HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:49:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.135937.8357@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Large low mass structures at LEO don't stay in orbit very long. In 
>ballistic terms their Sectional Density is lousy. 

The LLNL does require more fuel for stationkeeping but the overall cost
was still far lower.

>At higher orbits, balloons don't offer enough radiation shielding. 

The LLNL design orbited at 150 miles and offered better shielding
than Freedom. They also had a water protected 'storm shelter' for
large solar storms.

>A lot of assembly 
>work is required to move equipment in and anchor it to hard points 

But the work happens in shirtsleves so it isn't that bad.

    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?"                               |
+----------------------246 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Saturn Class Dreams (was RE: ... and other space development)
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:06:53 GMT

> It is easier to build the engine tooling. And for the skeptical out  
there. The
> engines for the Delta, Atlas and Titan lines had been discontinued  
due to the
> theoretical reliance on the Shuttle for all launches.  The  
production lines for
> those were restarted and the Rockewll folks say that the F1A  
restart would be
> the same.  Yes Virgina some of the suppliers for F1 and F1A parts  
are gone but
> the Rockwell people said the same thing about the other engines and  
they were
> able to get other suppliers for componets of the engines.
> 


I would basically agree with you, but there IS one serious difference  
between the F1A and the Atlas. It is the human skill base, NOT the  
tooling that is most critical. I expect many of the top F1A people  
are long gone, some where we can't even ask (unless you can get  
funding for some channelers :-) The key Atlas people were probably  
just transferred to other divisions/projects and thus easily brought  
back.

So I expect the F1A restart would be much harder than the Atlas. BUT,  
that said... I still don't think it is as big a deal as some try to  
make it out. After all, this is not a high tech engine any more. It  
is just an old fashioned BIG engine. Should be no problem t'all.




Xref: sparky sci.space:11760 sci.physics:12800
From: pyacm@trentu.ca (A Colin Morton)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:16:22 GMT
Organization: Trent University, Ontario

In article <1992Aug13.180208.11288@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.144737.1884@trentu.ca> pyacm@trentu.ca (A Colin Morton) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.090057.13805@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>>Coincidence.  Remember, one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun...
>>>
>>>No, THAT, my friend, is the DEFINITION of a parsec...
>>>
>>As other posts have stated, one parsec is equal to ~3.2616 light years.
>>As we, on Earth, are only ~8 light minutes from the Sun, I don't think
>>the Earth-Sun distance defines a parsec.
>
>You seem to be deliberately misreading what has been written.  Nobody is
>claiming the Earth-Sun distance IS a parsec.  Only that the Earth-Sun
>distance is involved in the definition of a parsec.  (Since others have
>given the definition of a parsec I won't!)
>
Okay, I realise now that I did misread the original post.  It was not,
however, deliberate; rather, it was a consequence of not having my brain
fully in gear at the time, a condition which has been plaguing me all
day.  I apologise for what did sound like a smart-alec answer; however,
some of the e-mail I have been receiving as a result of this (honest,
Mr. Baez) mistake has been far less flattering than anything I posted.

Colin.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wiml@milton.u.washington.edu (William Lewis)
Subject: Re: Tethers
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:04:25 GMT


(In response to a post asserting that non-equatorial beanstalks
 would have to be held up by thrusters or other forms of "cheating")

In article <1547@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
>I do not believe this is correct.  It is true that the center of
>gravity of the 'beanstalk' needs to be in Clarke Orbit so it does
>not wobble.  The attachment point on the ground, however, can be
>off the equator.  You elevator in this case will form a catenary,
>i.e. it will be curved.  This will require more structure than the
>simpler vertical case, so it is not usually considered, but it is
>not ruled out on physical grounds.

  Well, it is true that a beanstalk with "nearly zero" force at the
attachment point has to be anchored at the equator. I'm not familiar
with modern anchoring methods, but I suspect that, given the magnitudes
of forces involved in a tether, we can't handle anything except
"nearly zero". (It's possible to arrange for a tether to have zero
force at its attachment, but IMHO real tethers will probably want to
be under tension, to provide a margin of safety and payload. This
tension can be made as small as you want however.)
  I've worked out the equations for a more or less ideal equatorial
beanstalk (brief summary of results: Kevlar isn't quite strong enough to
be practical, but the equation is exponential and a factor-of-ten
improvement of strength-to-weight ratio ("scale height") looks
like it WOULD be pretty practical.) on paper, but I made heavy use
of symmetry arguments so they're not applicable to "off center" 
beanstalks. One Of These Days I'll get around to putting a general version
of the equations into Mathematica... but I suspect that it would
be possible to anchor a tether in Nevada, as long as you don't mind
having it lean over. The question, I guess, is whether you can make it
lean shallowly enough to stay in Nevada's airspace.   


