HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Shameless Hucksterism to Plague STS-54
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:45:19 GMT


Here is a report on the upcoming Shuttle mission from Francis
Slakey of The American Physical Society.  Is it just me, or does
anyone else think that NASA's Shuttle people engage in a little
too much hucksterism?  I especially find the wake-up calls to
raucous music annoying - do those people really find that amusing?
Do they do their Christmas shopping at Spencer's Gifts?

______

WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 8 Jan 93       Washington, DC

3. SHUTTLE MISSION STS-54 WILL ADVANCE THE FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE.
The seven-day $843M mission is scheduled for a 13 Jan 93 launch.
In the "Application Specific Preprogrammed Experiment Culture
System Physics of Toys" test, Mission Specialist Susan Helms will
play with a "flipping mouse," Mario Runco with "klacker balls",
Greg Harbaugh with a basketball, and pilot Don McMonagle with a
"balloon helicopter".  After recess they can relieve themselves
in a test of the new $30M Hamilton Standard Space Toilet.  Then,
it's on to the Extravehicular Activity test.  The Intravehicular
Crew Member (Helms) will observe as Extravehicular Crew Member 1
(Harbaugh) and Extravehicular Crew Member 2 (Runco) manipulate
each other in the cargo bay.  As explained by NASA: "To simulate
carrying a large object, the astronauts will carry one another;
to simulate how well they can align an object, they will attempt
to place each other into brackets in Endeavor's airlock."

Francis Slakey  (202) 662-8700      The American Physical Society
_______

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Let machines multiply, doing the work of many,
                     But let the people have no use for them." - Lao Tzu
Xref: sparky sci.space:18806 news.answers:4965
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Making Antimatter (was: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***)
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:02:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0JAt3.D4B.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu> writes:
> A production setup the size of the Hanford works ..
> Kilogram quantities are probably going to have to be made in space, 
> not so much for handling reasons (although those aren't trivial)
> as because of the sheer amounts of *energy* needed.

I hope this means DEEP space, as opposed to Earth orbit.
If this operation were run like Hanford or Rocky Flats 
or any other such shining example of US atomic management,
I'd rather be on Mars thank you when there's a leak.

-- 
* Fred Baube         ..when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter
* Optiplan O.Y.           * have gone Berserk    cracking through the Walls
* baube@optiplan.fi       * it's an illUsion     you're sent Spinning
* GU/MSFS/88              * you Cannot Shirk     you Have No Choice
* #include <disclaimer.h> *                 -- ancient Sioux saying
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Solar Sail Race. Was Russian Solar Sailer
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:15:27 GMT

IS the solar sail race supposed to be a manned mission or what.. Why must it be
a manned mission? Why not a robot mission.. A race in miniture.. Why not to
test the concept.. After all the race would neewd some form of chase plane to
be there incase of a accident.. So why not a unmanned mission. Unless I missed
the point or mentioned of unmanned. IF I did, forgive my ignorance..



Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Space elevator
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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:41:32 GMT


-From: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott)
-Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonizati
-Date: 5 Jan 93 19:13:12 GMT

-The "space elevator" - basically dropping a cable from a geosynchronous
-satellite to Earth (and, of course, another one upwards so the centre of
-mass stays still) is probably the most *lethal* device one might conceive
-of building!  Imagine the cable breaks near the mid-point.  You have 38000km
-of cable falling to earth at *orbital* velocities, enough to wrap itself
-around the entire equator of the planet!  Go figure out the kinetic energy
-involved.  How much ocean would it vaporize?  Massive medium-term climatic
-changes at best - "nuclear winter" scenarios.  A new Ice Age a distinct
-possibility.

Go figure the kinetic energy yourself. I think you'll be pleasantly 
surprised. :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: heat production of the sun
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:39:50 GMT
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: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
-Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
-Date: 5 Jan 93 19:25:07 GMT
-Organization: University of Central Florida

-> Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
-> only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
-> of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.

-I understand that a pile of human bodies (still alive somehow) as
-large as the sun would have about the same mass, but would produce
-more heat!! 

Let's see - using the numbers from the frequently-asked-questions post,
the sun produces about 0.19 mW/kg. Unless I missed some decimal places,
that's roughly 1/10000 of the per-kilogram heat production of humans.

