies Spacelab, TSS or a
>>TDRS on the shuttle, the latter is used to support NASA's research
>>activities, pursuant to its charter.  
>
>So, if your lab bought its own Airbus, hired its own flight crew,
>sold flights to paying customer, 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight,
NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I
wrong?

>constructed its own communications facilities and rented those to
>commercial customers,
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is NASA doing that?  On any scale bigger than small, occasional excess
capacity?  If so, I agree it's playing games with its charter.

>all of that would be research and development?

As for NASA hiring its own flight crew, constructing its own
communications facilities and in general operating the shuttle system
on its own instead of contracting out the whole works, I don't see any
inherent problem with that.  Just like I don't hire Tektronix to
operate my oscilloscope in the lab.  Of course, it might prove
advantageous, dollar-wise, for NASA to contract out shuttle operations,
but that's another story.

>>It is my understanding that this thread originated when someone 
>>claimed that NASA was not respecting its charter by operating the 
>>shuttle, which is admittedly not an experimental craft anymore.  I 
>>disagree, as long as the shuttle manifest contains only genuine R&D.
>
>Which hasn't been the case for many years now.

Well that was not my impression, but if you wish to post specifics,
I'll stand corrected.  BTW, I assume we're talking about the
post-Challenger era.  Before that, it's clear that the shuttle manifest
contained a lot of commercial stuff, and that this led to the current
ban on commercial operations.

Since we're discussing NASA's charter, would it be possible for some
kind soul to post pieces of it?  I think it would be interesting to
know just how much elbow room NASA has in carrying out its main R&D
mission.

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: fiber optic cable
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: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:43:21 GMT


-From: Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org
-Subject: Fiber optic umbilical
-Date: 4 Jan 93 15:30:14 GMT

-Putting a fiber optic umbilical on a remote sensing platform designed to
-traverse rough terrain seems very odd to me.  Can someone explain to me why 
-this was done?  A few things come to mind such as eliminating the weight
-required for a radio and associated power supply.  Also the fiber optic does
-allow for high reliability and high speed data transfer.

-I'm *not* throwing stones at the Dante folks.  I'm just doing some head
-scratching and hoping someone will explain this to me.

Well, one thing for sure - plans for an Earth-Mars fiber optic link
will have to be scrapped. :-)

I can imagine the Dante team trying to straighten out the cable by hand,
and that tiny, heartbreaking "snap" (or maybe they didn't hear anything
at all). Commercial fiber optic cable is great in stationary applications,
but it's too easy to stretch it or bend it beyond the radius of curvature
limits. The people who install our fiber optic links put up warning signs
with a drawing of a hangman's noose, implying what will happen to anybody
who tries to move the equipment. :-)

Does anybody (the phone companies or the military, for instance) use 
fiber optic cable that's stiff enough to reduce the risk of breaking?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Re: Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 04:18:48 GMT

>junk to ventilate any later space vehicles.  But also, 
>if plutonium warheads are "destroyed" by Smart Pebbles 
>(or whatever they're being called now), couldn't the 

Is "Brilliant" the word you were looking for?

				Fuzzy
==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |    
=(___)=      |      "We do debris"     | "You must be," said the Cat, "or you 
   U  ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu |       wouldn't have come here."
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:01:44 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <C0Jv2M.74z.1@cs.cmu.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>Since fusing protons is so hard, why not use deuterons? ...
>Perhaps the ramscoop collector could selectively enrich d,
>by selecting for atoms having a magnetic moment.

Deuterium fusion is certainly a whole lot more practical than proton
fusion.  Unfortunately, there *probably* isn't enough deuterium in the
local interstellar medium to make this work well.
-- 
"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: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 17:24:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <C0GJFB.5IL@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>>It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through 
>>air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic missile
>>capability, on land and at sea. 
>
>Could you please cite a shread of evidence that such a system is operational?
>Stipulating for a moment that the capability exists, please explain how many
>ground based backups there are for KH-12s or how long it takes to replace them.
>Quick launch capability is after all quite useless without something to launch.

