HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:29:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.202421.11388@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.171213.11272@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)  
>writes:
>> In article <ewright.725666125@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward  
>V. Wright) writes:
>> >
>> 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.
>
>I can't let this go by.  This is a common attitude in America.  It
>leads to low pay for production engineers and inefficient production
>methods etc. etc.  Result is the current economic morass with most 
>production going overseas.  
>
>I think engineering must consider how something is to be made.  The
>most elegant design is useless if it can't be manufactured.  
>Knowledge of what can be made is obtained by bending metal, or
>at least by interacting with those who do.

I'm not disparaging skilled tradesmen, in fact I usually hold them
in higher regard than most engineers. Engineers would benefit by
*listening* to them more often. But hammering metal is a skilled
trade, not engineering. Good engineers take production requirements
into account in their designs, bad ones don't. Production engineers
do time and motion, setup optimized assembly lines, and natter about
workgroups and just in time subassembly deliveries. Those are important
in some mass production facilities, but good design engineers make or
break production at the very beginning of the development cycle. Ease
of assembly and ease of field service have to be designed in from the
very beginning of a product. Having design engineers apprentice on
the shop floor for a few years *before* they get to design a product
would do a world of good for our manufacturing sector. It certainly
has for the Japanese and old school Germans.

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: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ** 
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:37:04 GMT

In article <yXg7wB1w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes:
>
>So, if we have an antiproton (p-bar, was it?) then does it have the SAME 
>charge as a proton?
                    _
That's p-bar as in "p".  An anti-proton has a negative charge.  Everything
about an antiproton is "opposite" to that of a proton except its mass. 

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Goldin's future 
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:01:38 GMT

A source of mine was at a breakfast meeting with a number of people this
morning. Among the people present was Goldin who made the following comment
(roughly):

"Yes, there are a lot of decisions which need to be made soon but
I won't be here to make them".

Now this was not an anouncement as none has been made yet but the source
did feel that a message was being sent. Things are looking worse and worse
for the prospects of reform at NASA (especially since Nelson is the front
runner for the job). If you are putting off writing to help Goldin, please
do it today.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Delta Clipper
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:38:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.142805.5476@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>I disagree. The point is that it decreases cost by one to two orders
>>of magnitude. 

>You answered too quick. If you'd read a little further, what I wanted
>to know was *how high* is the LEO they are talking about. 

I know. The point is that is an irrleant question. DC cuts the cost of
access to ANY orbit by an order of magnitude. Who cares how you get there.

However, DC-Y should deliver 20,000 to a 200KM orbit and 16,000 to a 400
KM orbit. It also delivers 10,000 to a 400KM polar orbit.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:11:07 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <erd.05oy@kumiss.cmhnet.org> erd@kumiss.cmhnet.org (Ethan Dicks) writes:
>... the Skylab toilet was just a large outhouse in orbit.  The system
>was a very low tech, based on the astronauts filling up plastic bags and
>chucking them into the waste storage area.

Sorry, not correct:  the biomedical investigators wanted those bags,
complete with contents.  They weren't thrown out.

Besides, this misses the point.  *All* of these systems are basically
just aimed at collecting the wastes into a convenient form, which goes
into a holding area pending disposal (on the ground) or medical study.
The significance of the Skylab toilet was that it got solid wastes into
convenient bags quickly and reliably.  That is *not* easy, and it was
the big problem with the earlier stick-on-baggie scheme.

>The toilet on the shuttle was supposed to be a major breakthrough in
>orbital waste management.  The collected human byproducts were supposed
>to be dessicated in the vacuum of LEO and (devoid of significant volume)
>discharged into orbit.

Sorry, not correct.  The old shuttle toilet stores the solid wastes until
landing, when it is removed and cleaned out.  Urine is separated to be
dealt with differently (dumped, I think); this is what has been done by
all such systems, including the Skylab one.

