HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 18084TM@MSU.EDU (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Gov. R&D
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:19:57 GMT
Organization: The Internet

>>   Perhaps you should look at the Keck telescope(s) as another good
>>   example of why you are wrong.  It's totally private.

> While it is true that most of the capital cost of Keck I & II
> were paid for by the Keck foundation, a very nice ( :-) ) private
> charity, the design and operation will mostly be paid for by
> the State...

>...in company with the first 10-meter telescope.  Projected cost is $93.3
>million.  Keck Foundation has donated $74.6 million.  Asking NASA for
>remaining $18.7 million.  First light in 1996.

Ok, it's not TOTALLY private.  But the point remains that this project
is proof that Gov. is not the only way to do Big Science.
I will find a reference to this:  I seem to remeber that after asking for
cash from NASA, they said; "sure, if we decide who gets to use it, what
kind of computer system is used, etc, etc.," to which Keck et. al.
said "Thanks, but no thanks."

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               | The       "'             '          ".   |
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu       | American    ,  .        .        .*'  .  |
(517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 | Spirit    '. '  . .             , except |
a scrub Astronomy undergrad  | is alive and    ,        +        they   |
at Michigan State University | well...                 '.  , .'  got it!|
------------------------------===========================================
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: U.S. commerce, government buy Russian engine
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:17:02 GMT

More information on the Russian Hall effect electric rocket engines has been
released.  Fifty (50) of these  "stationary plasma thrusters" have flown 
in space on operational Soviet spacecraft for stationkeeping.  They operate 
by ionizing xenon gas and accelerating that plasma with a magnetic field.  
The following are on sale for c. $50-100K per unit:

SPT-70
specific impulse: 1,600 s.
thrust: 0.009 lbs.
power: 660 watts
weight: 3.3 lbs.
design life: 3,500 hrs.

SPT-100
specific impulse: 1,600 s.
thrust: 0.018 lbs.
power: 1,350 watts
weight: ??
lifetime: 4,000 hrs.

U.S. government agencies have purchased four SPT-70 thrusters through Space 
Power Inc., San Jose CA for a reported $200-300K.  Space Systems/Loral, 
which makes commercial and government spacecraft, has signed a joint venture 
and marketing agreement with Fakel Enterprises in Kalingrad, Russia.  Loral 
says that the engines will reduce the launch mass of their GEO spacecraft by 
20%.  

A high-thrust version reportedly under development in Russia could be 
used as an upper stage, doubling payload capability to GEO for current 
launchers, and increasing payload capability to deep space (eg Mars, asteroids, 
prograde short-period comets) by over a factor of three.

Other U.S. government purchases through Space Power Inc. include a Topaz-2
thermionic nuclear power system for $7.9 million and $6 million for
plutonium (Pu-238 used for RTG batteries on deep space missions, not Pu-239 
used in weapons).


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:12:44 EDT

tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) writes:
>>He reports that photographic UV blocking filters look slightly pinkish
>>to him, and that Skylight filters look much pinker than with the other
>>eye.
>So I would be very interested if he is reporting that his father sees
>UV as pinkish!  (Or is this just the sheen on a lens filter?)  All
>interesting either way.

Violet looks like a combination of blue and red because the sensitivity of
the blue cells falls off quite rapidly with increasing frequency, whereas the
red cells' sensitivity falls off much more slowly.  Hence, it would make sense
for UV to look pinkish.
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Cost of aerospace systems
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 21:11:32 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

Edward V. Wright writes in response to a previous posting:                      
>>   This indicates that I have possibly screwed up some numbers, or 
>>your estimates may be using radically different cost data (???).  I 
>>suspect you calculated the shuttle $/lb only using the shuttle 
>>orbiter $/lb and didn't include the ET and SRBs which have a much 
>>lower $/lb to manufacture.  This would be roughly equivalent to 
>>estimating the Titan $/lb by only calculating the engine and 
>>avionics $/lb and not including the lower $/lb for the fuel tanks, 
>>payload shroud, and SRMs. 
>
>More like calculating the cost of an F-15 by including only the 
>cost of the airplane and not its fuel or drop tanks.  Airframe and 
>engines vs airframe and engines.  (I suspect you probably used the 
>loaded weight rather than the empty weight for the SRBs, by the 
>way.)  Anyway, I don't have the raw figures -- try contacting Gary 
>Hudson. 
     