-- 
email: wiml@u.washington.edu             |  Home:  Seattle, Washington   |
     (William Lewis)                     |  47 41' 15" N   122 42' 58" W | 
NeXTmail: wiml@ingalls.cs.washington.edu `-------------------------------'
        --*-- Member, Coalition to Preserve Semantic Vacuity --*--
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: SPS feasibility / Astrophysical Engineering
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 13:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.173302.26325@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
>In article <1548@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
>>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>>Numbers could be 2X either way. That's still a near *planetary* body
>>>we're talking about plating with solar cells in any case. That's so
>>>unreal I'm surprised *anyone* would seriously consider it.
>>
>>I'm working on a book that discusses DISMANTLING planetary bodies
>>(and rebuilding them more to our liking, sigh - all that wasted
>>mass inside planets doing nothing more useful than holding
>>atmospheres down, sheesh what poor design).
>>
>>(1) The energy required to dismantle a planet is 0.6Mgr, where
>>M is the mass, g is the surface gravity, and r is the radius.
>>
>>(2) If we calculate the amount of solar energy falling on a
>>planetary body, and relate it to the disassembly energy, we can
>>derive a natural time constant: how long will it take to dismantle
>>a planet using the sunlight falling on an area the size of the
>>planet?
>>
>(0.8)d.r^2 / F(e) where d is density, r is radius, F(e) is energy
>flux in units/unit area/time.  I was looking for the result to be

Make that (0.8).d.g.r^2/F(e).  'Scuse my slip.


-- 
||)) Dump the Whatizit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:51:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.150641.23766@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>The problem with this scenario is *the service isn't provided*. That
>can't be tolerated when there are crews up there. So the government
>*will* pay, and the contractor knows it.

Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? If GD says "Ah Uncle Sam, we
got you by the balls now!" then Uncle Sam replies: "Screw you, I'm taking
my buisness to Martin Marrietta".

   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?"                               |
+----------------------248 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: 20 Aug 92 10:03:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug20.100324.7928
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

>In article <1992Aug14.063842.2065@nntp.uoregon.edu>, dcutter@oregon.uoregon.edu (dann cutter) writes:
>> Could anybody out there please tell me the current status of the private
>> space industry world wide. What comapnies exist... what they have done...
>> thanks
>> 

Aside: those interest in space commerce might wish to subscribe
to the space-investors mailing list (space-investors-request@cs.cmu.edu).

I don't have info for worldwide, or specific companies handy on-line.
Vince Cate does keep a very long list of space-related companies.
I do have info on trends in the U.S. commercial space market from 
Wales Larrison a while back:

########################
[References: Space Business Indicators 1991, US Industrial Outlook 
1992-Space Commerce, and private communications on preliminary data 
for 1992]..... breakout from US Industrial Outlook -1992 for Space 
Commerce is as follows: 
                   $ Millions           88     89    90    91    92
                                    ------- ----- ----- ----- -----
 Commercial Satellites                 550    900  1000   800  1000
 Satellite Services                    600    750   800  1200  1350
 Satellite Ground Equipment            600    790   860  1300  1700
 Commercial Space Launches               0    150   570   380   400
 Remote Sensing Data and Services       90    115   140   170   200
                                    ------- ----- ----- ----- -----
                      Total           1840   2705  3370  3850  4650
      Note the 1992 data shown here is projected to end of this year, 
and the 1991 data is through last December.  The latest data I have 
shows revision of the 1991 actuals UPWARDS by another $250-300 
Million, and of the projected 1992 revenues UPWARDS by another $300-
400 Million.  But, even before the revised data is included, the 
data supports a statement that "space commerce revenues are expected 
to grow by 20%".  My data shows growth in space commerce revenues to 
be expected in upper end of the 20-25% range for 1992. 
   The other part of your question "What exactly is included in the 
term 'space commerce'?" should be answered by the breakout shown 
above.  If you have any more questions, I can provide another level 
of detail.    
  [Aside to the net] Ever wonder why I think folks can make money from 
space businesses?  There's up to $5 billion in U.S. business going 
on from commercial space systems right NOW.  And it's been showing 
greater than 20% annual growth rate for the past 5 years....  
   There's definitely potential for profitable investments here.  
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor 

####################
-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: RE:  Saturn dreams
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:50:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: judy.19AUG199220504210
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug19.214444.13730@u.washington.edu>, brettvs@u.washington.edu writes...