The motive for the new design was that the old one, apart from being
noisy and unreliable, simply had a limited storage capacity.  The new
one basically goes back to the get-it-into-a-bag scheme, with the bags
dealt with (by storing them until landing) separately.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Moon Dust Sold
Date: 12 Jan 1993 18:02 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

The Moon dust that was up for auction yesterday was sold for $42,500.  When
you include the 10% extra that goes to the auction house, that brings the
total price up to $46,750.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:28:09 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1iimffINNm87@gap.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>>If we mounted a major effort, we could probably be test-firing antimatter
>>rocket engines within ten years...
>
>Electron-positron annilation generates a couple of gamma ray photons...
>Does proton-antiproton anniliation differ?

Yes.  It generates pions, which decay to muons, which decay to electrons
and positrons.  Roughly speaking.  If you assume that all the electrons
and positrons find each other, you end up with gamma rays and neutrinos
in the end... but the pions and muons last long enough to be exploited.

There *would* be a lot of gamma rays flying around, to be sure.
-- 
"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,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:34:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.200016.5640@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1993Jan7.172032.2895@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Martino) writes:
>
>>     A truly simple calculation.
>
>>     (A)  Determine the mass of all moon rocks recovered.  (use a
>>          REAL unit like kilograms, please)
>>     (B)  Determine the total cost of the Apollo program.  (Probably
>>          should include the cost of Gemini also)
>>     (C)  Divide (A) into (B) to arrive at the figure.
>
>>     Any questions?      :-)
>
>Yes.  Proof the required assumption for the simple calculation given
>above; i.e., that the sum total and purpose of the Apollo program was
>ONLY to return those rocks, and that nothing else of value of any kind
>was gained for the money.  ;-)
>


I thought that the return of lunar samples was a side benefit as were
all of the scientific returns from Apollo.  

Wasn't the stated goal of Apollo to "Send an American to the moon and
return him safely"  ?

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:37:47 GMT

In <93002.204240SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>A functioning economy (a whole one - heavy manufacturing, food growing,
>service sector, the whole nine yards) on the Moon is in a what military
>position with respect to the earth?

A damned fragile one.  If access is suffiently easy to allow the
development of such an economy, tossing bombs at it will also be
sufficiently easy -- and cracking your house open on the Moon, unlike
doing it on Earth, will KILL you.

>Sounds like a justification to me....

Not hardly, Heinlein stories implying otherwise notwithstanding.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ulysses Update - 01/05/93
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Ulysses, JPL, ESA
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:50:00 GMT

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                         January 5, 1993

     All spacecraft and science operations are performing well.
Ground controllers are carrying out routine data-gathering
activities and experiment reconfigurations as required.  The 34-
meter ground antennas are being used for ranging when the
spacecraft is sending data at a low bit rate.  Seventy-meter-
antenna ranging passes are also performed periodically.  

     Earth-pointing maneuvers were carried out on Dec. 27 and 30,
1992, and on Jan. 3, 1993.  The next maneuver is scheduled for
Jan. 7, 1993.

     Today Ulysses is about 688 million kilometers (428 million
miles) from Earth, traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
32,000 kilometers per hour (21,000 miles per hour).  Ulysses is
about 15.5 degrees south of the ecliptic plane in which the
planets orbit, slowly looping its way back toward the sun.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:18:12 GMT

In article <1iaeeuINN7kq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> 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?

i was reading an article in _final frontier_ about moon rocks.
i forget the precise value specified, but it was astronomical
(ok, i couldn't resist that one - sorry).

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer

Xref: sparky sci.space:18808 news.answers:4967
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:09:42 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <93007.120340DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>> Kilogram quantities of antimatter are quite adequate for early interstellar
>> probes, given modest vehicles... it looks plausible.
>
>A reality check:
>This is about 13 orders of magnitude larger than the total number of
>antiprotons ever created and stored (about 10**14)

Reality check right back at you:  plot human antimatter production capacity
versus time.  Interesting graph, no?  Sure, it's limited right now... but
it's growing fast.