     Rather than argue analogies,  I'd rather argue facts.  Since 
you can't provide numbers on your part to compare against (no fault 
of your own), I'll stand by my numbers until I see better data.  
Gary has been known to present "marketing" briefings that are 
sometimes a bit misleading to make his point.  (I've sat through 
about a half dozen of his briefings.)  I'm now SURE he showed only 
the cost/lb to buy a shuttle orbiter and did not include the cost/lb 
to buy SRBs and an ET.  Next time I see Gary I'll ask him about it. 
     Also, I DID use the dry weight for a SRB.  I subtracted out 
the weight for the propellant. I did not subtract out the cost of 
the SRB propellant from a new shipset, since SRB propellant only 
costs circa $2-5/lb, since this would provide me a conservative 
answer for the shuttle $/lb (err'd on the high side for Shuttle $/lb 
rather than the low), and the propellant costs looked like a second 
order effect since the $/lb for the SRB was looking to be more than 
about an order of magnitude higher than that. (Sort of like how 
propellant $/lb for a fully loaded F-15 are orders of magnitude less 
than for the dry vehicle.)  
    I used costs for a ship set of 2 complete SRBs, in a flight 
ready configuration including parachutes, TVC, and separation 
motors.   The SRBs are basically a simple system - fundamentally 
they're just a very large steel tube which is bolted together - and 
that really drives down the cost/lb since 90+% of the weight is just 
manufactured steel.  
   And yes, my data showed a substantially higher $/lb for the SRB 
than the ET (since the ET is an even simpler system) - but still a 
lot less than the orbiter. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor 
 

--  

Wales Larrison
Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
From: 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: PLEASE READ THIS!
Date: 16 Apr 92 05:22:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr16.002205.6554


	Mind you, this is a rumor I heard from a friend of mine who thinks he
knows everything, but it has set upon me a nagging doubt.
	He told me that now that the Soviets are out of money, they can't send
up a shuttle to bring back their remaining astronauts.
	He also told me that our guys Space Shuttle Atlantis couldn't rescue
them, not only because they didn't have room, but also because they couldn't
dock to the soviet spacestation Mir.
	I would very much like not to believe this.

	At least somebody tell me that Mir is self-sufficient.

		Does anybody know?

			Kyle
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jcm3r@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (John Carl Martin)
Subject: Help finding NASA GIF files
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:06:03 GMT

On Sunday night, I was FTPing to the ames.arc.nasa.gov to download
some GIF files that I had picked out.  I expected to find these
files in the directory /pub/SPACE/GIF but the directory was empty,
except for the INDEX file which read:
       total: 0

Only two days before, the files that I had wanted where in this directory    
along with many others.  The files in the /pub/GIF directory are not the
ones that I am looking for.  Does anyone out there know what happened to
all those GIF files?  Thanks.

John C. Martin
  jcm3r@virginia.edu

From: jem@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Jim McCauley)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 18:03:17 GMT
Subject: Re: SHOULD WE FURTHER EXPLORE MARS ???
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: sci.space

bobt@pogo.wv.tek.com (Bob Tidrick) writes:

> Just as an interesting side note; If a truely self aware robot were ever
> built, maybee it would not want to go to Mars.  Just a thought.

Yup.  And a truly smart bomb would never let itself be dropped or
detonated -- unless it had been programmed into mental disturbance,
like the overzealous planet-destroying bomb in the hilarious film,
"Dark Star."

Jim McCauley, Learning Products Engineer    **   I do not speak for   **
(that means that I write documentation)     ** Hewlett-Packard in any **
jem@cup.hp.com                              **   official capacity.   **
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 18084TM@MSU.EDU (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Whoops! / Space Digest, where are you?
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:21:47 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet

Hey folks, I may have sent a super-long message intended for Tom Johnson
to the list by mistake.  I so, I apologize.  It was accidental.

BTW, to those of you also on Digest, rather than sci.space, has there been
a shortage of messages latley?  Let me know if it's just me.

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               |                     ,  '      "He's busy |
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu       |   .      '               '    generating |
(517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 |         .           '          errors."  |
Next Observatory Open House: | "Where's                                 |
April 10,11; 9-11 pm.  Free! |      Matt?"    o    *           -Dan     |
------------------------------===========================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:36:17 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <Z4XTiB7w164w@clubzen.fidonet.org> mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis) writes:

>Hmmm ...  how will BP handle traffic to and from LEO by things like
>NASPs and DC-1s? What's the launch saturation point for friendly
>vehicles? 