Of course, only a fraction of the sun's mass is undergoing fusion.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 17:55:46 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1993Jan5.133530.16081@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan04.232311.26674@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>> It should also be
>>>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.
>
>>They didn't study the latter possibility. 
>
>No they didn't. But they did find that operating a Soyuz using US
>standards for docking, power, and life support was possible. This
>strongly indicates that interfacing with Atlas or Titan is practical.
>Especailly when you realize that US launch providers routinely re-
>design their payload interface to suit the payload.
>
>If I'm wrong, then it won't be the first time. If I'm correct then
>we can free up billions to do important space research (including manned
>space). Why does that bother you so much?

Because you continually fail to recognize the lobbying power of Rockwell
International, Lockheed, and Thiokel <sp> to keep the Shuttle going. 

You have no imagination of the outcry which would occur to use Soyuz as a
primary piece of hardware in an American program. 

"Look, we really don't give a damn about our own technologies anymore, so we
will become depending on the Russians." 

If you don't believe me, wait until the fight occurs to kill Freedom dead and
rent space on Mir, which is a MUCH more likely scenario than killing a symbol
of technological pride and replacing it with a tin can.

Symbolism. So where can I FTP a picture of a Soyuz and Mir on the net? Posters
of Shuttle decorate the walls of Aerospace departments and children's bedrooms
across the country. Not many of Soyuz. 

Why does Henry get so huffy about CanadARM on Shuttle flights? :-) Symbolism. 
"My country built this; it is a symbol of what we CAN do."

>>And if you're going to be a tightwad, why don't we just contract out launch
>>services to the Russians, for that matter? 
>
>Well I don't have your pesamistic view. I think US launchers can compete.

>But why the black and white view? I think we can make intelligent use of
>SOME Russian hardware to save us a lot of money. That doesn't mean we
>must use ALL Russian hardware.

No, Allen, if you're going to use cost as a driver to save money, the penny
pinchers on the Hill are just as likely to take it to extreme and send our boys
out to the steppes. Why waste the money of building our own launchers? We'll
just buy the already integrated package and assemble it here, like we do
Japanese cars, and launch it into space. After all, it will save sooo much more
money than trying to integrate a Soyuz on Titan or Atlas. 

Your idea is a piss poor solution, other than (I suspect your TRUE agenda) to
stimulate the revival of Made in the U.S. tin cans as an alternate to the
Shuttle. 


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SEI
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:47:07 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
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 <C0F4Gx.1I8.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>That's because SEI didn't sell, largely because of the projected 
>horrendous cost (~$400 billion, if I recall correctly). 

I don't think the cost was a major factor.  Lawrence Livermore's
$10-billion program didn't sell, either.  Besides, politicians
*like* spending money like drunken sailors. :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:16:23 GMT

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>>	B) Invited attack on any space assets you've got
>>
>>So, how many nations have more space assets to lose (and
>>less ability to quickly replace them) than the United States?

>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.


>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.

>>
>>>	C) Tossed public opinion and the world community off your side;
>>>	   NOT a good thing. 
>>
>>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.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Q:  How do you tell a novice from an expert.
A:  A novice hesitates before doing something stupid.
Xref: sparky sci.space:19065 sci.astro:13800 alt.sci.planetary:486
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 08:17 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <93008.095402K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET>, <K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET> writes...
>Why buy 1gramm moondust for about $4000.- (or 1 pound for $2'000'000)
>when I bought 4g Mars rock for $350.- two years ago???
>

The going rate for the Zagami meteorite is still about $100 per gram and
that is the lowest of all the SNC meteorites.  The Nahkla meteorite is going
for something like $200 to $300 per gram.  The price on the Chassigny is
sky high because there are so few pieces that have left France.  The
two Chassigny pieces I've seen were only 8g and 13g, but were selling for
$24,000 and $39,000, respectively.

>Taking all the known SNC meteorites known, there are hardly more than 100pounds
>of mars rock available. Thus, $100,000 for a two inch tape of moondust is quite
>a high price|| I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down
>somwhere...

The moon dust hasn't been sold yet, and I think it will go for well under
the $100,000. 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: future space travel
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 07:30:07 GMT

rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes:

> If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that
> there will ever be large colonies there.

Why not?  there's plenty of water only a small delta-v away (asteroids, Mars'
moons, etc).

> Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again, if
> there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or fossils) I
> can't see large colonies being placed up there.

Who needs a gravity well (otherwise known as planet)?  The entire solar
system could be colonized.  All you really need is raw materials and energy,
and those exist in convenient packages out in the solar system.