If we mounted a major effort, we could probably be test-firing antimatter
rocket engines within ten years.  There are *NO* fundamental barriers that
anyone has been able to find.  It's purely a matter of scaling up and
optimizing the hardware -- the existing accelerators are optimized for
production of Nobel prizes, not bulk antimatter -- and solving assorted
straightforward engineering problems of handling and storage.  The idea
has been investigated in depth; no show-stoppers have appeared.

A production setup the size of the Hanford works could make enough
antimatter to open up the solar system.  Interstellar propulsion is
harder.  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.  It would be a huge
project, but there's no fundamental problem; we could start designing
hardware tomorrow if it were urgent enough.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:20:42 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 <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?
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DCX tech. info?
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:01:51 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 <1993Jan5.161425.5292@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>flight 1 is a low altitude hover test. Test two is a high-Q hover test.
>test three demonstrates flying longer distances, some maneuvers to be
>executed at reentry, and use of GPS.

For the benefit of anyone not up on the lingo, Q is the aerospace
engineering symbol for dynamic pressure. 
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space,chi.general
Subject: Chicago presentation on Motorola's Iridium
Followup-To: sci.space
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:55:30 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov
Summary: Global cellular phone network through LEO satellites
Keywords: Motorola Iridium Chicago cellular

                 The Chicago Space Frontier Society
         in cooperation with the Mae C. Jemison Space Center
                              presents

                     MOTOROLA'S IRIDIUM PROJECT
                          Gordon Comerford
                        Senior Vice President
        and Group General Manager for Iridium in the Americas
                        Motorola Corporation
                        Schaumburg, Illinois


                               7:00 PM
                      Friday, January 15, 1993
                               Room 106
                        Wilbur Wright College
                          3400  N. Austin Blvd.
                          Chicago, Illinois


Imagine using a small handheld cellular phone to make a phone call
from anywhere on the planet Earth.  The "Iridium" system now under
development at Motorola will provide global cellular telephone
service, as well as other communication services, using a large fleet
of satellites in low Earth orbit.  Mr. Comerford will discuss progress
on Iridium and present a videotape.

                 -----------------------------------

The Chicago Space Frontier Society, a chapter of the National Space
Society, promotes development of the space frontier and education
about the potential of a spacefaring civilization.  For more
information on CSFS, contact Bill Higgins at (708)393-6817 or
higgins@fnal.fnal.gov. Our thanks to the Mae C. Jemison Space Center 
at Wright College for arranging meeting facilities.

Bill Higgins                            Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV 
                                        Bitnet:   HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:54:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.214819.14834@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.191452.12294@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
>>>it costs, I don't see your point.
>
>>I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now*
>>has it's capabilities at *any* price. 
>
>I say again, since you back Shuttle no matter what it costs what's your
>point?

My point is that the heavy costs have already been paid. The $34 billion in
development money can't be retrieved, the $1.5 billion per each construction
cost has already been spent, the VAB is built, Pad 39A is operational, etc, 
etc, etc. We better get some use out of those investments until something 
better comes on line, otherwise the entire investment is a write off. And 
nothing better *is* online yet. So Shuttle remains the *cheapest* manned 
western launcher since all the others have infinite costs (*any* non-zero 
cost divided by zero availability is still infinite).

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: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:34:06 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan4.214819.14834@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.191452.12294@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
>>>it costs, I don't see your point.

>>I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now*
>>has it's capabilities at *any* price. 

>I say again, since you back Shuttle no matter what it costs what's your
>point?

Allen, are you seriously calling for an almost exact repeat of what
happened with Shuttle development?  Do you seriously believe we should
toss the current system before we have a working, proven replacement?
I'm sorry, but if that's the case, I have to agree with Gary on this
one.  Keep flying what we're flying until we have something else to
fly IN HAND.  Paper birds are great, and I would not be at all
surprised to see DC work pretty much as advertised, but no matter how
good it eventually turns out to be, we can't use a paper bird for
current jobs.

This is how we lost things like Saturn V, remember?  Proponents of the
next system, which looked great on paper, calling for stopping current
flights "because the new bird will be so much better RSN".

Let's not make the same mistake again.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: sci.space