It is generally assumed that any system would require human verification
of attack before it could respond.  Advanced notification of launches is
already required under UN treaties.  The officers who hold the launch keys 
would have access to a variety of information, including flight plans, 
locations of known spaceports and ICBM fields, intelligence reports and
terrorist updates, etc.  It's also probably that spaceships will be
required to carry a transponder for indentification, just like current
aircraft.  If a single vehicle does appear with no flight plan on file
and no transponder, someone will undoubtedly attempt contact by radio.  
If this fails, then it comes down to a judgement call.  If the vehicle
appears to be coming from Tokyo International Spaceport, then they'll
probably assume that it's a malfunction.  If it appears to be coming
from Libya, on the other hand...
From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: RFD: Space Colonists' Association
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:04:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: heron.YAMAUCHI.92Apr12120400
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1116@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:

>REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION ON THE FORMATION OF A SPACE COLONIST'S
>ASSOCIATION

>The reasons for developing space colonies are as varied as the
>people who want them.  These range from profit, ecological
>concerns, survival of mankind, to sheer adventure.  Therefore
>a monolithic approach to developing space colonies is in-appropriate
>(i.e. one big colony).  Rather, a collection of small systems
>that can interact and support each other while pursuing individual
>goals seems like a more effective approach.

>What I suggest then, is a membership association.  Minimum dues
>to be set at a moderate level (such as $25/yr), with expenses
>held down (no glossy 4 color magazines), and the net proceeds to
>go to a general research & development fund for common needs
>(life support is a common need).  Additional subscriptions to
>specific projects can be made (i.e. for asteroid mining unique
>items).

>Since the later projects will require significant money, 
>I suggest not spending every dollar that comes in initially,
>but build up a capital base, with research and development
>coming in at an accelerating rate.

Interesting idea.  How will this capital base work, and will it be
able to generate the billions necessary to actually build such a
colony?

It _is_ possible to go from $zero to $billions in a relatively short
period of time -- Bill Gates and Microsoft demonstrated that -- but
you need to have a product that everyone wants.  It seems to me that
such an organization might be able to bootstrap itself if it could
create a new product so strongly in demand that it would create a new
industry -- in the tradition of personal computers, biotech, and
telecommunications.

Another option would be to develop the technologies to a point where
private industry could step in on its own and start building colonies.
I believe this is what SSI is trying to do.  The problem here is that
it requires not only technological progress but also vision and
foresight on the part of the leaders of the established corporations
that have the funds to finance such a venture.

On the other hand, if such an organization could get costs down to a
level where entrepreneurs could finance these projects, then its own
members could be those entrepreneurs...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				Robotics Applications Development
					Boeing Aerospace Operations
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Kennedy Space Center
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:47:41 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

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

> Systems in which humans are required to respond within a fraction of a
> minute are routine in military hardware.  We're not talking about making
> complex decisions or guiding interceptors, only about a simple "is this
> an attack or not?" choice that leads to pushing one button.

> The situation is arguably marginal if an ambitious system is being pushed
> to its limits to stop a massive attack from the Evil Empire :-).

>> ... In any case, it is not obvious that putting a human in the
>> loop will improve the risk to an acceptible level.

> It seems to be adequate for existing systems that most people consider
> acceptable.  If you insist that a missile-defense system *has* to be
> still better, please explain why.

Considering that BP hasn't had *ANY* tests that bear on its reliability,
you are very confident of its performance.  No existing systems are similar
enough for extrapolation to be much more than fantasy.  If this is wrong,
I invite you to make your case.  To be specific, which ground based command
and control systems tell us enough to be confident about the reliability of
space based BP?  I do not insist that BP meet "still better" levels of
performance.

These technology arguments beg the main issue, parts of which have been
raised by other posters.  Namely, even if BP were to work as advertised,
would we be getting our money's worth?  There are matters of other delivery
methods ("suitcase" bombs), and other interception methods (point or area
defense).  BP is only useful against one of many possible threats, and even
against that threat it's only the best defense if the attack comes out of
the blue against an undefended target.