>One more possibility for expanding the market for such a vehicle--is it
>possible to use the first stage of the single engine version as an LRB?
>Vague memory tells me that you can re-design the Shuttle ET to accept 3
>boosters without inordinate costs.  However you feel about the Shuttle,
>it may be a way of getting more money.  I would suppose that these boosters
>would then be useful on other designs, even on a future Saturn class booster,
>let alone on a Titan system.
>
				--Brett Van Steenwyk

Alas Brett the Saturn S1-C stage originally WAS the Shuttle first stage and
the ET was the Second stage tank.  The LRB concept would work with the 
Two F1A engined vehicle.  A good thing about this is that the lift would
go from 5.5 million lbs thrust from the SRB's to 7 million pounds with 
only minor modifications needed at the KSC pads.  I did not think about this
till I saw your post. Heck there is another good reason for the F1A's and
the baby Saturns! Probably would cost less and would for sure pollute less
than the SRB's

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox vs. Prime Directive
Organization: UDSI
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:12:39 GMT

In article <9208050516.AA16038@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>Good point. I like your "failure of extrapolation" - that basically says
>that we don't know enough to come up with a good explanation for the 
>Fermi Paradox.
>

How about this?

Fermi's paradox in a nutshell.  If planetary colonization is possible,
	why haven't we been?

My conondrum.  Who says this isn't so?

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: paul@pands.demon.co.uk (Paul Wilson)
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: Star Trek (anti-)realism
X-Mailer: cppnews $Revision: 1.13 $
Organization: P-and-S Ltd
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:28:34 +0000


In article <1992Aug11.004823.5046@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:

> In article <1992Aug6.183507.19041@dartvax.dartmouth.edu:, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
> : In article <1992Aug6.150955.15156@rsd0.rsd.dl.nec.com>
> : buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott) writes:
> : > Personally, I like the fact that it took them about 10 minutes to accelerate
> : > from earth to Sun (for their spring-board acceleration for time travel)
> : > despite the fact that they were, at one point, going 'warp 8' and then 'off
> : > the dial'.  Isn't 'warp 8' supposed to be equivalent to something like 256
> : > times the speed of light?  Gosh, the Sun must be further from earth than I 
> : > thought.....
> : By the way, to have stars streaming by you, you'd have to be going
> : several parsecs per second - and at that kind of speed, you could cross
> : the Milky Way in eight hours (work it out yourself). Hmmm, I guess when
> : they say "real space travel wouldn't look like that, it's just an easy
> : video effect," they're right!
> 
> 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!
--
Paul Wilson, P-and-S Ltd, P O Box 54, Macclesfield, SK10 1RD, UK
[phone] +44 (0) 625 - 502224      [email] paul@pands.demon.co.uk
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:06:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: max.1992Aug21.100604.1

In article <8780.2339210127@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Simon_Demler@kcbbs.gen.nz (Simon Demler) writes:
>> [It bugs me that there are people like H Ross Perot, who
>> themselves have enough cash to finance their own space
>> programs, but that none, so  far, has underwritten one.]
> 
> Does it also bother you that these people could be spending some money 
> on the drought problems in Africa rather than on some space program...You 
> must be one of those space for the sake of space of types...
> 
> Come on get real...there are MUCH larger problems that need solving 
> on this planet before trying to get peoples private wealth for space 
> purposes..


This troubles me.  Trying to convince someone to spend his or her dollars
on a particular project is the american way (car salesmen, investment brokers,
even probably you when you try to sell a particular approach to anything to
your boss), but condeming someone for either choosing or not choosing to 
spend or not spend thier money on a particular project is not right.