Josh, Aviation Week has published material on the possible existing
air-breathing quick-launch capability. It is also known some Minuteman
missiles are not loaded with nuclear weapons, but comm relays and such.

As for the exact number of ready-launch backups, what their capabilities
are, and so forth, it falls under "black" programs and you won't find it
published on the front page of the Washington Post. 

Since the ex-Sovs demonstrated a capability to hit targets in orbit, it HAS
been a worry of warplanners and certain contingencies have been planned for.

>>It is unlikely the attacking third-world country would have an equalivent 
>>replacement capability for whatever assets it has. 
>
>If you're assuming the attacker is a third world country than you seem to be
>ignoring the possibility that it doesn't have significant assests worth 
>worrying
>about.  That doesn't mean that they wouldn't love knocking ours out.

Satellite-based communications and imaging are both within in the grasp of any
third world country which can put up an ASAT to successfully attack orbital
assets.

>>>That didn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait. 
>
>>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
>>force and thereby did so accordingly. Had Iraqi troops seized anything less
>>than Kuwait City, or removed themselves from Kuwait City without committing
>>anything more than token atrocities, Iraq would not be divided into three parts
>>today. 
>
>And the threat of that didn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading either.  Keep
>in mind that attackers frequently think along different lines than their
>enemies expect them to.

What threat? Hussein was not THREATENED with anything until after he took over
Kuwait and the stories of atrocities came out. 

Had Mr. Hussein limited himself to redrawing the borders of Kuwait and not
invaded Kuwait City; he wouldn't be in the trouble he (still) is in today. 

The original point is "World Opinion DOES count." Iraq would not be abused if
it behaved. 

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hogg@bmerh136.bnr.ca (John Hogg)
Subject: Heavy Boots request
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: ont
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:23:04 GMT

In late August or early September, a story appeared in rec.humour.funny
about how Heavy Boots stopped astronauts from drifting off the moon.  I
didn't save it at the time, and now want to be able to quote it exactly.

Could somebody who did save this mail it to me?  If you don't have it
but want it, *mail* me a request and I'll forward it to you.  If I
don't get a response in a few days I'll troll further afield than the
.ont distribution.
							Thanks -- John
---
John Hogg					Bell-Northern Research
hogg@bnr.ca					Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
--
---
John Hogg					Bell-Northern Research
hogg@bnr.ca					Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specifi
Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 17:50:28 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org> <72827@cup.portal.com>
  <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca>
  <ewright.726168030@convex.convex.com>

>In <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Y
e
>rgeau) writes:
>
>>If I build a custom laser in my lab, and then operate it purely
>>as a tool to support my research program, I think I am still doing
>>research.  Likewise, when NASA is using the shuttle to fly Spacelab,
>>TSS, Hubble, etc, it's doing research.
>
>If you pay Air France to fly your laser to the research site,
>does that mean the Airbus is a research vehicle?

   Sure. If you use the laser while aboard the Airbus. Their is
   a distinction here. There are plenty of research ships at
   sea, does this mean unless the ship tries out a hydrofoil
   design or something it is not doing research? Jacques Cousteau
   and the crew of the Calypso may disagree.
   
   Now, the Shuttle itself is not the subject of the research, but
   it is the only current transportation available for this
   research. You can go buy Soyuz (and hope Yeltsin remains in
   power) or wait a few years for DC-1, but until you do, the
   Shuttle is still at least partially a research vehicle.  
   
>If you call someone in New York to discuss your research, the
>call goes via Intelsat or undersea cable.  Does that make the
>Intelsat or the cable a research venture?

   Agreed. TDRS is not a research project and would be better lofted
   by Titan III or IV (which is planned for TDRS-G).

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DCX tech. info?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:06:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1icfsjINNlet@rave.larc.nasa.gov> S.D.Derry@LaRC.NASA.Gov writes:
>How can you have dynamic pressure when you're hovering???

"Hover" is being used loosely here; the later tests will involve noticeable
(although subsonic) velocities.

>Also, will these flights be pre-programmed onboard, or will they be 
>controlled from the ground?

As I recall, they're preprogrammed with the ability to override from
the ground.
-- 
"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