I agree that the changed political climate reduces the specifications that
the SDI program must meet.  It also reduces the consequences of failure.
SDI is no longer insane, merely a waste of money.
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:45:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell labs

In article <9204140119.AA22001@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>-From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
>-  And yes, I can see
>-more blue and violet with the eye with the plastic lens in it, and the focus
>-range isn't too bad considering it's not adjustable.  
>
>Wow - I guess that confirms the theory. Strange that they don't put a (fully
>effective) UV filter in the plastic. Can you see those patterns in flowers
>that honeybees are supposed to see?
>
Ahh... Not so fast!  I've been told that when the natural eye lens goes
bad, it gets yellowish.  And the new plastic lens just lets me see the
blue that I used to see when I was younger.  And that the plastic does
filter UV out.  
===========================================================================
The phone company knows your phone number!     :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:45:39 GMT

In article <92101.105727DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>In article <=34t35=@rpi.edu>, kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) says:
>>Ahh.  I see the "those weapons designers have no idea of the complexity of
>>their task" argument has come up again.  It's been repeated so many times it
>>must be true.  There were many complicated systems which "can't work" that
>>actually did work -- and worked well -- in the Gulf, among them being JSTARS,
>>the Patriot, the Nighthawk, and the Apache.  Complicated tasks often require
>
>I didn't say anything of the sort.  I was merely pointing out that most
>large projects turn out to be more expensive and take more time than was
>originally proposed.  Do you want me to list 20 examples?  Are you claiming
>that "those weapons designers" are significantly smarter or better
>organized than (for example) NASA, the plasma fusion researchers, or the
>builders of the SSC?  If so, I'd like to see some evidence.

No, that is not my claim.  And no, I don't need a list of projects that went
over budget -- even my short list suffices for that.  But those systems did
work well even after many people claiming to be experts said they were too
complicated to do so.  My prediction is that Brilliant Pebbles will be the
same way.  It already has its vocal critics and its large budgets, and this
will probably never change.  But it will be built, will probably be needed,
and will work as well or better than the designers/users expect it to.

Not that my prediction carries much weight, but the idea that SDI is too com-
plicated for even the possibility of success should be laid to rest.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody )
Subject: Re: Post-Soviet Space: Chicago Lecture Friday
Keywords: Soviet space Mir Soyuz Energia Chicago
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:24:58 GMT

>            The Chicago Space Frontier Society
>            together with Wilbur Wright College
>                         presents

>                Russia's New Space Program

>                      Dennis Newkirk

His book, Almanac of Soviet Manned Space Flight, is excellent.
I will not be able to attend the lecture but I would appreciate
a synopsis on the net.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov, Science fact and fiction writer
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:14:01 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr8.151008.11435@unocal.com> stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>Today's LA Times ran an article citing many Caltech and JPL scientists who
>were inspired to become scientists by Issac's fiction and non-fiction.

One hopes most of them learned to spell his name right. :-) :-) :-)
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Cost of lunar base
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:03:04 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Apr6.015610.4786@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.162108.3498@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>It takes 372 pounds of water to make one pound of cotton, not to mention
>>nitrates, phosphates, etc.
>
>Doesn't that assume no water recycling, though?

That's right. 372 pounds is the standard for irrigated cotton. Much of that
could be recaptured in a closed environment over the course of the growing
season. It's still a lot of water.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.space:7350 sci.physics.fusion:966 sci.research:478 sci.energy:2455
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Disincentives
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:20:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.g57ViB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

The more I get involved with legislative reforms of the space
program and fusion energy, the more it appears that the 
incentives of these programs are deliberately designed
to suppress progress.
 
For example, everyone receiving money directly or indirectly
from these projects knows that if they actually do open
up access to space or actually do solve the fusion problem,
their personal positions will disappear and they will receive
no royalties from the technologies they develop at government
expense.
 
And guess what?  They all behave exactly as though they were
aware of that fact!  
 
They stretch out each little technical innovation for as long
as possible extracting as much money as possible from Congress
while providing minimal returns and engaging in character
assassination of any "outsiders" who come up with innovations
that might work quickly and cheaply.
 
Now given the potential importance of fusion and space, it
leads me to wonder, why is it that we have set the incentives
of these programs up to produce suppression of progress in
these areas?
 
Is it just stupid, short-sighted porkbarrel politics?
 

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Newsgroups: sci.space