Why pick on Perot.  Why not Bill Gates.  Well, the fact is that Gates (for
example) doesn't spend his money on non computer related investments. Period.
He is not obligated to choose to solve the drought problems in africa.
Neither am I for that matter.

If I can convince Mr. Perot that it is in his best interest to solve the drought
problem in africa, then he will do so, If I can convince him that it is in
his best interest to start a space program, then he will do so.  Actually
I have heard that he leans towards throwing his wealth at a mag-lev system
for the U.S., but the political climate isn't supportive enough (yet).

In fact, there are others that might even be better candidates, like the
prince of that little island who has 29B and is the worlds richest man.
Why don't we pick on him?

Also don't forget that most of these guys have large portions of their
wealth tied up in other investments.  If you need 2B to do something, unless
you can turn someone worth 2.1B into an absolute fanatic on your topic
don't expect to see them invest 99% of thier fortune in your scheme.  If you
need 2B you better find someone with 15B or better, or more like 10 people
with 2B each.

		john.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Gavin Adams <gavin.adams@lso.mts.dec.com>
Subject: GOES West
X-Xxdate: Tue, 18 Aug 92 13:05:50 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:10:00 GMT



--- Gavin
Visualize Whirled Peas!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Kenneth Gordon <kgordon@courier6.aero.org>
Subject: Re: GPS (Global Positioning System)
X-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 13:25:50 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d3
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:24:46 GMT

In article <rabjab.8.0@golem.ucsd.edu> Jeff Bytof, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
writes:
>I have just read the famous 76-page brochure on GPS put out by Trimble
>Navigation.  It hardly qualifies as a manual or technical documentation.
>When I call Trimble Navigation for information, they give me the phone
>number of a guy that won't be back for two weeks.  According to the
>brochure, US taxpayers are "investing over $12 billion" on the system.
>I would think there would be at least an address I could write to for
>a good bibliography on the system without having to go through some
>company that makes it money keeping public information away from the
public.

A good place to start looking might be the USAF Space & Missile Systems
Center 
Office of Public Affairs.  The USAF SMC is the organization which
procures and launches GPS.  Their telephone number is (310) 363-0030.  If
they cannot help you, hopefully they would be able to put you in touch
with someone who can.

- Ken Gordon
  kgordon@courier6.aero.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solar System Journal
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:34:09 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Aug13.022844.9782@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>    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 ...

Actually, ISEE-3 was a fields-and-particles monitoring satellite, and
not that ill-suited to a comet encounter.  A custom-designed bird would
have been a lot better, of course... but note that Giotto, custom-built
for the job, is likewise mostly fields-and-particles experiments.

>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...

A perfectly healthy working satellite *built and owned by the Defense
Department* that the legitimate owner decided to sacrifice to an
antisatellite test (run by the USAF, not SDIO -- SDIO doesn't do
antisatellite weapons, although they doubtless were keenly interested
in the test).

Yes, there were scientific experiments aboard, still yielding useful
data, whose investigators were miffed about it.  But there was no
question of "piracy"; the satellite's owners merely decided that it
had served its primary purpose and was expendable in what they saw
as a worthy cause.  This may have been a poor decision, but it *was*
theirs to make.
-- 
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
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: 16 Aug 92 16:06:33 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug14.204028.9746@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.130334.8888@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>But we will have long duration Shuttles by the time of PMC. So the
>>Shuttle can be crew transport, resupply, material return, and ACRV 
>
>In other words, we will simply cut Shuttle utilization in half
>thereby doubling the cost.

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.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 16:40:59 GMT
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci

> Let me rephrase this, what power of thrust would be needed?  Let's
> say I wanted to keep a casino in orbit over Nevada for instance.
> 


I would suggest you drop the word orbit. There is no possible orbit  
that can put a satellite continuously over Nevada. None. Period.

The only possibilities are solar sails and maglev devices that sit at  
least several thousand miles up. They would not be in free fall, they  
would be using an energy source to counter the acceleration due to  
Earth's gravity at that altitude.

There may be other engineering solutions, such as active structures  
built from the surface; or perhaps a GSO beanstalk with cables off to  
either side at your latitude and with platforms at the desired  
altitude. None of these is likely to be built any time in the near  
future. Within our lifetimes? Possibly. But not soon.

Newsgroups: sci.space