Do you have to have a planet under you just because your parents did?  Let
your imagination roam...  :)


--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:12:13 GMT

In article <ewright.725666125@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>The difference is, he spent most of the money on engineering, rather
>than paperwork.

Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise
it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to
*test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's
fabrication done by tradesmen.

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
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space Questions and more..
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:29:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan6.042912.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks


Multiple questions:
 
Does anyone here know if the Planetary Society has a BBS, preferable netted?
If so, what is its phone number, or address.. Also any other organizations
have BBSes or net addresses?
 
When DCX flys, why not use it as a way to lift a small payload such as the
"solar Sail Race" contestants into space? That is if the contestants are
unmanned..
 
Is there a central clearing house for space organizations projects, a place to
pass info from one organization to another, to bring about better use of
materials.. One organization might have an idea that they would liek to persue,
but don't have the money, time, info, or whatever, but that another
organization might be more able to do it..
 
I know there is quite a small group of Space Organizations from the Fan to the
real hard technical bases.. 
 
 
Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
PS: Any suggestions??
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:49:08 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <schumach.726431013@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>Unnecessarily, if so, since the solutions developed for Skylab actually
>>worked pretty well.  (Notably, the Skylab toilet worked.)  For rather
>>longer than a week, too.
>
>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

Good question.  I haven't seen a detailed explanation.

I think the excuse was that the Skylab toilet wasn't suited to use by
women, because it assumed anatomy that could urinate and defecate
separately.  This has always struck me as the sort of problem a good
engineer could solve easily in any of several ways.

>One gets the impression that the number of competent people
>at NASA fell below critical mass quite some time ago...

A better way to put it, I think, is that contractor profits and "new
technology" now get priority over building something that works.  It's
a fairly predictable result of no longer having a plan or a deadline.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:46:28
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<ewright.725820266@convex.convex.com> <1992Dec31.182405.7430@iti.org>
	<1993Jan4.174720.11639@ke4zv.uucp>
	<ewright.726182846@convex.convex.com> <1993Jan7.080605.1770@ke4zv.uucp>
	<ewright.726430156@convex.convex.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: ewright@convex.com's message of Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:09:16 GMT

In article <ewright.726430156@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

   >one aircraft to the next in the series and in a clean sheet of paper
   >design by a team who has never done any similar work. Name 5 vertical
   >takeoff and landing reusable spacecraft designed by the MacDD team.

   Name five jet airliners designed by Boeing before the model 707.

Well, they weren't airliners, but they did the B-47 and B-52
plus at least one prototype for a tanker - experience directly
related to airliners.

However, I think you focus too much on the -80/707 development
(ignoring that it was a make-or-break for Boeing) - the real
question is whether the Delta Clipper is the 707 of spacecraft
or the Comet :-(

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|



From: Hugh.Craig@f3333.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Hugh Craig)
Sender: Usenet@f-454.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Sun Vs Pile
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 18:02:10 -0600

>> 
>> Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
>> only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
>> of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.
     
 TC> I understand that a pile of human bodies (still alive somehow) 
 TC> as large as the sun would have about the same mass, but would 
 TC> produce more heat!! 
 TC> --
 TC> Thomas Clarke
 TC> Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
 TC> 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826


But undoubtably would not produce as much light.....as in shed light
on...




LONDON

... A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.
___ via Silver Xpress V3.01

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dherity@cs.tcd.ie (Herity D.)
Subject: Re: Saving an overweight SSTO....
Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:33:44 GMT

gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:

>2) The mass overrun is a substantial fraction of payload, or exceeds
>payload.  Then a possibility would be to delete the life support and
>crew cockpit and use the thing unmanned.

Its planned to be unmanned. It may later carry passengers in a special
module, but it doesn't need a crew.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------|"Nothing travels   |
| Dominic Herity,  dherity@cs.tcd.ie,                      |faster than light, |
|Computer Science Dept, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.|except possibly bad|
| Tel : +353-1-6772941 ext 1720 Fax : +353-1-6772204       |news"-Douglas Adams|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:30:21 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
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 <72956@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>  Are you saying that they had not even started production of
>  Pegasus No.2 in April, 1990? Maybe this is true, but it seems
>  a very strange way for OSC to be operating.

They might have had a second, or even a third Pegasus under
construction when the first one flew.  But a typical aircraft
might fly 400 times before it's declared operational.  How
long would it take to build and launch 400 expendable rockets,
even if you could afford to?


Newsgroups: sci.space